35/1.4 a sensible buy?

<p>Is 35/1.4 a good buy for FF if you have a 24-70/2.8?</p>

<p>I like the zoom a lot but I also like the simplicity of a prime. 35mm is possibly my favorite length although I also use 24mm (for landscapes in particular) and 70mm (for portraits).</p>

<p>I've heard good things about the 35/1.4. What was your impression after tossing the zoom?</p>

<p>I hear that 35/1.4 is frequently paired with a 135/2. How does that combo work? Is 35 - 135mm too stretched out?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To set things straight: I don't intend to get rid of the zoom. I want to know what added value the 35 / 1.4 can bring.</p>

<p>For me it's more a matter of portability than brightness because I often use flash. The zoom is good but if the prime delivers more snappy images, I'm willing to consider it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lots of people like the 35mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>I love my EF 35mm f/2, which is a lot cheaper, although it is also the only EF lens I've ever had fail on me (AF went out with a 'crunch'). It's now back in service after a fairly modest repair (by which I mean, a lot cheaper than buying another one used).</p>

>>> 35/1.4 a sensible buy?<P>

 

That's a question only you can answer. The switch from a 24-70/2.8 to a 35/1.4 worked for me, for the

kind of shooting I do; street photography and street portraiture. Most of <a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">these street portraits </a>were shot with a 35/1.4, and a couple with a 24-70/2.8. You may not see a dramatic difference, overall.<P>

 

As an aside, a few months ago I switched again. I now shoot with a 3.85mm f/2.8 which is built-in on my

iPhone.

<p>I've never used the 35 1.4, being more of a 24 mm person FF myself, but it's an L, and that speaks volumes.<br>

I don't think it's redundant to get a prime in a focal length that's covered by your zoom--I have the 24-105L and also the 85 1.2 L. The things you tend to get are a faster speed and a sharper image. To compare the sharpness of the 35 and your 24-70, take a look here:</p>

<p>http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>You'll notice a definite improvement in IQ with both lenses set to 2.8 (or at least I did).<br>

I do have the 135 2L. Probably the sharpest lens I've ever shot with. Back in the days of film before zooms became ubiquitous, I often paired a 35 or a 50 with a 135. Limiting yourself to those two focal lengths makes you zoom with your feet a lot more, but that is not a bad thing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The things you tend to get are a faster speed and a sharper image.<br /> To compare the sharpness of the 35 and your 24-70, take a look here:<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=101&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't really need extra speed or sharpness. The zoom is plenty sharp and fast enough with flash. What I'm after is superior IQ, "snap", portability and simplicity.</p>

<p>From your test, it looks like 35L is actually <em>less </em>sharp than the zoom at apertures larger than 2.8!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You'll notice a definite improvement in IQ with both lenses set to 2.8 (or at least I did).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not buying 35L in order to use it at 2.8. I buy it to use wide open or at f/8.</p>

<p>Do you, or other readers, mind posting some pictures taken with 35L ?</p>

<p>I'm also curious to hear stories about what you like about the 35L, what makes it stand out and how you deal with lens swaps.</p>

>>> Do you, or other readers, mind posting some pictures taken with 35L ?<P>

 

<a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/bw-gallery-1/">This set of pics</a> (except #12 & 21) were taken with a 35mm f/1.4 and

5DII.

<blockquote>

 

<p>>>> Do you, or other readers, mind posting some pictures taken with 35L ?<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/bw-gallery-1/" target="_blank">This set of pics</a> (except #12 & 21) were taken with a 35mm f/1.4 and 5DII.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>You do know how to find some weirdos ;)</p>

<p>How can you comfortably take a head shot with a wide angle? Was the very first pic taken with a different lens?</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You do know how to find some weirdos</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was intending on responding to your original question, but after this derogatory comment, I don't think I'll bother.</p>

>>> You do know how to find some weirdos ;)

 

They all started as strangers. But now consider them friends.

<p>The 135L is a wonderful lens, but I find that I usually take a 85mm lens along with the 35 if I know I will be indoors and take the 135 when I know I will be going outdoors and will have extra room. That is for FF. For crop I usually preferred the 35 and 50 but always felt cramped.</p>

<p>I really liked the feel of the 35L on the 40D and now the 5D2. A bit heavy but not bad. Actually, the 35L on the 40D was an awesome ~50mm equivalent and with the 1.6x the 35L's limited minimum focus distance wasn't such an issue and made for some interesting shots like this shot of a bee on a flower: <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20090919092448_40D_IMG_8949.html">35L @ f2 on a 40D</a>. </p>

<p>I really don't care much for the 35L wide open. Actually I can't find a single shot in my archive that was done at f1.4. Perhaps my old beat up copy just isn't as good as others. I always found the image too soft. I really like my copy starting around f1.8 with most shallow DoF shots around f/2 - f/2.2. </p>

<p>Here's a quick self portrait from a early learning flash session. Sorry for the poor lighting. Obviously f/1.6 was way too shallow for a real portrait and accounts for a lot of the out of focus areas but I think it also gives you a bit of sense of the 35L's feel of softness when near wide open: <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110923201944_5D2_IMG_5339.html">35L @ f/1.6 on 5D2 with one speedlite + umbrella.</a></p>

<p>This is stopped down just a bit more to f/1.8, natural light. This is getting close to the sweet spot of my copy when doing shallow DoF shots. I wish I would have shot it at f2.2 - but this is typical of why this lens pretty much lives on the 5D2: <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110815145923_5D2_IMG_3801.html">35L @ f/1.8 on 5D2</a> </p>

<p>Perhaps not as important to you; the bokeh of the 35L even when not wide open is very nice when focused closely. I'm not sure if the 24-70 at this same aperture & distance will have similar background feel it it: <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110922221757_5D2_IMG_5249.html">35L @ f/3.2 on 5D2</a>.</p>

<p>I think if you are buying a 35L to shoot wide open you might be let down a bit. However there are many examples here of shots wide open: <a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=277475">Photography On The Net - Lens Samples @ 35L</a>.</p>

<p>I would think if you are on a paid assignment the versatility of the 24-70 will win but the 35L is probably worth switching too for a few selective shots or if you need aperture values down around f/1.8 ... f/2.2 (just below the 24-70's range). The 35L's minimum focus distance could be a bit better too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>anon wrote:<br>

You do know how to find some weirdos ;)<br>

How can you comfortably take a head shot with a wide angle? Was the very first pic taken with a different lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where is your portfolio?</p>

 

>>> How can you comfortably take a head shot with a wide angle?

 

I don't understand your question.

 

 

>>> Was the very first pic taken with a different lens?

 

No. 35mm f/1.4 L

<p>I dun get it. Buy a prime for IQ but don't shoot it at f/2.8? They aren't as sharp at f/1.4 as many zooms at f/2.8 or f/4, but THE ZOOMS CAN'T GO TO f/1.4! Prime lenses are not for sharpness except within the aperture range that differentiates them from zooms! f/2.8 for a prime is stopped down, so it is sharper there than most zooms. If you shoot either one at f/8 it is going to give the SAME resolution. You shouldn't even be considering primes based on your viewpoint.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Prime lenses are not for sharpness.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Remarkable.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't really need extra speed or sharpness.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Then why on earth consider buying the 35L? Or any other prime for that matter?<br>

Seriously dude, you need to forget the idea and stick with the zoom. I am sure that 99% of 35L owners bought the lens for one or both of the following reasons:</p>

<p>1. It's fast for low light and increased bokeh.<br>

2. It's sharp.</p>

<p> </p>

3. And the red stripe puts others on notice you're a serious photographer.

<p>The 35mm f1.4 is one lens I would love to own, but considering the price and the fact that I own a 35mm f1.2 and the 24-70mm f2.8 already, I sort of put it on the back-burner, for now. Maybe one day though.<br>

In the future I might also consider the Zeiss 35mm f2 to replace my toy-like Canon 35mm f2. </p>

>>> In the future I might also consider the Zeiss 35mm f2 to replace my toy-like Canon 35mm f2.

 

I have one, in case you're interested...

<p>If you want to see comparable images then go to POTN "Lens Archives" or Flickr. When you ask for opinions in a forum be prepared to sort through the bull. My simple opinion is the 35L would be a great addition to your 24-70L and is an awesome lens. Whether it is a sensible buy, only you can determine that. Lenses tend to be like exercise equipment. People buy them with the great intention of using them but when they just sit in the corner with no use then they were not to sensible of a purchase. It all depends on you and whether or not you will use it once you buy it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seriously dude, you need to forget the idea and stick with the zoom.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>OK :D</p>

<p>Get the 35mm if youre goint to shoot a lot larger thatn 2.8.<br>

The 35mm 1.4 is my most used lens, and I often couple it with the 70-200 2.8L, these make up a great combo, especially for travelling. That said, I rarely use my 35mm at wider than 2.0, because where it really shines is from 2.0-5.6 (according to photozone, the center sharpness at 2.8 is the highest of ANY Canon lens. This is probably my best picture taken with the 35mm:<br>

<a href="

 

<p>I have both of these lenses. The 35mm is much more fun to use, but the zoom is a very practical choice for most situations. I use my 35mm with a 50mm and 24mm and this is my usual combination, unless I need the one-stop shop of the zoom (usually event shooting). 35mm is great lens and has wonderful imagery, but the 24-70 is very good too, just not as special.</p>

<p>Hi<br>

I think there is only one good reason for buying this lens, as part of a range of primes to cover the focal lengths you are interested in, otherwise this expensive and heavy lens is going to be sitting at home rather than in your kitbag. A zoom and a single prime is never a good idea unless it's a macro. Ditto I don't see how two primes can really cover general photography.<br>

So in my case 24 f2.8, 35 f2.0, 50 f1.4, 100 f2<br>

May not be your perfect choice but it's light, relativly inexpensive and the images are good.<br>

Hope thats of help<br>

Jim</p>

<p>I have both 24-70 zoom and f1,4 35 mm and use them, like Brad - for "street photography" on the 5D2. <br>

Putting it simply they're both good but the 35 mm is the best lens I ever had in all departments. I'm so glad I got it. </p>