35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 5 end

Archive 2008 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

joekraft
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yakim
Are you aware there are online resources that tell you the DOF you are working with given the shooting variables? : http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Expoimaging makes some pocket guides I picked up recently but haven't had a chance to use yet. They look a little complex, but I am hoping that after a few uses the DOF calculations get a little more reflexive for me.

Jan 19, 2008 at 04:04 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Focusing manually with a 40D? You must be joking. Yes, I tried that and it's next to impossible even in daylight. The viewfinder is so tiny....

I'll try to see if it has FF/BF but I must say that normal shooting (and not extreme ones like this, wide open up close) suggests it is fine in that regard.

About changing lenses, the 35/1.4 and 100/2.8 are my walk-around lenses and while I could switch, in this case I wanted the "look" of a wide angle lens up close (remember Robert Capa?).

I think that the right course of action is to close it to f/2 or f/2.8 when I'm close and f/1.4 when I'm far. That is just common sense and I'm sure it will reduce my OOF rate but I hate to do it. After all, I paid so much to use it wide open. I hate the laws of physics....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 19, 2008 at 04:08 PM

annayu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

f1.4 requires a careful choice of subject.

Jan 19, 2008 at 04:13 PM

akovacsi
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

b) you were man enough to admit your eventual findings.

We need more of that...

Excuse me here, but I too admitted a while ago that I started having erectile dysfunction problems (after finding out my imaginary Canon 1D Mark III has AF issues) and yet, no one came up to me and patted me on the back complementing me on how manly man I was...

Edited on Jan 19, 2008 at 04:17 PM

Jan 19, 2008 at 04:16 PM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yakim Peled wrote:
Graham, I bought it for the f/1.4. For slower apertures I'll use other lenses. However, getting it right is so difficult its frustrating. I don't remember having that problem with other fast lenses I had (28/1.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8). Maybe I was not shooting that close.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I know the 35 is fabulous at 1.4, but don't miss out on all its other apertures. It is more than a one trick pony.

Shane

Jan 19, 2008 at 04:24 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

I know, but at f/4 and above I can't fault my 24-105. And its got IS....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 19, 2008 at 07:45 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

well, at least the bokeh looks nice!

Jan 19, 2008 at 08:48 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

right, but do you real feel like shooting your 35L at f2.8 and then swapping out to the zoom every time you choose to shoot f4 or visa-versa? Fast primes give you aperture flexibility and zooms give FL flexibility... neither is "more flexible."

Yakim Peled wrote:
I know, but at f/4 and above I can't fault my 24-105. And its got IS....

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 19, 2008 at 08:54 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yeah, for anything moving at all MF is nowhere near as good as even Canon's worse AF bodies. I've been shooting a Leica R4 and Olympus OM-1 lately and it is amazing how much lower my in focus rate goes... sure, macro on a tripod you can do great, but in most real life shooting Canon AF with all its flaws is much better.

>>Focusing manually with a 40D? You must be joking. Yes, I tried that and it's next to impossible even in daylight. The viewfinder is so tiny....

Jan 19, 2008 at 08:59 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

mh2000 wrote:
well, at least the bokeh looks nice!

Seriously, as the photographer it is up to you to balance all the variables. All the "I only shoot my L's wide open... only bought them for this" comments perplex me. It completely depends on your subject and distance etc... I really want the 50L for f2.8 because I shoot candids similar to yours and other close focus stuff... f1.2 and f1.4 are just not effective for photos like this IMO. Using super wide apertures just because you have them just degrades your finished photos.

All this is very true but I mainly bought it for that purpose. I want to get shallow DoF but that as I wrote in the subject: This is so shallow it's ridiculous. I lost many shots because of that so I must close it down. As I said, I hate the laws of physics...

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 19, 2008 at 09:13 PM

mh2000
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

well, for less close shots you should be able to use f1.4 very effectively

Jan 19, 2008 at 09:34 PM

Tentacle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yakim Peled wrote:
Focusing manually with a 40D? You must be joking. Yes, I tried that and it's next to impossible even in daylight. The viewfinder is so tiny....

[...]

I think you might have forgotten Live View. Especially at 10x magnification the 3" screen works great for MF. At least, it did when I was playing around with a 40D and 50 mm Plastic Fantastic.

Jan 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM

nathanlake
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

A perfect example of a situation where a noobie would just dump the lens and curse it for the rest of his life. Funny how the more expensive gear is harder to learn to use, but such is life.

Congrats for figuring this out and not just slamming the lens.

Jan 19, 2008 at 10:26 PM

dfindr
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

shrink1 wrote:
hey, that's nothing! try the 50mm 1.2, and then, to top it off the 85mm 1.2. DOF is so narrow, you have to focus on a single eyelash...

And if you really want a challenge try and nail the DOF on the 50 f/1.0.

Jan 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM

mbailey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

gandini wrote:
Just a thought: I found my 35f1.4 front-focussed quite a bit in tests with my 1Diii. After microadjusting +17 it focuses perfectly on my target at f1.4. Of all my lenses, this is the one needing the most adjustment.

This is my experiance exactly. I dont have the camera handy, but I believe I also settled on +17 micro AF adjustment. Never really liked the 35L much until I got the 1DsIII and fixed the front focus.

Jan 20, 2008 at 01:41 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Tentacle wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Focusing manually with a 40D? You must be joking. Yes, I tried that and it's next to impossible even in daylight. The viewfinder is so tiny....

[...]

I think you might have forgotten Live View. Especially at 10x magnification the 3" screen works great for MF. At least, it did when I was playing around with a 40D and 50 mm Plastic Fantastic.

If I'll write my real opinion on the screen at 10X I'll get banned from here. Politely I'll say that I find it marginally adequate at 5X.

And BTW, yes, I have tried it. I find it to be of limited help in handholding.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 20, 2008 at 03:17 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

nathanlake wrote:
A perfect example of a situation where a noobie would just dump the lens and curse it for the rest of his life. Funny how the more expensive gear is harder to learn to use, but such is life.

Congrats for figuring this out and not just slamming the lens.

I kept saying to myself: "It's just not possible that all these tests and reviews got it wrong".

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jan 20, 2008 at 03:19 PM

TEASER
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

My 2 Cents:

I have reciently purchased the 35L also. My only mention to OP and anyone else is the fact that more than likely if you really need to have this lens "WIDE OPEN" / 1.4 you will be trading off IQ.

When I first mounted this lens I went right to 2.0 knowing historicly given lens will not be sharpest wide open and most have a sweet spot.

Anyway I l ove the lens but realize only when I really need 1.4 will I use it.

Diferance from 1.4 to 2.0 is noticeable IMO:

1.4:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

2.0:

Jan 20, 2008 at 04:51 PM

Tentacle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yakim Peled wrote:

[...]

If I'll write my real opinion on the screen at 10X I'll get banned from here. Politely I'll say that I find it marginally adequate at 5X.

And BTW, yes, I have tried it. I find it to be of limited help in handholding.

Granted, the screen itself isn't tack sharp, but I found it easy to find the point of maximum sharpness. YMMV I guess

Jan 21, 2008 at 09:16 AM

Navyblue
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 35/1.4 – This is ridiculous

Yakim Peled wrote:
Focusing manually with a 40D? You must be joking. Yes, I tried that and it's next to impossible even in daylight. The viewfinder is so tiny....

The EF-S focusing screen works for me, I can MF with 50 mm at f/1.4 with decent keeper rate, though the VF appear dark when shooting with slow lenses.

I agree that with the live view zooming to 10x it is impossible to handhold, it's only great with tripod.

Edited on Jan 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM

Jan 21, 2008 at 12:28 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end