 |
|
|
Alistair1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 339
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Marvellous in every respect.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive
|
|
|
This is a very good lens. THis and the 24L pretty well meet 70% of my shooting needs.
|
|
 Aug 6, 2006
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, balance, colour, focus speed.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.
|
|
|
Well, not much needs to be said about this lens,
It takes a bit of getting used to using the shallow depth of field, however the resolving power of this lens is superb.
No complaints here, whatsoever.
form 1.4 to 1.8 very very good, from 2 to 2.8 excellent it suprised me, and from 2.8 and up...WOW, real POP, just like the zeiss glass I had years ago.
LOVE this lens both on a 1.6 and 1.25 crop. havent had a chance to try it on full frame yet...thats next.
pk
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2006
|
|
I Simonius
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast.
Shallow DOF if needed
Better than the 35mmf2 for resolution (except @5.6 where they are similar) much better than the f2 lens for colour (richer & warmer)
|
|
Cons:
|
ONLY Betters the 17-40f4L zoom @35mm, @ similar apertures, in the corners.
NOT better otherwise unless you really need the speed or shallow DOF
|
|
|
After all the hype - very dissappointed with this lens, I had expected it to excel in the resolution dept. Don't get me wrong it does have good resolution but NOT excellent resolution.
I compared the 35mmf1.4 at similar apertures it to the 17-40L zoom, processed them both the same (just sharpened 300, radius 0.4). The first thing I did was test the focussing, and that was spot on.
The 17-40 gives dissapointing resolution (esp.for landscape shots) at the 35-40 range, also the 17-40 zoom has a reputation for not being very good at 35-40 range i.e. worse in all reviews at that FL than the 16-35 @35), yet the 35f1.4 does not give noticably improved resolution over the zoom at similar apertures! The colour rendition of both is IMO excellent so they are on a par there too.
In this regards I found it very dissapointing, in fact the zoom might even have the edge on apparent sharpness at the centre
The negatives out of the way what can be said for it is that unlike the zoom it is as sharp as the zoom is at the centre virtually all the way to the corners whereas the zoom falls down very badly at the corners at all focal lengths.
Compared to the 35mmf2 lens, the 35mm f1.4 also has much better (warmer) colour and quieter focussing, although on a couple of shots it was either slow or hunting, so an improvement but not flawless. It has better resolution than the f2 lens until about f4-f8 where they are similar ( I had the f2 but returned it).
The CA of some brances against a contrasty background was severe, but unless in very contrasty subjects it was not really noticable.
It seemd to handle flare better from light sources coming directly into the lens rather than those that were at an oblique angle to it.
It is of course much faster than the 17-40 zoom and if you need it for the speed then that's really what you're paying for, because it certainly isn't the resolution.
I suspect that many of the reviews that praised it's resolution must have been comparing it to the kit lens or the 35mmf2 because compared to the 17-40 it could not be said to be an improvement in terms of resolution or colour. I would say the two could not be told apart unless you look at the corners then the difference is obvious.
My final thought is that it is rather expensive for a lens whose only significant advantage over the zoom is it's speed, and it may be that we are used to paying a high price just for speed but unless you need a f1.4 35mm I suggest thinking carefully before parting with your money. Now if it was f1.2 that might be different!;-). A better option for low light shooting may be to up the ISO on the f4 zoom.
Having said that the results of some portraits I shot at f1.4 were pleasing for the way they blurred the background so that is another positive point and it may be that these small positives will add up for some to a big enough positive to justify the outlay.
For me the outlay WOULD have been justified IF it had better resolution; as it is, the sum of all the small positives should have just been the icing on the cake but there is no cake, just icing.
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006
|
|
colincarter46
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 430
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Image Quality including centre and edge sharpness, superb Bokeh, colour and contrast, feels great and very well balanced on my 5D (with Grip), 1dMK2n's and 1dsMk2's. Razor sharp at ALL apertures, very smooth and accurate focusing ring.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing except maybe price is off putting for some, but worth it, absolutely no regrets.
|
|
|
This lens definately belongs in Canon's group of elite lenses. It is among the very best, up there with the greats such as the 85L, 135L and the super telephoto's.
All the components that go into superb image quality, such as sharpness, bokeh, resolving power, colour and contrast are outstanding.
If you need this lens, and can justify the price then do not hesitate.
It has replaced the 24-70L in my bag for most assignments.
This lens on my 5D with a 24-105L IS or 70-200L IS on my 1Dmk2 or 1dsmk2 make up my wedding kit.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2006
|
|
Derek_S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2003
Location: N/A
Posts: 448
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,224.23
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Bright aperture, feel of "rightness" on a grip-equipped SLR, excellent performer
|
|
Cons:
|
Price leap from f/2.0 version, lens hood-lens cap relationship
|
|
|
I upgraded from the f/2.0 version due to realizing that a good chunk of my photography came from dimly lit areas.
I harbor absolutely no hesitation to use this wide open. It's that good (and better be for the price). However, the tiny depth of field at f/1.4 forces me to be very judicious about focusing. And before you ask, yes, it IS somewhat difficult to get proper focus on a fast lens - even if it is a wide angle. Fortunately, autofocus is generally fast and accurate, even on a "lowly" 10d. I get a 70% keeper rate in regards to autofocus, 95% if paired with the st-e2 - good enough for me.
Stopping down, my copy gets "HOLY CRAP!" at f/1.8, "OW, MY EYES!" at f/2.8, and "Unsharp mask?! I don't need no stinkin' unsharp mask!" at f/5.6.
Now, the build - the shell definately feels like plastic, but it's friggin dense. Ergonomically, mounted on either a 10d + grip or a 1d, there's a certain feel of rightness - the zone from my palm (which tend to cradle the "lip" of the battery grip) to my focusing fingers are never cramped nor stretched too far. If I could nitpick, I would've loved it if Canon made the smooth part of the barrel similar to the 85mm f/1.2L's rubberized pseudo-crinkle finish.
A downside to this lens comes in the lens cap. I generally tend to leave my lens hood facing outward, but the lens cap has to be pinched from the edges to get it out. Like another lens I reviewed on this site, I have to deduct a point for this almost ass-backwards choice of cap. Mind you, you could easily replace it with a center pinch cap, but for 1130 retail - you'd think Canon could at least be thorough in thinking their lenses' functionality through.
Quibbles aside, it r0x0rs.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2006
|
|
cajan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great low-light lens, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
After adjusting back-focus; none
|
|
|
Fantastic lens! Yet a warning: not all lenses are 100%.
My had a back-focus fault. (Common amongst digital lenses). Focus was constantly in front of "target".
But now it´s back again, super-sharp and super-fast!
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2006
|
|
johnastovall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1332
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,136.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing color and image quality. Everything about this lens is true.
|
|
Cons:
|
The only negative is I should have gotten it sooner.
|
|
|
Yes, everything people say about this lens is true. The color is magical. The sharpness and bokeh are right there with the 135L.
On my 5D this lense requires nothing in photoshop to produce stunning images, not even sharpening. It's resolution is amazing, even wide open and at f/8.0 it's eye bleeding sharp.
If you were to have only one L for every day use this would be the one.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2006
|
|
sejanus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1060
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,099.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Unbelievable image quality, sharpness at wild apertures, great bokeh, build quality, well balanced weight wise.
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, but you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
This is an unbelievable lens and makes near anything you have look soft. The sharpness has to be seen to be believed, even looking at a 5D raw file at 100% the detail and sharpness is incredible.
The lens is also noteworthy due to it holding very high levels of sharpness and contrast at super wide apertures.
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2006
|
|
Levendis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2006
Location: China
Posts: 156
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This has supplanted the 24-70L as the walkaround lens on my 350D because of image quality and versatility - morning, evening, indoor gatherings, outdoor portraits, this lens does it all confidently in a foolproof way. Very happy with the purchase.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
jhsymington
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality and image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Like its wider brother the 24mm f1.4 L this lens is great. Image quality is very good wide-open and stopped down it is blemishless. It should be too for the price but I definitely got what I paid for.
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2006
|
|
Anden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6467
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, colorrendering, contrast, closefocus, bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit large and heavy for a 35 but it is still a small lens.
|
|
|
You get what you pay for. This lens paired with a fullframebody is a perfect allroundkit. Slap on a EF 12 tube and you have a great flowerlens.
I just need this and a 85 or 135 and then I am done.
This lens is alot better than the 35/2 and I really recommend anyone who has a fullframecamera to buy it. I sold my 24-70 for this lens. I do not regret it.
|
|
|
May 29, 2006
|
|
gwhitegeog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
A superb lens, the best one one in my bag. A great reportage, photo-journalism and low light lens. Difficult to fault.
|
|
Cons:
|
None at all, save for price. I would like a rubber sealing ring on the lens mount, as with some recent L optics.
|
|
This an update to my earlier review.
I have recently put some shots taken with this lens on my website (London gallery section):
http://www.garywhite-photography.com/section40929_23287.html
Stopped down or wide open, this is a great piece of glass. Well done Canon. I cherish this lens and will never sell out.
|
|
|
May 28, 2006
|
|
monitorpop
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 284
|
|
Review Date: May 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,129.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp center at 1.4, great bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
If I could only own one lens, this would be it.
|
|
|
May 28, 2006
|
|
junglehs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, good color
|
|
Cons:
|
35mm slightly boring on a 30D (1.6 factor)
|
|
|
Cant wait to use this lens on a full frame camera.
|
|
|
May 27, 2006
|
|
AbramG
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2190
|
|
Review Date: Apr 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredible sharpness / color / contrast / bokeh / build quality / wow factor
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive... but worth it. ( im not a fan of the lens hood, but i use it regardless )
|
|
|
If i could write a book about the pure joy owning this lens has brought me i would.
for me it was more of a personal conquest though! as was mentioned here in another review ( i dont want to repeat the same things ill be brief ) if i could only have or take one lens. this is it. hands down. THIS IS IT.
on my recent trip to New Zealand, i got the most kept images from this lens and the 5D combo. i cant even begin to describe to you just how awesome the sharpness and color rendition are.
and when shooting black and white. dear lord its a thing of beauty
<a href="http://static.flickr.com/54/127827393_6ff4349850_o.jpg">click this for B&W sample</a>
<a href="http://static.flickr.com/56/127827419_9c56c02cc7_o.jpg">click this for a color sample</a>
it really is a beautiful lens, and is definately without a second thought, my personal favorite of my lineup. i highly recommend that if you can afford it, or if you get a good deal on one that you get it. really. its just so worth it. i dont feel any regret over the cost at all, i would gladly pay the same price or even a little higher all over again.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2006
|
|
mendoan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Very nice Bokeh, f1.4
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
214
|
467230
|
Mar 23, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
96% of reviewers
|
$1,192.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.38
|
8.24
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
