Got a new 35 f1.4 L!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by VirtualRain, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. VirtualRain, Jan 9, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011

    VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #1
    Any gear heads here may appreciate this.

    [​IMG]

    I purchased this pre-owned 35mm f1.4 L from a fellow on POTN and it came late last week. I had a chance to shoot some low light interior shots and also go out in the sun today (samples below).

    What a fantastic lens! It's a bit softer than my 17-55 at f1.4, but that actually works-out perfectly for indoor portraits and family shots. At f2 it's on par with the 17-55 and at f2.8 or better, it's sharper than my 17-55.

    It's the perfect focal length for indoor work on the 7D crop body (at least I find).

    It was a sizeable investment, but it's a lot of fun.

    A few of my first shots...

    f1.4:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    f2.8:

    [​IMG]

    f11:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Xander562 macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #2
    Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos! Night Photos!

    Let's see some, it's where this lens will shine. Or a sport like basketball or something.

    I've been looking into this lens myself.
     
  3. Love macrumors 68000

    Love

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2007
    Location:
    Just southeast of Northwestshire
    #3
    Very nice! I don't shoot Canon myself but that's an awesome lens. Very nice pictures too! Vancouver provides such nice opportunities for photography.
     
  4. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #4
    35mm does not make a sports lens. ;)

    f1.4 and wide means hand held night photos possible in some conditions, as I can take night photos with 20-35mm f2.8 fine (Nikon though).
     
  5. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #5
    Why not?

    [​IMG]
    *stolen from Photo.net, credit to Robbie Caswell
     
  6. beowulf70 macrumors regular

    beowulf70

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #6
    Looks like you'll be enjoying that lovely bit of kit for a while. Great to see Vancouver from an old viewpoint of mine. Thanks! No shortage of awesome photo ops there. Enjoy:cool:
     
  7. joemod macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #7
    How did he manage this DOF with 1.4F aperture? Even the crowd seems in focus while I expected to be blurred :confused:
     
  8. Xander562 macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #8
    But the f/1.4 has gotta help some.

    I see what you mean though. It just depends on what you're looking for in a sports shot. Not everything has to be cropped as close as possible. Sometimes it's nice to see a wider perspective. Additionally, long lenses will make the photographer shoot from a distance. Namely where the audience is. If this is the case, the photographer is getting the exact same perspective that everyone else gets. I personally think this makes for a dull picture, the closer the photographer is to the action at unusual angles, the better.
     
  9. Xander562 macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #9
    The wider the lens, the less noticeable the bokeh is. Also the distance of subject only further decreases the shallow focus. In this case both of these make the shallow DOF unnoticeable.
     
  10. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #10
    It's one of my favourite lenses. I often seem to end up with that on my 7D :D
     
  11. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #11
    Congrats OP!

    That lens rarely leaves my camera. I adore it!
     
  12. CrackedButter macrumors 68040

    CrackedButter

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Location:
    51st State of America
    #12
    I have a 24mm f1.4. Wide open you get a ton of vignetting. I'm surprised by your first shot because it looks like there is practically none! Some of my friends want this lens so bad. Well done.
     
  13. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #13
    Is that on a full-frame or APS-C camera? I've not really noticed much with the 35L on either of the APS-C cameras I've used it on. Not had the opportunity to try it on full-frame...
     
  14. jabbott macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #14
    Hey VirtualRain, I'm glad to see you are experimenting with a prime lens now. I remember our conversation a few weeks ago where you said you were considering it. :D It's a lot of fun, isn't it?
     
  15. petjuli macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #15
    Jealous! Been eyeballing that lens for a while this might have pushed me over the edge. Just a couple of questions

    That 2.8 shot of the playground is amazingly sharp! Is that straight out of camera or did you do any post?

    The F11 shot doesn't seem that sharp at all, especially the buildings. Its probably from the resize though, can you post a crop at 100% of the buildings from that shot? Was your focus point on that shot the beach or the island in background?
     
  16. MacProDude macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, CA
    #16
    I freaking love the 35L/1.4 on the APS-C sensor. It's been on my 7D for at least 90% of the indoor shots I've taken in the last 10 months or so since I got one.

    It's not as good in some common lighting (mostly outdoors) where you get near (green) and far (purple) CA, at least at wider apertures.

    CrackedButter - I agree with robbieduncan - Vignetting is not an issue with this lens on APS-C.
     
  17. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #17
    My 50 1.4 on my 5DII had some major CA wide open, but I've been able to tone it down quite a bit via the Lens Microadjusting, using the default 0 setting 1.4 was not only CA but quite fuzzy, not sharp at all. It's still not as clean as I'd like, but it is leaps and bounds ahead of where I started. SO, if you have a newer body that can microadjust, spend some time and do it.
     
  18. MacProDude macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, CA
    #18
    So, that's really good feedback that might help out some ppl with a similar issue, but from the sound of it, your 5.0/1.4 needed microadjustment for focus issues to begin with, and apparently once you had proper focus, as a result it helped with CA. Interesting!

    My 35L/1.4 is adjusted just fine, and it's quite sharp on my 7D. It's one of the things I love about it. I've read enough about others' experiences with the 35L to feel comfortable that CA is pretty common with this lens. It's significant enough to be aware of. It might be a deal-killer for some, but personally, it's not significant enough for me to be an major issue. I still love the lens.
     
  19. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #19
    Also, with the 35, it is an L verses my far cheaper 1.4, which means better glass, coatings etc. I accept that CA is going to happen more often than not at wide open with these super fast primes, it was just a bit extreme for me. The difference after the microadjust was quite noticeable and I kick myself for not doing it sooner.

    When you read reviews on lenses from people who 'sent it back' to Canon half a dozen times all their doing is fine micro-tuning until it works great on their own camera. I could potentially put my same 50 on another 5DII and have a much better experience with no microadjusting. When you're dealing with a DoF that millimeters deep you can bet that any variation between lens build/body build will result in something being off.

    To the OP.. I'm jealous of that lens. I would love to have my own. Sadly, with my current lineup that one falls 2 or 3 lenses down the row. I rented one once and got one of my best bridals ever.

    [​IMG]

    Canon EOS 5D Mark II :: 35 mm :: f 6.3 :: 1/400 sec :: iso 200

    Looks incredible on Metallic paper.
     
  20. VirtualRain, Jan 10, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011

    VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #20
    Yeah, it was thanks to you and a bunch of other folks in this thread that got me thinking about this...
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1063061

    Over Christmas I actually rented both a Sigma 30mm f1.4 and a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (since the 50mm was so strongly recommended in the above thread). I actually found the 50mm focal length on my 7D to be too narrow and found little use for it. However, I took over 600 shots that weekend with the Sigma 30mm f1.4 but found only 1 in 5 was in focus. I must have had a really bad copy, but Sigma lenses are notoriously bad for AF issues :confused:.

    At any rate, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 convinced me of the merits of a wide fast prime for shooting indoor portraits: you can easily get 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speeds in subdued indoor lighting and the DOF is sufficient (if the AF hits) to capture your subject in focus while nicely blurring the background. I also found that, although these primes can be a bit softer wide open than my 17-55, it's not a real negative, and in fact, can be a positive.

    So, I owe this enlightenment to most people who contributed to the above thread (which I hijacked :eek:).

    In the end, because of the Sigma focus issues (which appear to be wide-spread) which necessitates buying from a local dealer (so you can keep taking it back until you get one that works), and the cost of that here in Canada, it wasn't much more of a leap to go to a pre-owned Canon 35L. Hence, that's what I ended up with. Out of the 200-300 shots I've taken over the weekend, it's AF performance was the inverse of the Sigma, with about 80% being keepers instead of 20%.

    That's the story behind this.

    @ petjuli... I'll look at the pic of the buildings again this evening and post a crop. It looked plenty sharp to me in Aperture. However, it's unlikely I will use this lens much for landscape shots. My 17-55 will still be my goto lens for outdoor work. BTW, All the photos have a bit of post sharpening added... the landscapes more than the portraits.
     
  21. mtbdudex macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #21
    VirtualRain - I've thought about the 35mm f1.4 L......darn you this thread might me induce me to pony up for it come tax refund time....

    I like the Canon 50mm 1.4 prime I have now, but it's just "too tight" for so many shots indoors at home or when I used it for Christmas church service (in front row) on my crop T1i.
     
  22. lostgear macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    #22
    I'm probably going to be flamed here, but isn't that lens wasted on a 7d. An APSc would only use 30% of the glass in the 30mm f1.4 EF.

    I mention this because it is the last argument I have stopping me getting one for my 40d and you chaps are not helping. I wonder if Canon will ever make a fast EFs prime?
     
  23. TWLreal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    #23
    It is wasted in that an APS-C sensor will only use about 38% of the image projected by a full frame lens. You would be correct.

    But since full frame lenses can be used on APS-C sensors with little to no ill effects, should you wish to use a $1,369 USD 35mm f/1.4 lens on a 1.6x sensor to give you an equivalent of 56mm, you can do so.

    The "waste" is up to you to decide if you value the lens' optics and features and upgradability to full frame. Or you can use smaller image circle lenses specifically for smaller sensors such as the one in the original poster's camera. That is your decision.
    I wouldn't hold my breath.
     
  24. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #24
    Of course, one benefit to that waste of glass, is that your sensor is using more of the sweet spot of the lens. Which in the case of the 35L is rather significant according to this sharpness data from photozone when on a 5DII. There is a dramatic fall-off in sharpness toward towards the edge of the frame...

    [​IMG]

    Having said that, it would be nice to have the option of buying a high-end EFS prime in this focal length. The 60mm Macro is a fantastic lens but way too tight for me indoors.
     
  25. TWLreal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    #25
    One should point out that despite the seemingly dramatic graph provided, the border and extreme corners still score 1927 LW/PH and 1437 LW/PH respectively on a 21 megapixels EOS 5D Mark II which is higher and almost as good as the same lens on a 8 megapixels EOS 350D of only 1574 LW/PH at the borders.

    Of course, this only matters to people who enjoy knowing how well their lens shoots test charts and how much resolving power they have at the corners.
     

Share This Page