It's ok to have opinion,as long as it's based on something....
...but there is the Charming Cheapie tool that gets the job done as well
I owned the 35f2 and used it for years. Yes, its AFD (arc form drive) motor was buzzy, but it did the job. It was quite sharp in the center at any aperture, but poor sharpness away from center. My 50 f1.4, even when as open as f2.8, was sharper than my 35 f2 was at f8, away from the center of the image area.
I had no desire to pay for a 35 f1.4, nor do I need that fast aperture.
I sold my 35f2, and bought a C/Y Zeiss 35m f2.8 for the princely sum of $150. The Zeiss, while manual focus, doesn't just edge, it absolutely towers over my Canon 35 f2 in image quality.
No I'm not a Zeiss snob. I don't own any new Zeiss ZE. I am just guilty of paying a piddly $150, and am EXTREMELY pleased with what this low purchase price has delivered.
I got the 35 in trade for a 50L. I think the cost benefit analysis between the 50L and the 1.4 is even closer than that between the 35L and 2.0.
My 35L arrived today. I can't wait to compare it to my 28 1.8. I actually really like the 28 (for its size and focus speed, but it's really sharp by 2.0) and may end up keeping it...Jjst as I ended up keeping the 1.4.
Funny no one mentioned the difference in distortion. That was the first thing I noticed, and I usually don't even pay attention to those things.
I expected the comparison to be that close.
The reason I had the 35L (and now the 35 1.4G - Nikon) is because it's my most used lens. If I used mostly zooms and primes occasionally, the 35 f2 would likely make more sense, but for me it's my primary go-to. It's the same reason that most of you likely own the 24-70L over the well-reviewed Tamron 28-75. While optical performance is close, those little things make the difference when you use them enough - silent focusing, better build, better micro contrast and clarity, etc....
But it does go to show that someone just starting out or on a limited budget still has some good glass to choose from.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I saw the samples. What I'm saying is that it does not mean it's accurate.
Are you insuating that there may be sample variation from Canon...tisk tisk shame on you
I have both so I guess I have to test them now I guess I always thought of them as apples to oranges. The L is what I go for when I want to be sure of focus accuracy and need the extra stop. If I travel the 2.0 is just fine for most uses and heck you can throw it in your pocket...I know what you are thinking.." Is that a 35 f2.0 in your pocket or are you just glad to see me"?
amonline wrote:
It was pretty obvious to me the right side are the L's. I could tell in the very first shot. The L produces much better detail, tone and clarity. The rest of them just solidified those facts.
Thanks for posting, I was almost scared to open the thread since I enjoy the FOV of 35mm on FF Camera and am not looking to get yet another prime!
I have 35f2 and love it, have toyed with idea of 35L but the price + form factor of this lens makes it a consistent no brainer. I did test it against sigma 30 1.4 on 20D, and 35f2 was consistently sharper upto f5.6. Still purchased the sigma because I needed the extra stop then, but now 35f2 is the most mounted lens on my camera.
If im traveling light but do not want to compromise IQ, 35f2 in pocket and 85 1.8 mounted on camera cover my street photography needs real well. AF motor is noisy but it performs very well. Not sure if anyone mentioned it or not, 35f2 does not have Full Time Manual Focus, and that itself may be worth it for some.
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I think the comments by Wickerprints and JustRuss are spot on. If you enjoy using fine tools or your professional reputation is involved you can always afford the better tool. But there is the Charming Cheapie tool that gets the job done as well. Besides cost, the 35 f2 has two major advantages for me, it weighs 7½ oz and it has a much closer minimum focus distance. I've had this lens over 10 years and its my oldest active lens. I lust after the 35L periodically but since this is a supplemental lens, I've never gotten beyond lust.
My professional reputation is involved, and in a number of cases I choose the less-expensive tool because I care about results and not the impression my equipment makes on people.
I think that many here would be quite surprised to find that the gear that many really fine (and far better known that I) photographers use is not always the most expensive or biggest, baddest stuff they could buy. A lot of the "what pros use" notions around here are generalizations that don't pan out in the real world.
Just saying'
Oh, and anyone who claims that they can see "better detail" in one sample compared to the other in greatly downsized jpg images posted on web pages... needs to think a bit about what actually happens to images when they are downsized to this degree. You most certainly do not see more or less detail in images at this size that could be accounted for my lens differences - by sharpening technique, etc., perhaps... but that is a very different thing.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My professional reputation is involved, ... Just saying'
Yes, but Dan you just sell pictures. No one sees how many trail miles you hiked carrying 10 + lbs of gear just to get the image. Now if you were photographing weddings where everyone could see the quality of your tuxedo and how many red stripe lenses you used things would be different. Whether the bride could see the difference between the 35 f2 and 35 L image is totally beside the point, they can see the size of your lens. Just sayin'
Fred Miranda wrote:
According to Photozone's resolution test, the Canon 35mm f/2 seems to be actually sharper in the corners then the 35mm f/1.4L @ f/2 and f/2.8
Based on this review chart, the 35mm f/1.4L looks really bad around the extreme corners up until f/2.8. After that, it takes over.
It would be nice if kellystonelake could do a corner and extreme corner comparison between these 2 lenses. This time with the husband smiling a bit!
Do those tests take into account field curvature? If not, the conclusions about corner performance don't mean much. The one guy who tests this in a real-world setting is Lloyd Chambers (diglloyd.com).
If a high level of performance across a range of apertures including wide open is desired, then 35L easily outscores the 35 f/2.
jason.alabama wrote:
Everybody knows its the camera and not the lens (i.e. your camera takes nice pictures), at least that's what my family seems to think.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Do those tests take into account field curvature? If not, the conclusions about corner performance don't mean much. The one guy who tests this in a real-world setting is Lloyd Chambers (diglloyd.com).
If a high level of performance across a range of apertures including wide open is desired, then 35L easily outscores the 35 f/2.
Here is what photozone writes about their resolution charts:
"Our MTF analysis is based on obtaining readings at the sharpest focus setting independent for the center as well as the image borders/corners. It's field curvature invariant. Normally this is a preferable approach because the field curvature isn't really relevant for most lenses and taking the field curvature not into account would produce rather strange resolution curves"
What I really like on their reviews are the full size samples. I can see 1:1 how the the lens perform in the real world.
I just did a quick and dirty comparison of the 35/2 and 35/1.4 L on a 5DII, using LV to focus on a detailed target in the upper left corner. Fighting a cold, so I'm not going to stay up and upload 100% crops, but suffice it to say that for my copies, the f/2 not only holds its own, it out-resolves the L at f/2 through f/4. Beyond that they seem about equal, though the little non-L may have an edge even at f/8.
This is only one corner, of course (though I've not noticed any unevenness in the corner performance of either lens), and just a simple preliminary judgment, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.
I still prefer using the L for all the ancillary reasons people have mentioned (especially FTM and having f/1.4), but I have no misgivings about the optical quality of my 35/2.
Photon wrote:
I just did a quick and dirty comparison of the 35/2 and 35/1.4 L on a 5DII, using LV to focus on a detailed target in the upper left corner. Fighting a cold, so I'm not going to stay up and upload 100% crops, but suffice it to say that for my copies, the f/2 not only holds its own, it out-resolves the L at f/2 through f/4. Beyond that they seem about equal, though the little non-L may have an edge even at f/8.
This is only one corner, of course (though I've not noticed any unevenness in the corner performance of either lens), and just a simple preliminary judgment, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.
I still prefer using the L for all the ancillary reasons people have mentioned (especially FTM and having f/1.4), but I have no misgivings about the optical quality of my 35/2. ...Show more →
Your test comes closer to the resolution charts from the photozone review. It does not describe the "The Digital Picture" review samples. Thanks for the testing it.
BTW, since we are discussing portability on this range, have anyone tried the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2.0 SL-II for the Canon mount?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is what photozone writes about their resolution charts:
"Our MTF analysis is based on obtaining readings at the sharpest focus setting independent for the center as well as the image borders/corners. It's field curvature invariant. Normally this is a preferable approach because the field curvature isn't really relevant for most lenses and taking the field curvature not into account would produce rather strange resolution curves"
What I really like on their reviews are the full size samples. I can see 1:1 how the the lens perform in the real world.
But this is what they say in their FAQ -
***
Q: What is the field curvature ?
Imagine that you've a perfectly flat object (e.g. a wall). If you focus using the center AF sensor of your camera the center focus should be spot on (more or less). If the lens suffers from field curvature the corners of the wall are projected off the flat plane. In other words: the plane is bend to a sphere. As a consequence the corners will have a different focus plane than the center resulting in an out-of-focus effect. Most ultra-wide and wide angle (<35mm) lenses suffer from this.
...i don't care about the charts nor i look at them, samples also can be misleading, only real time shooting gives you a good idea at least to me, never had 35 f2.0, i used to have 24-70 2.8l and was very happy with performance at 35mm, and i'm sure 24-105 4l is does too, but 35 1.4l is shines at 1.4 and to me it sharp and fast wide open and i like it in low available light, focus is fast, and i don't see myself MF at this FL- kids like to run. But my money making lens is 3times cheaper and not L. So there is no necessity to buy the top one unless there is specific need or desire, and budget for it, last summer while on vacation i made some pictures with disposable camera and was happy about captured moments
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
But this is what they say in their FAQ -
***
Q: What is the field curvature ?
Imagine that you've a perfectly flat object (e.g. a wall). If you focus using the center AF sensor of your camera the center focus should be spot on (more or less). If the lens suffers from field curvature the corners of the wall are projected off the flat plane. In other words: the plane is bend to a sphere. As a consequence the corners will have a different focus plane than the center resulting in an out-of-focus effect. Most ultra-wide and wide angle (<35mm) lenses suffer from this.
What they wrote on the FAQ sounds right.
From what I posted before, I understood that when doing their resolution tests, they obtain readings at the sharpest focus on the center (to check the center resolution, then do the same for the corners and extreme corners) independently. Therefore their tests are field curvature invariant.
I agree that we should not make our choices based solely on graphs but it's a good starting point.
Fred Miranda wrote:
BTW, since we are discussing portability on this range, have anyone tried the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2.0 SL-II for the Canon mount?
Yes, I have and I loved it. The focus feels even better/smoother than my Zeiss glass, doesn't get much better. Lens itself classic solid metal feel. The aperture stays round on specular hilights throughout the range (9 bladed rounded if I remember right), it's insanely thin/small. Almost makes the 35/2 look porky by comparison. Focal length is great. Plenty sharp (aspherical element probably helps)...it has it's own look but not in the way a Zeiss does, well done, but not stand out, just different. Bokeh is better than the 35/2, closer to the 1.4. There's not much not to like. From some angles it almost looks like you don't even have a lens on the camera when it's attached. It's almost exactly the same size as an EF 12 extension tube. It doesn't AF as well as the Canon 35's though
