Regardless of whether or not the sample images I posted were at 100% (no one even mentioned it, so I'm not sure why its being brought back up), the lens is very sharp. While I love the lens as it is I'm excited for the mkII..whenever it arrives.
superb lens, I use it 95% of the time between 1.4 and 2.0, and I love the sharpness. I did not buy this lens or consider it a negative that it has weak corners at wide apertures, as I did not buy it for that intended use.
I am, however, curious if the vII is in fact being released and what exactly they need to improve upon on this amazing little beast, as I feel no need to upgrade and am 100% happy with it.
vawill84 wrote:
I am, however, curious if the vII is in fact being released and what exactly they need to improve upon on this amazing little beast, as I feel no need to upgrade and am 100% happy with it.
We all say that until we find out that the new lens is indeed much better..... then all bets are off .
Dec 11, 2011 at 06:55 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Canon did improve the 24/1,4 when the mkII came out. And I'm sure the 35/1,4 will be improved at least as much if not more. If Canon release a new version
Weather sealing would be nice if there'll be a Mk II. Other than that I really got no complaints. It is silly sharp, focuses fast, lightweight - I just love it.
For years, I used mine with a 5D or 5D II to shoot theater productions, using stage lighting only. Then I made lobby shows with prints, usually about 30 inches. Typical reaction: Oh...MY...GOD! So they were sharp enough.
Summary of experience doing that: Wide open, quite sharp in the center if you hit focus. I mainly used that when the lighting was very dim, simulating night, so ISO was always cranked up too. Not always easy to hit focus under those conditions.
Most other situations, whatever aperture it took to get enough shutter speed, usually in the 2s. When I needed to get people sharp at the edge of the frame, I always wanted to get the aperture to 3.2 or so. Never felt any need to get to f/4 for the theater work. People at the edge of the frame were tack sharp in the upper 3s. Shoot with confidence.
For landscapes, however, tack sharp in the corners needed f5.6 to f/8, depending on the fineness of detail in the corners.
In my opinion, there is no better lens for shooting stage productions, by the way. A superb experience.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Canon did improve the 24/1,4 when the mkII came out. And I'm sure the 35/1,4 will be improved at least as much if not more. If Canon release a new version
I think the 35 mk II will also move to an 82mm filter to accommodate larger front element for less vignetting. I'd much rather a 35 f/1.4 than 24 f/1.4, so I'm hoping it's a stunner.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I think the 35 mk II will also move to an 82mm filter to accommodate larger front element for less vignetting. I'd much rather a 35 f/1.4 than 24 f/1.4, so I'm hoping it's a stunner.
I bet Canon would stick with 77mm, just like the 24L II.
I recently got a 35 l, and i have a question about its performance, at close distances and up to about 15 feet it is sharp at 1.4 provided correct technique. however it seems unable to autofucus correctly even in good light with center point on 5dc at 15 feet through infintity, things are almost always either sligtly front or back focused at wide apertures. manually focusing i am able to correct for this like i said i am on a 5dc so no custom profile can be created, how should this lens perform wide open at far distances?
dbick wrote:
I recently got a 35 l, and i have a question about its performance, at close distances and up to about 15 feet it is sharp at 1.4 provided correct technique. however it seems unable to autofucus correctly even in good light with center point on 5dc at 15 feet through infintity, things are almost always either sligtly front or back focused at wide apertures. manually focusing i am able to correct for this like i said i am on a 5dc so no custom profile can be created, how should this lens perform wide open at far distances?
Exchange it or send it to canon. I had a copy before that acted that way. The two I have now do not.
mark petri wrote:
So-so wide open. I like the lens and it's a good value when discounted, but I think labeling it best in class is a bit misleading.
What autofocus 35 or greater is better, out of curiosity, in your opinion. 35g?
My one complaint is the corners never get critically sharp.. But I don't really use it for landscapes. I would guess the next version will do Bette in the corners.
h00ligan wrote:
What autofocus 35 or greater is better, out of curiosity, in your opinion. 35g?
My one complaint is the corners never get critically sharp.. But I don't really use it for landscapes. I would guess the next version will do Bette in the corners.
Having owned both 35/1.4's, I think it would be nearly impossible to tell the difference in real life shooting.
However, I do think the 35/1.4g is slightly sharper at f1.4 compared to the 35L.
I think the real difference isn't in sharpness, but in CA...
I find the 35/1.4g had some green fringing where the 35L has more pink/purple fringing.
To be honest, I think the Canon's fringing is more noticeable.
On the other hand, I find the 35L to focus faster and more accurate.
But, the Nikon controls flare marginally better, though the 35L is no slouch.
The OOF renderings are both slightly nervous, but nothing to complain about.
I think if Canon were to re-release the 35L it would be to help control flare, chromatic aberration, and probably a bit more micro-contrast due to the SWC coding that they will probably use.
I highly doubt the lens will be much sharper at f1.4 in the center area. There's no need for it to change.
I guess when I read it's not class leading... I dunno, there aren't a ton of lenses in the class. I agree the ca is the biggest problem and it's annoying to have to fix, though not impossible.
.
