p.1 #1 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
Aright guys, here is my current dilemma. I own the 35mm f/2 IS, I love it, the images it produces are phenomenal, I particularly love the vignette and the 3D feel I get out of it at f.2... It is very sharp, and being a pixel peeper I love the very low amount of CA (otherwise I would just get the version I). But I use it almost exclusively on my 6D, and it makes me really sad to have many other L lenses that I rarely use (like the 135mm that I love but rarely comes out) and are weather sealed but the focal length I use 70% of the time is not. I live in Southern California and I love taking pictures at the beach, but I avoid it because I don't want sand to ruin anything (even with weather sealed lenses I am ridiculously careful). Also, there is a sort of pride that you feel with the red ring, and since my main lens (35mm f/2 IS) is missing that red ring I feel super amateur around other photographers with their red rings. But I do have red rings laying around at home. But I love all of my lenses. I am thinking about letting go of my 24-70mm f/4 IS to fund my way to the 35mm f/1.4 ii but I don't know if I can give up my IS. Has anyone ever made the switch or have some ideas on what would work best?
Thanks.
p.1 #3 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
I've never owned a 35 prime with IS before, but I just came from the Sigma 35 Art and got the Canon 35L II 2 days ago. I haven't been able to shoot with it much, so I can't yet say if the rumors are true about how awesome it is. However, I almost always shoot my 35mm primes wide open, and have not found myself needing IS because I can usually get fast enough shutter speeds at relatively low ISO's. I also recently sold my 135, and haven't missed it at all. I don't know what type of shooting you do, but I've never even been tempted by a 24-70. I either want ultrawide, 35, 85, or 70-200. Personally I think you'll love it. I'd rather shoot with what seems to be a legendary lens like the 35LII any day.
p.1 #5 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
gerikson wrote:
Why should you care what other photographers think? If you enjoy your lens and get great results from it, keep using it.
+1
I absolutely agree, I think I inherited GAS from my dad haha. While that was a very small part of my reason to upgrade it did come up often enough for me to mention it. The 135L was an impulse buy, everyone said it was a legend and the greatest thing since sliced bread. I do agree, It is a phenomenal lens but I already have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS ii (it is much heaver). The 135L is amazing, but I feel like I have to be so far back to get my subject and surroundings in frame. I might have to sell it but I don't want to do it and just go buy it again when I miss it. I am thinking of selling my 24-70mm f/4L IS but worry I will miss the 24mm FL for a more environmental shot. I do want to keep my lens, and I do get great results, but I am limited in where and when I can feel comfortable using it (since it isn't weather sealed). Not only that, the 35L ii is much more robust. I would have to sell off at least the 35 IS, 135L, and the 24-70L to afford it. Which would leave me with only the 35L ii, 85 f/1.8, and the 70-200 IS ii... What do you guys think? I am sure someone has had a similar experience? Thanks
p.1 #6 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
I own both - they are very surprisingly different lenses the way they render - nevermind weight and IS.
If 35mm is your FL, I wouldn't sell the F2 IS to get the 35Lii - they are complimentary. If you are getting paid for indoor event work buy the 35Lii so you can shoot at F1.4 to F2 tack sharp across the entire frame it is Otus sharp and without pier.
For everything else the 35f2 IS is superb - so much lighter, the IS is fantastic, F2.2 is tack sharp in the center, the AF never misses and the lens renders beautifully. It also works very well on the 5dsr where IS lenses are needed.
p.1 #7 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
You have no rationale to get an L f1.4. Your post is a textbook example of GAS. Some of us sold L 35s to get the 35/2 IS as in my opinion it is way better value and with indistinguishable results (except at f1.4 obviously).
p.1 #9 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
SpencerMark ii wrote:
Also, there is a sort of pride that you feel with the red ring, and since my main lens (35mm f/2 IS) is missing that red ring I feel super amateur around other photographers with their red rings...
p.1 #11 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
Looking through your Flickr, you sure do like that lens at the moment. You're using it where I'd be using a different focal length. Are you sure it isn't a short-lived phase that will pass? Or is it that you're mostly photographing people and you don't want/have time to swap lenses?
There are several shots in particular at what looks like an agricultural show that I'd have used 85mm if I could have got the lens on in time. For example, the cow with the big head has the big head because its head is much closer to the camera than tne rest of it. (You have to stand much closer to the cow to frame it with 35mm than with 85mm.) We don't notice normally when standing that close to the cow because we tend to look at one part of the cow at a time. But when it's a photo, we do notice, and it looks odd.
There are some other shots nearby of amusement rides that appear cropped - I'd have used a wider focal length, say 24mm. I know it's easier said than done when photography is happening as an adjunct to the main activity - this is what zoom lenses are good for.
So maybe you will ease up on the 35mm, and maybe you should.
If you *are* going to walk around with a 35mm lens on your camera most of the time, think carefully about the weight. The Mk II is big and heavy. Leaving aside the weather sealing, I really think you'd be better off with a different type of camera. I have a Sony RX1, which is a full frame compact with a fixed 35mm f/2 lens and no IS. It can be had used for around 1/3 what the Canon 35mm f/1.4 II would cost, and is tiny in comparison. This is the camera I take if a single 35mm focal length is enough. It isn't weather sealed, but I can quickly stow it if necessary.
Finally, about cameras and lenses on the beach. I live half a mile from the beach and often shoot on the foreshore, but I try never to be on the sand if there's wind. I've definitely had my Canon 35mm f/1.4 (first version) on a pier, and at least one other of my L lenses that isn't weather sealed. But any lens can be wrecked by flying sand, and fine spray can make a mess of your sensor if you change lenses, requiring a wet clean.
p.1 #12 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
I am the epitome of GAS!
I went on a lens purging rampage last year, and ended up with more lenses afterward than what I had when I started. The thing is, they are all good lenses and I can see a purpose for all of them. But, I use just a few of them.
I'm at a loss as to how to do the lens purge next time in a manner in which I end up with fewer lenses than what I had to start with!
p.1 #13 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
SpencerMark ii wrote:
Aright guys, here is my current dilemma. I own the 35mm f/2 IS, I love it, the images it produces are phenomenal, I particularly love the vignette and the 3D feel I get out of it at f.2... It is very sharp, and being a pixel peeper I love the very low amount of CA (otherwise I would just get the version I). But I use it almost exclusively on my 6D, and it makes me really sad to have many other L lenses that I rarely use (like the 135mm that I love but rarely comes out) and are weather sealed but the focal length I use 70% of the time is not. I live in Southern California and I love taking pictures at the beach, but I avoid it because I don't want sand to ruin anything (even with weather sealed lenses I am ridiculously careful). Also, there is a sort of pride that you feel with the red ring, and since my main lens (35mm f/2 IS) is missing that red ring I feel super amateur around other photographers with their red rings. But I do have red rings laying around at home. But I love all of my lenses. I am thinking about letting go of my 24-70mm f/4 IS to fund my way to the 35mm f/1.4 ii but I don't know if I can give up my IS. Has anyone ever made the switch or have some ideas on what would work best?
Thanks. ...Show more →
"sort of pride that you feel with the red ring, and since my main lens (35mm f/2 IS) is missing that red ring I feel super amateur around other photographers with their red rings. "
Sorry most of us here are photographers, not psychologists. Most of us fall in 3 camps -
- Hobbyist/Amateurs
- Semi-pro - paid work that covers the cost of gear and provides income
- Pro - people that make their primary living by taking photographs.
You are clearly in the first category. Nothing wrong with that! But difficult to give advice when there's no way to quantify the benefit. I earn income from my photography and use the gear that I need. Each lens and body has to produce a desirable return on investment or it get's sold. Pride on a red ring? I'll use any lens that will do the job. Low cost and high return is desirable, but I don't mind spending big bucks on lens if it makes economic sense.
Good luck and enjoy your hobby.
p.1 #14 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
So, you are too anal to take the $600 lens out of the bag, but the red ring would give you the courage to mount the $1,800 lens where you won't take your $600 one? Eh, I don't think so...
What are you shooting mostly?
The EF 35 2 IS is better than most red ring zooms & there is one lens in that FL range that tops it in the Canon line, and is a very pricey one. But it is also much bigger and heavier and less discreet and...its a different lens in so many more ways than the red ring and the $tag. i.e. it is much more expensive than the Sigma 35A too, but between those two the 35L II compares more directly.
The 35 2 IS is unique in giving you less excuses not to bring it along cause it is not the size of a f/2.8 standard zoom. Weather sealing is overrated for most amateurs imho...unless ofc you keep shooting your beach-scapes under water spray etc. but even if that's the case, the L sealing won't save the lens or your 6D after one point...or do you any good if it is sitting @ home along with the rest of your red-ringed lenses.
Doubt there is rationality that makes you long for the L, so...
If you can afford to buy the L without depriving you or your loved ones of anything really important (cause new toys for us are not important, really...), just buy it.
No need to seek approval or disapproval by strangers, or trying to make-up excuses...if you don't make good photos, you should will feel super-amateur regardless of what gear you are flashing.
p.1 #15 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
You said..."There is a sort of pride that you feel with the red ring, and since my main lens (35mm f/2 IS) is missing that red ring I feel super amateur around other photographers with their red rings." Well, I'm the opposite. I take pride when I use a non-L lens that delivers the similar performance (or better) as an L lens, and costs a fraction of the price. Examples of such lenses are the Canon 60mm 2.8, Canon 100mm f2, Contax Zeiss 50mm 1.7, Tokina 11-16mm, and others. From everything I read about the 35mm f2 IS, I believe it would also fall into this category.
I must say that your statement above would bring a big smile to anyone working in the marketing dept. at Canon.
p.1 #17 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
I own a handful of lenses. Sometimes I don't even know what all I have.
My most used lenses have the "red ring" BUT is that why I use them? Nope. If I had a "non red ring 300 2.8IS" I'd be using it.
I have a 35 f/2 and a 35 f/1.4. I use the f/2 about 95% more than I do the f/1.4. It's smaller. The weight doesn't concern me at all BUT it is SUPER convenient when I'm photographing a baseball game that I can throw the 35 f/2 in my GYM SHORTS pocket and only worry about carrying my 300 on a strap (not the camera). Swap out, super wide (for baseball). Easy peezy.
I contemplate selling my 35 1.4 about 1x per week. Why haven't I? I let my upload and sell expire () and there are two just magic photographs of my son that I've taken with it. Is each photo worth 1/2 the price of the lens? No, probably not. Has the lens made me the money it cost? No, because I reach for the f/2 more than I do the 1.4. It's size makes it convenient.
Don't let "a red ring" sway you. I shot an event last night with my "dated" 1DX's, alongside this guy using a D5 (Nikon) set up. There was another guy shooting. Know what he was using? Some cropper Nikon along with a Tamron zoom. Do you think he gave a hoot what we were using? no. He was busy making images.
p.1 #18 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
My feeling is you're looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Weather sealing in a camera or lens doesn't really guarantee anything and could be as much marketing as anything else (though it does seem Canon's top of the range gear is pretty resistant to at least water damage, based on personal experience).
If you're looking to spend some money, find a nice, small bag to carry your 6D, 35 and the 85/1.8 or 135L. And learn when to use each for the most effective results. Maybe also throw in a 50/1.8 since they're so cheap and relatively decent.
I'm curious what you shoot with the 24-70/4 (a lens I didn't like when I tested it) and 70-200/2.8II?. If in your position, I'd be looking at axing those two and getting a 1.4x teleconverter for the 135L. The tradeoff is no more IS, which indeed can be very useful on the tele lenses. If you need wider, perhaps a 24/2.8 (either version would be fine).
Shooting primes forces some discipline in how to visualize scenes. But you also have to be prepared to change lenses. I agree with a previous comment that your Flickr stream seems a bit one-dimensional where some of the images may have benefitted from the use of other lenses. But that's also a personal preference....
p.1 #19 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
Here is my reconstituted portfolio. Not one photo was shot with an L lens-NONE. Do you think any of these suffer from not being shot with an L lens? http://anscochrome.500px.com/home
p.1 #20 · Canon 35mm f/1.4L ii vs. Canon 35mm f/2 IS
anscochrome wrote:
Here is my reconstituted portfolio. Not one photo was shot with an L lens-NONE. Do you think any of these suffer from not being shot with an L lens? http://anscochrome.500px.com/home
) and there are two just magic photographs of my son that I've taken with it. Is each photo worth 1/2 the price of the lens? No, probably not. Has the lens made me the money it cost? No, because I reach for the f/2 more than I do the 1.4. It's size makes it convenient.