Don Clary wrote:
After looking at the examples in the digital picture, 35L, switching between f1.4 and f2: that softness and low contrast wide open, that improves so much by f2, is exactly what I see in the Canon 50mm f1.4. Both lenses show softness and low contrast wide open, and both quite significantly improve by f2.
Why is it that this is perfectly O.K in the 35L, but a fatal flaw in the 50 f1.4?
Late reply, but I can offer up a couple reasons why this is the case for me personally.
1. Style of shooting. With the inherent extra DoF and field of view of the 35mm over the 50mm I\'m usually not looking for maximum separation in my compositions @35mm
2. Bokeh. I find the characteristic of the 50 1.4 to be highly nervous wide open and that it improves significantly when stopped down to f/1.8 - f/2. While the 35L\'s bokeh is not really anything to write home about, it doesn\'t change much when stopped down nor do I find it as objectionable as the 50 1.4 wide open. Also, generally not going for maximum bokeh with the 35L--see point 1.
3. Shutter speed. When I\'m shooting around f/2 and my shutter speed drops below the safe zone I\'m more likely to open the lens to max aperture than raise the ISO. I find 1/30th, f/1.8 @ ISO 1600 covers most of the nighttime shooting I do. With the 50mm I prefer to drop to f/1.2 or f/1.4 to get a safe shutter speed rather than raise the ISO over 1600.
Then, as others pointed out, the 35L is still better than the 50 1.4 wide open. For whatever reason I completely dismissed the 35L--I only rented one because I was hoping I could consolidate to having two primes and 35/85 was the most useful spread. I did my initial testing wide open and wasn\'t particularly impressed.
Once in the field, though, I found myself shooting mostly at f/1.8. The files immediately stood out as being significantly sharper and contrastier than any other canon lens I\'ve used to date. While the 35mm focal length couldn\'t replace the 50mm for me, it instantly made it on list for the next lens purchase.
Here\'s a couple examples from the field. They\'re just snapshots but I feel they show the characteristic of the lens well.
35L @ f/1.8, 1/125th ISO 100. Straight LR export, no PP.
Don Clary wrote:
After looking at the examples in the digital picture, 35L, switching between f1.4 and f2: that softness and low contrast wide open, that improves so much by f2, is exactly what I see in the Canon 50mm f1.4. Both lenses show softness and low contrast wide open, and both quite significantly improve by f2.
Why is it that this is perfectly O.K in the 35L, but a fatal flaw in the 50 f1.4?
Late reply, but I can offer up a couple reasons why this is the case for me personally.
1. Style of shooting. With the inherent extra DoF and field of view of the 35mm over the 50mm I\'m usually not looking for maximum separation in my compositions @35mm
2. Bokeh. I find the characteristic of the 50 1.4 to be highly nervous wide open and that it improves significantly when stopped down to f/1.8 - f/2. While the 35L\'s bokeh is not really anything to write home about, it doesn\'t change much when stopped down nor do I find it as objectionable as the 50 1.4 wide open. Also, generally not going for maximum bokeh with the 35L--see point 1.
3. Shutter speed. When I\'m shooting around f/2 and my shutter speed drops below the safe zone I\'m more likely to open the lens to max aperture than raise the ISO. I find 1/30th, f/1.8 @ ISO 1600 covers most of the nighttime shooting I do. With the 50mm I prefer to drop to f/1.2 or f/1.4 to get a safe shutter speed rather than raise the ISO over 1600.
Then, as others pointed out, the 35L is still better than the 50 1.4 wide open. For whatever reason I completely dismissed the 35L--I only rented one because I was hoping I could consolidate to having two primes and 35/85 was the most useful spread. I did my initial testing wide open and wasn\'t particularly impressed.
Once in the field, though, I found myself shooting mostly at f/1.8. The files immediately stood out as being significantly sharper and contrastier than any other canon lens I\'ve used to date. While the 35mm focal length couldn\'t replace the 50mm for me, it instantly made it on list for the next lens purchase.
Here\'s a couple examples from the field. They\'re just snapshots but I feel they show the characteristic of the lens well.
35L @ f/1.8, 1/125th ISO 100. Straight LR export, no PP.
Don Clary wrote:
After looking at the examples in the digital picture, 35L, switching between f1.4 and f2: that softness and low contrast wide open, that improves so much by f2, is exactly what I see in the Canon 50mm f1.4. Both lenses show softness and low contrast wide open, and both quite significantly improve by f2.
Why is it that this is perfectly O.K in the 35L, but a fatal flaw in the 50 f1.4?
Late reply, but I can offer up a couple reasons why this is the case for me personally.
1. Style of shooting. With the inherent extra DoF and field of view of the 35mm over the 50mm I\'m usually not looking for maximum separation in my compositions @35mm
2. Bokeh. I find the characteristic of the 50 1.4 to be highly nervous wide open and that it improves significantly when stopped down to f/1.8 - f/2. While the 35L\'s bokeh is not really anything to write home about, it doesn\'t change much when stopped down nor do I find it as objectionable as the 50 1.4 wide open. Also, generally not going for maximum bokeh with the 35L--see point 1.
3. Shutter speed. When I\'m shooting around f/2 and my shutter speed drops below the safe zone I\'m more likely to open the lens to max aperture than raise the ISO. I find 1/30th, f/1.8 @ ISO 1600 covers most of the nighttime shooting I do. With the 50mm I prefer to drop to f/1.2 or f/1.4 to get a safe shutter speed rather than raise the ISO over 1600.
Then, as others pointed out, the 35L is still better than the 50 1.4 wide open. For whatever reason I completely dismissed the 35L--I only rented one because I was hoping I could consolidate to having two primes and 35/85 was the most useful spread. I did my initial testing wide open and wasn\'t particularly impressed.
Once in the field, though, I found myself shooting mostly at f/1.8. The files immediately stood out as being significantly sharper and contrastier than any other canon lens I\'ve used to date. While the 35mm focal length couldn\'t replace the 50mm for me, it instantly made it on list for the next lens purchase.
Here\'s a couple examples from the field. They\'re just snapshots but I feel they show the characteristic of the lens well.
35L @ f/1.8, 1/125th ISO 100. Straight LR export, no PP.
