I hear people say this lens is sharp wide open, but is it as sharp at 1.4 as it is at 2.8 or are there differences. is 1.4 acceptable or is it actually sharp? Some samples at 1.4 and 100% crop would be nice as compared to 2.2 or 2.8.
If what you're focussed on falls precisely inside the VERY narrow depth of field that is f/1.4, then there are few lenses that perform better than this, hence it's secure place within the "holy trinity" of Canon lenses (35L, 85L & 135L)
The lens is adequately sharp in the center of the frame wide open but nowhere in the vicinity of the 85 wide open. I gets a lot sharper by f/2 and sharper yet at 2.8. If you want the corners sharp on a full frame, you're looking at f/8-f/11. A great lens no doubt, but one in need of refreshing.
Hey Andy. I love my 35L but I did have to send it in for calibration to get really good results at f1.4. A lot of them do not focus that great at f1.4 straight from the box. When I originally bought mine in 2008 I tried 4 copies at the dealer before I selected mine and they all performed the same. Since they were all identical I though it must be a problem with my technique, but after 2 years I finally sent it to Canon and they made it perfect. One thing to check when you get the lens is to shoot something that is more than 20ft away using centerpoint and at f1.4. If it's not in focus after trying various microfocus adjustments then the lens probably has the same problem mine did.
Peter Figen wrote:
"Peter, I don't know about the lens you used/are using but my copy is very sharp from corner to corner by f/2.8 "
I'd like to see you post a full frame image from a 5DII or 1DsMKIII that's sharp to the corners at 2.8.
Well, in fairness you didn't specify 5DII or 1DsIII--the only FF camera I own atm is the 5D. I will, however, take a few shots using the combo tomorrow and post them for you
I'll try and do the same in the next few days. I spend more than a fair amount of time testing lenses, so I know exatly what to expect when I use them on a job, and even then there are surprises.
May 20, 2011 at 12:25 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Peter Figen wrote:
The lens is adequately sharp in the center of the frame wide open but nowhere in the vicinity of the 85 wide open. I gets a lot sharper by f/2 and sharper yet at 2.8. If you want the corners sharp on a full frame, you're looking at f/8-f/11. A great lens no doubt, but one in need of refreshing.
Perfectly satisfactory wide open, really sharp, as Daan says, at f/2. The flaw in the 35 is the proneness to color fringing. This may be fixed in the II version that's supposed to be in the works. I wonder if the color-fringing is an issue in the 24 f1.4L II? That might be a portent for an improved 35.
I assume that Canon does not intend IS for wide-angle lenses, but wouldn't it be nice? Counter-intuitively, I've always gotten less shake with the 135 hand-held than the 35. It may be a matter of balance on the camera.
"I wonder if the color-fringing is an issue in the 24 f1.4L II?"
That was the single biggest improvement from the 24 v1 to the 24 v2. There was very very little difference in actual resolution, so little, in fact, that the only real reasons for upgrading was the CA fix, the improved weather sealing and the larger filter size. The CA in the 24 v1 is much worse than the 35L. If you've got CaptureOne, it has, hands down, the best color fringing tools of any software I've used, and is very effective on all of these lenses.
I'll ask one question, after donning my fire-proof suit (I don't own a 35L, and don't have a dog in this race):
After looking at the examples in the digital picture, 35L, switching between f1.4 and f2: that softness and low contrast wide open, that improves so much by f2, is exactly what I see in the Canon 50mm f1.4. Both lenses show softness and low contrast wide open, and both quite significantly improve by f2.
Why is it that this is perfectly O.K in the 35L, but a fatal flaw in the 50 f1.4?
You're exactly right in your observations. I don't know why people accept one and not the other. The thing about this, is that it really depends on how you use your lens. If, like in the example I posted, the subject is close to the camera and there is significant focus falloff toward the background, then the image appears to be sharper than it really is and is looked on quite favorably. If, on the other hand, you are focusing on something farther away, where there is less depth of field and more of the image is in relative focus, that lack of critical resolution will make everything appear a bit softer. The 35L also has a floating element which the 50 1.4 does not have, and that may enhance the close focusing qualities compared to the 50.
For those that make very large prints, the differences are ones that are easily seen and the improvement from 1.4 to f/2 in the 35L is really quite remarkable but really no different than how most fast lenses perform. If you're only making small prints, then you're unlikely to ever notice the differences.
Don Clary wrote:
Why is it that this is perfectly O.K in the 35L, but a fatal flaw in the 50 f1.4?
I own both lenses and the 35L is noticeably better wide open in terms of sharpness, color and contrast (it also focuses significantly better). Even when stopped down to f/2 the 35 performs better, more specifically in the corners.
