Yeah, good catch, I missed those links somehow. The “review” hasn’t changed since the lens was announced, so the review still seems more like an impression of specs more than anything else, but the sample charts are nice. If he has it now, which makes sense based on the charts, we should receive a real review soon. That said, I think I’ll pass on this lens and wait for the stills L and not this hybrid thing.
tsdevine wrote:
Bryan had to have had the lens, to produce the results at the links below. He wouldn't have gotten those from Canon. Not saying he won't add to the review. But the structured lens testing he does appears to have been done.
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps. I didn't think to compare this from a stills perspective. Here I might actually side with Adobe's interpretation because it buys a little more usable image area, wider angle of view, at the wide end.
I would always want postprocessing software to emulate exactly what the viewfinder shows with distortion correction turned on. For my R3 and two lenses I tested (one RF, one EF) that crops in. The fact you can do this is one of (IMO, the few) advantages of an electronic viewfinder over an optical one.
To crop differently than the camera does takes us back to the bad old days of optical viewfinders that weren’t 100%. That wasn’t something I had to endure with my OM film gear and isn’t something I’d tolerate now.
IMO the Adobe behaviour as described is just incorrect with a lens like this that treats digital correction as part of the system. Capture One has a flag to do it either way, whose default in all the lens profiles I’ve used is to crop. If the crop matches the viewfinder, that would be correct. It does appear to on my lenses (I don’t have this one), since the crop doesn’t change when the thumbnail changes from the embedded one to one generated from the raw file.
Well, I finally had a chance to open the shipping box. I only opened it because it felt empty. Still won't have time to open the Canon box for a bit but it feels very light. I'll give it a whirl but I'm very discouraged by that German review as I thought Canon nailed this one with size, weight, and price. But now I'm thinking this is no $1500 lens and more like a $900 lens unless all you care about is focus breathing.
Popping back in, in hopes that I’d see enough user findings/images to have to eat crow based on my pre-release assumptions. Bring it on, fellas! I’m bored and would love to have been wrong, so that I can temporarily satiate myself with a new 35. lol
I saw that same German review and felt initially quite discouraged. However, I am growing increasingly fond of the lens, and will post more samples soon.
ashwinrao1 wrote:
I saw that same German review and felt initially quite discouraged. However, I am growing increasingly fond of the lens, and will post more samples soon.
As with many gear acquisitions, you won't really know until you've had some time to use it.
Have had my 35 RF 1.4 in hands a for days now. Amazed at how fast the auto focus is. Similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Image quality also looks similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Lens is longer than I would like but it’s very light weight and feels well built. Prefer a fatter shorter lens similar yo Sony 35mm GM. Probably over priced at $1499 but $1299 seems like a good sale price to me down the road. Overall have been very happy with the lens. Tracks kids running around much better then 35mm 1.8 RF or 50mm 1.2l RF.
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
Have had my 35 RF 1.4 in hands a for days now. Amazed at how fast the auto focus is. Similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Image quality also looks similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Lens is longer than I would like but it’s very light weight and feels well built. Prefer a fatter shorter lens similar yo Sony 35mm GM. Probably over priced at $1499 but $1299 seems like a good sale price to me down the road. Overall have been very happy with the lens. Tracks kids running around much better then 35mm 1.8 RF or 50mm 1.2l RF. ...Show more →
Since you have both, can you do some comparison photos between the Sony and Canon to show distortion, bokeh, and flare? I know this is a bit of work, but I'm curious if the Sony has as much distortion as the Canon and how the bokeh compares between the two.
artsupreme wrote:
Since you have both, can you do some comparison photos between the Sony and Canon to show distortion, bokeh, and flare? I know this is a bit of work, but I'm curious if the Sony has as much distortion as the Canon and how the bokeh compares between the two.
Eh, I know you can determine a lot from those charts but I'd rather see actual images. Real images with subjects and BG's that show how differently the lenses render the backgrounds and bokeh.
Don’t have a Sony system anymore to compare. But had the Sony 35mm GM for a few years. Bokeh looks the same to me. Have not done any shooting into direct soon to compare flare or see how it performs. Distortion looks similar to Sony 35 GM, Tamron EF 35mm 1.4. I’m not a pro photographer thought and many take pictures or family and travel. artsupreme wrote:
Since you have both, can you do some comparison photos between the Sony and Canon to show distortion, bokeh, and flare? I know this is a bit of work, but I'm curious if the Sony has as much distortion as the Canon and how the bokeh compares between the two.
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
Don’t have a Sony system anymore to compare. But had the Sony 35mm GM for a few years. Bokeh looks the same to me. Have not done any shooting into direct soon to compare flare or see how it performs. Distortion looks similar to Sony 35 GM, Tamron EF 35mm 1.4. I’m not a pro photographer thought and many take pictures or family and travel.
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
Have had my 35 RF 1.4 in hands a for days now. Amazed at how fast the auto focus is. Similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Image quality also looks similar to Sony 35mm 1.4 GM. Lens is longer than I would like but it’s very light weight and feels well built. Prefer a fatter shorter lens similar yo Sony 35mm GM. Probably over priced at $1499 but $1299 seems like a good sale price to me down the road. Overall have been very happy with the lens. Tracks kids running around much better then 35mm 1.8 RF or 50mm 1.2l RF. ...Show more →
How bad is the rattle of the lens elements when the camera is not powered on?
Well folks I don't know about y'all but IMHO this lens is a disappointment. No focus breathing is the only thing that the VCM offers compared to the GM. Basically you won't need any in-camera focus breathing corrections for the VCM, but it only matters for video shooters. The GM is 26g lighter, a fraction smaller, offers better reproduction ratio (0.26x vs 0.18x), doesn't require a distortion correction, same severe vignetting, $100 cheaper. It's a 3 years old design. I'll be definitely waiting for a true "L" lens...
While I hate to agree the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM lens seems miles ahead of the RF 35mm 1.4l. Will need to use the canon lens more but still my favored lens is the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM.
docusync wrote:
Well folks I don't know about y'all but IMHO this lens is a disappointment. No focus breathing is the only thing that the VCM offers compared to the GM. Basically you won't need any in-camera focus breathing corrections for the VCM, but it only matters for video shooters. The GM is 26g lighter, a fraction smaller, offers better reproduction ratio (0.26x vs 0.18x), doesn't require a distortion correction, same severe vignetting, $100 cheaper. It's a 3 years old design. I'll be definitely waiting for a true "L" lens...
matejphoto wrote:
How bad is the rattle of the lens elements when the camera is not powered on?
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
Seems minimum to me. Way less rattle and noise than my 85mm 1.4 is EF lens.
True, except that the 85mm doesn't rattle at all if you "park it correctly" (turn off the camera & wait for the clonk before removing the lens.) There's no such parking function on the 35L that I could find.
My 85mm seems to rattle all the time. It’s adapted thought. Optically it’s perfect. Don’t notice any noise from the 35mm 1.4 from canon.
stanj wrote:
True, except that the 85mm doesn't rattle at all if you "park it correctly" (turn off the camera & wait for the clonk before removing the lens.) There's no such parking function on the 35L that I could find.
jjjwolf7722 wrote:
My 85mm seems to rattle all the time. It’s adapted thought. Optically it’s perfect. Don’t notice any noise from the 35mm 1.4 from canon.
The rattle should be there in the 35L, see the 6min mark:
If we are worried about a little rattle maybe we need to rethink everything about what we are doing. This lens is light, compact, weather sealed, fast focusing, somewhat cheap and well built. All the minor subjective things are silly to debate (distortion, flare, bokeh). Is it Sony price, no. I just carried the lens around for a hour taking photos of kids and it seems similar to Sony 35mm 1.4GM which I would say is the best 35mm lens made. Maybe Tamron 35mm 1.4 EF a close runner up.
artsupreme wrote:
The rattle should be there in the 35L, see the 6min mark:
