Other than that it's killer optical performance (my shots are tack sharp, like 70-200F4L IS sharp, in the center, wide open), I am really really uncomfortable with the 35mm focal length and perspective. It's kind of not wide enough, but not normal enough for the shots I want. I'm thinking of now getting a 24L or a 21mm distant n gone.
jfulton wrote:
Just out of curiosity, do you have any examples of the less than stellar bokeh?
Iīve been using a 35L on a 20D for about 2 years. Itīs been my general purpose lens and therefore Iīve taken quite a lot of photos with it. All in all itīs a wonderful lens giving a lot of opportunities in low light situations and so on. Itīs also remarkable sharp from wideopen and the contrast is good. The two things I do not find all that super is the bokeh and also CA. Not saying itīs all that bad, just not as good as Iīve come to expect from other better( at least in this regard(and in my opinion)) lenses. The last picture, @f5,6 (not the pictures of the 24L), in this link is in my opinion an example of rather harsch and not so very good bokeh. I also consider the 85L mk1 not so good when talking bokeh. Itīs important not to mix shallow depth of field with bokeh. A good bokeh lens gives nice backgrounds even when stopped down and with highlighted backgrounds. But of course when shot wide open they both (35L and 85L) gives nice blurry backgrounds...
ILOVECANONL wrote:
Hey, I just brought a 35L recently too.
Other than that it's killer optical performance (my shots are tack sharp, like 70-200F4L IS sharp, in the center, wide open), I am really really uncomfortable with the 35mm focal length and perspective. It's kind of not wide enough, but not normal enough for the shots I want. I'm thinking of now getting a 24L or a 21mm distant n gone.
Are you having this problem too with your 35L? =P
Actually, yes. Since I now got a non cropcamera I tend to use either 50 or 24 and therefor are now selling the 35L. Itīs not easy, since I still think itīs a remarkable lens, but hey, whatīs the point having a remarkable lens in the bag, when I never use it?! Have ordered a 24L2 instead and Iīm looking forward to the new acquaintance...
Don't have any special inside knowledge or anything, but it seems to me Canon have started a rolling program of L lens upgrades, presumably in advance of very large sensor yield increases over the coming few years.
The L 14mm, 16-35mm and recently the 24mm lenses have been upgraded with Mark 2 status, seems logical to assume the 35mm is next. I just don't know when.
Speaking personally, its unlikely I will jump my 24mm L from Mk 1 to Mk2, instead I will save up for the 35L Mk2 to eventually replace my 35mm f2.
Jerka wrote:
Actually, yes. Since I now got a non cropcamera I tend to use either 50 or 24 and therefor are now selling the 35L. Itīs not easy, since I still think itīs a remarkable lens, but hey, whatīs the point having a remarkable lens in the bag, when I never use it?! Have ordered a 24L2 instead and Iīm looking forward to the new acquaintance...
Just my 2 cents
/Jerka (sorry for my bad english)
That's what I thought as well, there's no point in keeping a lens that you will never bring in your camera bag. I might keep it for the wide-ish angle low light performance though and learn how to see with the 35mm perspective. Grab a 21mm distagon for the ultimate wide angle when it comes out for 2100 CDN. =(
abam wrote:
i'll second the call for an upgraded 50mm 1.4.
canon is forcing me to the zeiss 50mm 1.4... why, world? why?
Try the new sigma 50/1.4. The new nikon 50/1.4 AF-S is also reported to be razor sharp wide open. If I shot with nikon I'd grab a new 50 AF-S in a heartbeat. I'd think twice on the zeiss, just because it has the zeiss label on it doesn't mean it has excellent optical performance. After hearing about the QE issues with the 85/1.4 I'll be scared to spend 800-1000$ on a manual focus only lens. Also, just because it's a zeiss doesn't mean the bokeh or colours beats canon, nikon, or sigma.
abam wrote:
i'll second the call for an upgraded 50mm 1.4.
canon is forcing me to the zeiss 50mm 1.4... why, world? why?
If bokeh is a thing that interest you then I thing you should take a long look at the Sigma 50/1.4. Contrary, I've seen examples of the Zeiss 50/1.4 in which the bokeh was very mediocre.
abam wrote:
i'll second the call for an upgraded 50mm 1.4.
canon is forcing me to the zeiss 50mm 1.4... why, world? why?
I have a Canon 50/1.4 and also had a C/Y Zeiss 50/1.4 and ended up selling
the Zeiss. It was a good lens, but overall I preferred the Canon. The Zeiss wasn't
great wide open, and once you got to f/2.0 the Canon performed wonderfully.
So even though the Zeiss focus ring is a manual focus lover's dream, optically
it's pretty much the same as other well-made double-Gauss 50's. The Canon's
autofocus is remarkably accurate
-- see the evidence here: www.pbase.com/tswen/sig50af --
and even though mh2000 might not back me up on this,
the Canon's bokeh is decent and better than that of the Zeiss.
I ended up keeping a Zeiss 50/1.7 since it's at least as sharp as the 50/1.4 and
is cheaper.
The reports I've read of the new ZE 50/1.4 don't flatter it too much. Good lens
but not remarkably different than the Contax versions.
I would much rather see Canon make an L quality wider prime in the 17-20mm range. f1.8-2.0 would be ok to keep the cost down a little. This would be great on both FF and crop IMO. Unfortunately Canon seems more interested in updating lenses which already perform very well.
Anybody know whether the current 35L works well on high density FF sensor such as 5D II or the future 1Ds IV? 5D II is on my list this year so is 35L. I can wait for the new 35 L II (let don't discuss whether it will come out or not although I believe it will this year or next). But once I buy it, I want to keep it long (10 years?). So except the new coating, weather seal, high price..., will the version II works better than verison I on high density FF sensor or some other new technologies such as microadjustment, HD video, etc?
thanks,
JJ
My current gears are 5D/350D/EF 24-70/EF 70-200/85L II/135L
0jjcpa123 wrote:
Anybody know whether the current 35L works well on high density FF sensor such as 5D II or the future 1Ds IV?
The 35L works quite nicely on the 5D2. I suspect an improved version will have slightly less CA (one of the shortfalls of the 35L and really any really fast wide angle angle lens).
I don't know... I haven't been very impressed with the examples of the Zeiss bokeh that I've seen so far (prefer the Leica look to Zeiss in general anyway).
(...and I did take some nice photos with my EF 50/1.4 too...)
>>and even though mh2000 might not back me up on this,
the Canon's bokeh is decent and better than that of the Zeiss.
mh2000 wrote:
I don't know... I haven't been very impressed with the examples of the Zeiss bokeh that I've seen so far (prefer the Leica look to Zeiss in general anyway).
(...and I did take some nice photos with my EF 50/1.4 too...)
>>and even though mh2000 might not back me up on this,
the Canon's bokeh is decent and better than that of the Zeiss.
hehehe
Yeah, I don't think bokeh is a strong point of Zeiss Planars.
In some cases, the bokeh from the 50/1.4 Planar can border on hideous.
markdennis wrote:
If anyone has a crystal ball I'd be grateful if they could let me know if it is likely.
Had a go with one today...what a lens!
Mark
Of course it will; it's one of the lenses least in need of an update so that ensures Canon will do so and leave old clunkers to soldier on for another 10 years.
