I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.
To see real difference and to justify extra $$$ spent we have to make at least 2 tests with these lenses:
1. Side by side test wide open in different lightning conditions- I mean 1.4 vs 2.0. Testing it at the same aperture is pointless. 1.4 is what you are paying for.
2. AF performance esp. in low light conditions.
35L is a very expensive lens, it's good to have cheaper alternative that would work for many of us. From my experience- you won't see a difference unless you try it
Trailboy wrote:
I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.
To each their own. If it's not worth it to you, then that's your evaluation. Certainly, there are plenty of other photographers for whom the difference is significant enough that they feel entirely satisfied making the opposite decision.
Trailboy wrote:
Including me. I think they are better lenses.
But I could do a lot more to improve my photograph with £2500 than a stop, better af, etc
When I said "make the opposite decision," I meant "make the opposite decision to yours." That is to say, there are many photographers--several of which have posted in this thread--who absolutely do choose the 35L (and might also choose the 85L) over their slower-aperture counterparts, because the faster lenses satisfy their particular photographic needs.
Certainly, it is not everyone's priority to pay the price to get f/1.4 over f/2, or f/1.2 over f/1.8. I would say a majority of photographers out there probably don't shoot in conditions or in a manner that would give them a significant benefit with the faster lens of the pair. I regularly discourage people from buying the 85L over the 85/1.8 for exactly this reason--I find a lot of people covet the 85L, and quite a number of them buy it, without really having concrete reasons or realistic expectations about how their photography would benefit.
But that said, that doesn't mean no one should use them or that they are a poor value. They're just a poor value for those photographers who don't really need them. For those who do, and for those who understand and enjoy how to shoot in ways that exploit their unique qualities, the 35L and 85L are absolutely worthwhile. You just have to know whether you are one of those people. It's the same thing with camera bodies. I've lost count of how many people have looked at my 5D2 and thought I was absolutely daft for spending thousands of dollars just to take "better" pictures, when I could have just bought a Rebel or a point-and-shoot megazoom, or even just used my mobile phone's camera. To them, they simply don't see what the fuss is all about. "Why would you spend so much money to carry all that stuff around when you could just take the photo with your mobile?" They have little to no appreciation for the difference. (Ironically, if I show them the resulting photos, they then coo and exclaim how amazing my camera must be, as if I had nothing to do with the way it turned out!)
And that's exactly how you feel about the difference in the lenses. To you, it's not worth it, just like it's not worth it to those people to buy a DSLR.
With occasional exceptions, there is no such thing as a "better lens." There are only "better lenses for what I/you/he/she wants to do." The 35/2 is not a better lens than the 35/1.4L, and vice versa.
Trailboy wrote:
I'd much sooner have the 35 2 and 85 1.8 and £2500 in my back pocket, than a couple of red stripes,an extra stop and a bloody big hole in my front pocket.
My first letter in my post says 'I', which, I think we can agree, says everything.
I'm very interested in getting a 35 f/2.0 even though I currently own a 35L. Anyone selling? I found a killer deal on Craigslist yesterday but it was gone in a snap. I want to use it for travel so I don't have to hual a big lens around, and of course I don't want to risk damaging the L lens.
Thanks for creating the side-by-side comparison. The differences are not significant, but if I look closely I can tell all the photos on the right are sharper and very slightly more contrasty.
Is it sad I shoot my 35L at f/2 most of the time? I'd say about 40% of my shots at f/1.4 just look like poo because the focus ain't right.
Owned both... 35/2 sat in my bag unused because AF was a dog in any light besides daylight. The whizzing and whirring didn't bug me so much. Hunts a lot.. 35L locks on like a laser. Also a big reason I own 85/1.8 over 85L
Non-photographer clients will likely never be able to tell the difference between an f/2 and f/1.4 shot at 35mm
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Is it sad I shoot my 35L at f/2 most of the time? I'd say about 40% of my shots at f/1.4 just look like poo because the focus ain't right.
Owned both... 35/2 sat in my bag unused because AF was a dog in any light besides daylight. The whizzing and whirring didn't bug me so much. Hunts a lot.. 35L locks on like a laser. Also a big reason I own 85/1.8 over 85L
Non-photographer clients will likely never be able to tell the difference between an f/2 and f/1.4 shot at 35mm
Only when you have to shoot at iso 6400 instead of 3200.
Based on the bokeh alone, I could tell that the L lens was used for the right images. I know that the 35 f/2 is no slouch, but I preferred the 35L for my needs.
I'm not surprised that the IQ is so close, and it shows how good that lens really is.
buy um both 