fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 4 end

Archive 2008 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Cableaddict
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Hey, folks.

I'm considering getting the Canon 35L. It's certainly one of Canon's best current lenses. However, most example pics I can find are full-body portraits, and my use would NOT be portraits, since I have a FF body. (5D.) Plus, I alreaady have a Rokkor 58 1.2, and am about to get a Canon 85L.

I would use the 35mm mostly for general shots, and mostly in low light, plus landscape shots (single shot and pano.)
-----------------------------------------

What is the general consensus on the 35L, vs say Zeiss? I guess I'm concerned primarily with edge-to-edge sharpness, but also general color & feel. The Canon excels at the latter two.

I realize that many lenses really ARE superior (in one way or another) to the Canon equivalent FL, and I am already enjoying the "thrill of the hunt." There's certainly no question at 24mm, for instance. However, I wonder if folks don't sometimes go overboard with this, overlooking an excellent piece of L glass in the process.

So, I'm asking the opinion of folks who have done, or have seen, direct comparisons, in the context I mentioned. I have had a terrible time finding such direct-comparisons online, even on this forum.

thanks.

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 01:06 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 01:03 AM

PeaktoPeek
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

I think you might be best served by the 35L in this case, only because you mentioned shooting in low light. You are going to have a hard time beating it in low light because its a 1.4 lens that AF's. Af might not always work great in low light, but it certainly would be easier than trying to manually focus at that aperture. If you were just shooting landscapes, there are lots of other lenses at that focal length that are excellent stopped down. My personal pick for now is the Zeiss 35-70, I have also seen great stuff from the other offerings from Zeiss, as well as Leica and Pentax (there was a thread here a few days ago on this one). That said, if I had the spare cash, this lens would be in my bag -- everything I have seen shows that this lens can pretty much do it all.
Paul

Jun 23, 2008 at 01:27 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Thanks, Peak. That's exactly the kind of thought process I'm looking for.

I guess what it comes down to is that I can only afford one good 35mm, so it has to serve all purposes. I would love to get a Distagon 21mm some day, just for landscapes, but I can't even FIND one, let alone afford one.

Also, while I don't mind manual focus (actually, I do a lot of MF even with my Canon glass,) I am a bit hesitant about ALWAYS having to go full manual, or even stop-down metering. I can see where that might bite me in the butt once in a while, and likely at the worst possible time.
More experience may change that viewpoint.

I am still, kind of, considering the alternatives, but they would have to be "significantly" better than the L to make it worth the trade-off. So I am definitely leaning towards the L, esp after your post.

-But I'm still curious about the differences, if even for future reference. There is currently an active thread here concerning 35mm primes, but very little comparison to the L, which I find surprising. I imagine it's easy to spend much time & money on obtaining some esoteric prime, fall in love with it, then forget that the Canon was also great, maybe even "better."

Further thoughts from all would certainly be appreciated.

Jun 23, 2008 at 02:55 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.1 #4 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

I have some experience of using both the Zeiss 35 f1.4 and the Canon L on 5D, 1D3 and 1Ds3.

In my opinion the differences are as follows:
L is sharper in corners
L is higher contrast
L lets in more light at f1.4
L has smoother more boring bokeh
L has a very slightly wider angle of view
Zeiss has more 3D effect, edge contrast, and sense of reality
Zeiss has nicer manual focus action - essential for f1.4

Otherwise the lenses are very similar, in size, weight, use etc.. Optically I prefer the Zeiss which produces magic, but the Canon is much better than adequate and has the advantage of AF, auto-aperture, and a slightly better hood and lens cap.

I have so many copies that I have a copy of each for sale if you're interested.

Jun 23, 2008 at 04:47 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.1 #5 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

BTW, here are a couple of examples with the Zeiss:

http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/

Jun 23, 2008 at 04:52 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]

p.1 #6 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

the 24-105L is exceptional at 35mm and has IS, I would prefer it to the 35L in low light. If you use a tripod, there are other options like cz 35-70 zf35

Jun 23, 2008 at 07:08 AM

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

IS vs a faster non-IS is one thing if it's one stop (f/4 IS vs f/2.8 on the 70-200s, for example), but I don't know if I'd ever say that about a lens that is a full three stops faster than the one with IS. I can't imagine preferring a 24-105 over a 35L for low light at the 35mm focal length.

Jun 23, 2008 at 07:19 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.1 #8 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

While the 24-105 is indeed excellent at 35mm, it is completely unsuitable for shooting people in low light. IS is no substitute for wide apertures.

Jun 23, 2008 at 07:45 AM

Byron Yu
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

I had the 35L and now use the Leica 35/2. Before my jump to canon i was a minolta guy and the Minolta 35/1.4G is absolutely my fav lens ever. I'm not a big fan of Canon lenses (bought a set of L's but sold them 2 months later) and find the leica has better micro resolution, better colour, and more desirable bokeh. I find Canon lenses very flat and clinical looking. Both are very sharp. You can get the leica for less than 1/2 the cost of a 35L. You can see the shootout of the 35L vs other 35's here: http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/489/131/

The 35/2 is obviously not as fast as the 35L but the 5D's iso is pretty clean so i find it manageble.

In any case i don't find AF so useful at night.. I got the special Matte focusing screen for my 5D, and with that, i find MF more reliable.

Edited by Byron Yu on Jun 23, 2008 at 01:00 PM GMT

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 08:00 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 07:58 AM

Byron Yu
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

BTW, if you like your rokkor, you'll love leica lenses since minolta and leica follow a similar design philosophy.

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 07:59 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 07:59 AM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]

p.1 #11 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

brainiac wrote:
While the 24-105 is indeed excellent at 35mm, it is completely unsuitable for shooting people in low light. IS is no substitute for wide apertures.

Agreed, but then the OT mentioned he did not want to take photographs of people, thus the IS may be an option in low light. The IS gives about 3 stops advantage vs non-IS, so photographers may choose to have a lens which allows more DOF and takes it up with Neon.

The 24-105L is sharper at f4 than the 35L at f1.4, has less CA and the performance holds up well into the corners (at 35mm)

By all means the 24-105L isnt the best lens to shoot portrait and I prefer to use the cz 28-85 for landscape, though however I feel there are moments the IS is the only possible option to do what I need.

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 08:48 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 08:47 AM

Byron Yu
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Andi Dietrich wrote:
The 24-105L is sharper at f4 than the 35L at f1.4, .

Any lens that isn't broken is sharper at f4 then any lens at f1.4.

Jun 23, 2008 at 09:09 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Andi Dietrich wrote:
Agreed, but then the OT mentioned he did not want to take photographs of people, thus the IS may be an option in low light. The IS gives about 3 stops advantage vs non-IS, so photographers may choose to have a lens which allows more DOF and takes it up with Neon.

The 24-105L is sharper at f4 than the 35L at f1.4, has less CA and the performance holds up well into the corners (at 35mm) .

I have the 24-105L. I am definitely impressed with it, much more than I expected to be. -And it's darned sharp at almost fully open. However, It's failing me a bit in low light. Also, it's very good, but not STUNNING. I mean c'mon, what zoom is ever going to out-resolve a good prime? (maybe I should never say never, thinking about the Nikon 14-24G!) Whatever fast 35mm I get, I would of course stop it down for landscape shots. I just want the speed for low light and the aperture for occasional portraits. (not sure how many portraits I'd take at 35mm)

Anyway, IS is not an issue for me. I am very devoted to my tripod. It suits me to use one 75% of the time, and probably always with a 35mm lens. I'm concerned with sharpness, mostly, but also that above-mentioned (and demonstrated!) magic. Color, 3D feel, "reach out and touch it-ness" etc.

Brainiac, that first pic is jaw-dropping. I do see what you mean about "magic." I think maybe the Canon 85 & 135 L's are darned close, though. Those ARE greta lenses. I'd have to see shots side-by-side, and I sure wish I could!

Regardless, that Zeiss is IMPRESSIVE.
--------------------

I assume the Minolta 35/1.4G is out, due to mount issues, but I'll take a look at the Leica 35/2.

Another question for you all:

I am a bit hung up on the idea of HAVING to deal with MF and the exposure issues, all of the time. I guess shooting full manual is OK with me, I kind of like the idea anyway, but I've read some disturbing comments online about the difficulties of MF with digital cameras.

Do you find this not really a problem?

Will a replacement focussing screen let me nail my shots most of the time? (and not make me utter swear words when using F?) Which is best, the EeS or brightscreen-pro? (maybe that's for another thread)

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 09:42 AM

Byron Yu
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

some pics from the 35/2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2055/2515382621_020ff5730b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/2574689067_a7489f8379_o.jpg

You can see shots taken from my other leica's (21/4, 50/1.4, 80/1.4) here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sixty9/

As long as your eyes are good, MF is no problem with the EeS focusing screen. It's crystal clear what's in focus and what's not.

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Daniel Buck
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

brainiac wrote
produces magic

that's a characteristic? I'd better pick up one of them 35mm then! I laugh out loud everytime I hear someone say a lens is 'magic'

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 01:18 PM

Jun 23, 2008 at 01:15 PM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.1 #16 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

> I'm concerned with sharpness, mostly, but also that above-mentioned (and demonstrated!) magic. Color, 3D feel, "reach out and touch it-ness" etc.

For reach out and touch, I recommend you stick to Zeiss. In my experience Leica lenses tend to portray the scene like a painting rather than a window on reality. It may be because they tend to have lower contrast. I don't know. Some people seem to love that effect, but if, like me, you would rather be a messenger than an artist, then even cheap Zeiss lenses can work wonders. OTOH, if you want rich colour, the Leica lenses are unsurpassed, but for 3D and a natural gritty contrast Zeiss seems to have an edge.

> Brainiac, that first pic is jaw-dropping. I do see what you mean about "magic." I think maybe the Canon 85 & 135 L's are darned close, though.

The Canon 85L has loads of 3D punch. It was every bit as good as the CY 85 f1.4 in my tests. Bearing in mind the AF, auto-aperture, half stop, and disregarding price, I don't see a great reason to use the Zeiss, unless hyperfocal depth matters a lot. Of course the old Contax 85 will give you 96% of the Canon L's performance at less than half the price. Don't overlook the very cheap Contax 85 f2.8 either. It's pocketable and produces very very real looking pictures.

> I assume the Minolta 35/1.4G is out, due to mount issues, but I'll take a look at the Leica 35/2.

I tried the Leica 35 f2 against my Zeiss 35 f1.4 on a 1Ds3. The Leica is damned good, but didn't quite usurp the Zeiss. It seemed just a bit less punchy and real.

Here are a couple more with the Zeiss 35 f1.4. I didn't use a hood on any of these shots, even the trees:
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/ralph.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/trees/trees.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/786.jpg
http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/michael.jpg

Jun 23, 2008 at 01:39 PM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.1 #17 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Daniel Buck wrote:

that's a characteristic? I'd better pick up one of them 35mm then! I laugh out loud everytime I hear someone say a lens is 'magic'

;-)

Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Here's an example, iso 3200, 1Ds3, Canon 200 f1.8:
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/drjosef/drjosef_lowrez.jpg
a crop:
http://cyberphotographer.com/1ds3/drjosef/drjosef_crop.jpg

If you showed that to someone 200 years ago they would look round the back of the screen to see where the fellow was.

The veridical hallucinogenic aspect of photography, has always been seen as a kind of magic: it stops time, and when done well it could be described as 'trompe l'oeil'. What's wrong with calling that deceptive experience 'magic'? I think Cableaddict knew what I meant.

Edited on Jun 23, 2008 at 01:51 PM

Jun 23, 2008 at 01:45 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

Man, that's a CUTE tance !!!

(I crack myself up sometimes.)

Jun 23, 2008 at 05:17 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

-And Byron,

Thanks for those lovely shots from the 35 f/2.

This has become a most enlightening & enjoyable thread. It doesn't just help me with my decision, but it REALLY shows why a good photographer (well, and artistic one rather than, say, a photojournalist) needs a lot of glass in his bag.

For landscape, I'd say the Zeiss probably rules, though the Canon L is still a contender. - But the Leica is like stepping into another world. I've checked out more pics from it online, and always you see that same soft, super-saturated, almost "animation" look. That flower, above, could be growing in Shrek's garden. Wow. -Not what I need in a general purpose lens, but seriously high on my "must get before I die" list.

This also raises a somewhat obvious question: How much of that Leica look can be created, from a sharp crispy Zeiss pic, in software? ( I assume there's no way to go in the other direction.)

I still don't know exactly where the Canon lies amidst all this sharpness & contrast & acutance and stopped-downedness & magik. Heck, I don't even know he difference between sharpness & contrast, but I'm workin' on it.

I'm rambling now. Can't think straight, 'cause I have these two little guys on my shoulders. One is red & has horns, the other has a halo & flowing white robe. One jumps up & down, yelling "contrast, contrast, contrast! while the other loudly whispers "AF, AF, AF... "

It's really quite a racket.

Edited by Cableaddict on Jun 24, 2008 at 04:21 AM GMT

Edited on Jun 24, 2008 at 04:21 AM

Jun 23, 2008 at 05:58 PM

Justin D
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Canon 35L vs Zeiss, etc?

I would be wary of the summicron 35 if you need sharp corners. I've had 2 copies, and both show curvature of field that leads to sft copies. Still a lovely lens, and I'm going to keep one even if I like the ZF 35 once it arrives, but you'll need to crop the extreme corners, even at f8 (at infinity, close focusing is not as bad) if you want sharp corners.

Jun 23, 2008 at 06:38 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end