andreas_carl Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Hi everyone, I just received this lens last week and am using it on my Canon 5D - from all the reviews I read, I expected this lens to be really sharp, even wide open, but it is not - unless I stop it down to f4.0 Here is a sample photo (center crop from a very large file), top is f1.4 center is f2.8 bottom is f4.0 This is a brand new lens, manufactured in Japan in 2006 - I can still return it... but too bad, cause I waited many weeks to get my hands on one.... VERY DISAPPOINTED.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 You can expect it to be less sharp at f/1.4 than at f/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_white2 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Autofocus? Manual focus? Tripod? Hand-held? Shutter speed? These are some of the factors you might want to include with your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Autofocus - no tripod - shutterspeeds between 1/2000, 1/500 and 1/200 respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelschrag Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Please provide some of the information that Peter mentioned. Also, check the following link which suggests that the 1.4L is relatively soft in the center wide open (and in comparison to the Sigma 30mm).http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/30v35s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew robertson Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Maybe try manual focus too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I've never used this lens, and I would expect great things from an "L" prime, but I suspect this is about normal. Fast primes are not sharp wide open, and 100% crops will surely show this. The bottom pic is very sharp which tells me the lens is capable of greatness. The progression from f/1.4 to 2.8 to 4.0 seems about right. Hopefully, you you will get an answer from a real live actual user that is more to your liking, and he will prove me wrong. But from what I see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_louie Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Ummm Here is an available light shot 5d, 35mm f1.4, wide open hand held: http://www.photo.net/photo/4182741 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
les Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Strangely, Canon L lenses are like ghosts: everyone talks about excellent optical performance - but it is hard to see it at times. Not that I am complaining about my Ls: but seriously, after comparing with some Sigma EX - I am 50% convinced that the unmatched optical quality of Canon L is just that - a myth. Where the value of Canon Ls lies (IMHO) is build, IS and excellent AF. And of course the price: everyone is envious, but this does not translate into image quality... Whether or not it is worth the price tag of good third party lens x2 - it is a matter of individual preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Looks fairly normal. You would not expect peak performance below about f4. The top shot doesn't look particularly unsharp for an f1.4 lens shot wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelschrag Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Leszek, I recently switched from Nikon to Canon (20D now thinking about my next purchase). I am dismayed by what I am reading and seeing when Canon lenses (on the short end) are compared with Nikon, Olympus and various 3rd party lenses. It seems as though the short end glass compares about the same to 3rd party lenses. Then when I see the Nikon 17-35mm reviews I have to conclude that if you want the best lenses its better to buy a Nikon body for the short end and a Canon for the long end lenses. I've known about this for years but thought things had changed. Next pucrhcase - Nikon D200? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonnalos Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Andreas - I have a 35mm f/1.4 L, and I got good performance out of it at f/1.4 in a middle distance test shot (subject at about 15 feet) on a tripod. Even then, I still saw improvement when stopping the lens down to f/2.8 or f/4. I also tested a friend's 35mm f/1.4 on his 5D, and it also showed significant improvement from f/1.4 to f/4. Your f/1.4 crop at infinity is of normal performance - nothing that should cause alarm. I do think you're missing the point of the f/1.4 lens though. Really, it is about the "look" it can provide when shot wide open. It's the three dimensional look of a sharp plane of focus combined with great color and contrast, shallow depth of field, and beautiful bokeh. I would recommend shooting some real life shots to see if this lens meets your expectations. I've noticed this more and more with lenses that I've tested - shoot them at infinity and they aren't all that impressive, but shoot with them in real world conditions and the results are great. I'd bet if you shoot friends/family for a day with the lens set wide open the entire time, you'd find that it provided exactly what you were after. Hope this helps! Sheldon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 THANKS ! I am amazed by the number of quick responses and happy to hear that this is normal behavior for this lens. To be honest, at f2.8 and most definitey at f4.0 I am perfectly happy with this lens, especially under "real" condition. I was only worried after I started to "pixel-peep" and thought perhaps I got a lemon and there might be better versions of this lens available... By the way, my 50/1.4 behaves pretty much the same, and somehow I had thought that the 35L would be better in that respect. On the long end, I find both the 135L perfect and 70-200 (almost) perfect wide open. Is this really a matter of Canon versus Nikon, or is it more difficult to correct wide angle lenses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Sheldon: You are right, it is exactly the shallow depth of field, and beautiful bokeh of this lens I was after and I am very happy with it! Thanks...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_m2 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Before you rush out and buy the Sigma 30/1.4, keep in mind that corner performance (well, even anything not in the center) is just awful on many samples of that lens, and that Sigma autofocus has compatibility problems with Canon in my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 No lens is "really sharp" at f/1.4. Not even this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrio Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 >>No lens is "really sharp" at f/1.4. Not even this one.<< <p> Well, the 85mm f/1.2L is <b>very</b> sharp at f/1.4...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 It is just about impossible to evaluate a single lens on it's own, and even more difficult to do over the internet. If you have another lens whether it be a telephoto zoom or a 50mm prime, whatever, test the two of them together. Same scene, adjust your shooting distance from lens to lens to keep the field of view of each shot relatively close in size. Use same apertures, 3 or 4 different ones, as you did, and chech the results the same way. Now each lens will definitely perform differently, and of course some lenses are much better than others, but you will get an indication of how your lenses perform with respect to each other and if one may have something wrong with it. It is best of course to compare to a similar prime like a 28/2.8 or 50/1.8 and for instance I would start out by not expecting the 35/1.4 to be sharper at f1.8 than a 50/1.8, but if it is then you know you've made a great investment. Also note than a zoom lens will perform differently at various focal lengths. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Sorry, just saw your post above and I see that you have compared your lens which is the best way. As for how different focal legth lenses perform against each other, take the 50mm f1.8 lens as standard. As you deviate each way to wideangle and to telephoto it gets increasingly difficult to achieve similar optical performance. Also as you design lenses that have wider maximum apertures than is typical for it's focal length it becomes much more difficult to achieve similar optical performance. Then once again if you ask a lens to zoom, or then to zoom an incredible amount like 28-300, it becomes even more difficult to achieve similar performance. Obviously you are very happy with your 70-200/2.8 because it offers flexibility, but I am sure if you test it at f2.8 against your 135L at f2.8 the 135 will be much better, for that one limited length. This is just an example of how the manufacturers have to reconcile performance with cost and market placement and that we as consumers must familiarize ourselves with. As for Nikon being better at wideangle and Canon being better at telephoto, I am not too sure about this one. I have Canon EF lenses, I have had many Canon FD lenses in the past, and now I have several of the best Nikon lenses, and of course each lens performs differently so I have not seen a trend. My Nikon 14mm performs similarly to my previous FD 17mm, although with more linear distortion, and my Nikon 200/2 blows away my previous FD 200/2.8 but both of these results is to be expected. Later this month I will have the opportunity to test two competing lenses head to head for the first time. I will be getting a Nikon 400/2.8 AIS that is of the same vintage as my previous FD Canon 400/2.8 L and will be performing the same optical test, so for the first time I will be able to get an indication of the difference between Canon and Nikon in one particular lens design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savas_kyprianides Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Sheldons succint description brings an anaolgy. Canon L lenses are like fine cheese. If it smells like roquefort, do not expect it to taste like camembert. Just enjoy the taste of roquefort and use it creatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelschrag Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Andreas, FWIW - here are some ephotozine tests: http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=349 http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=361 The 35mm f/1.4 L showing similar results, qualitatively, to your pictures posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Andreas, if you have indeed focused at infinity, then this lens is a lemon. send it back for a replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pturton Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I think my 35L is as sharp at f/1.4 as my 135L at f/2 on my 10D & 20D. I've not had opportunity to give the 35L a real workout but here is my first image with my 35L. HH, f/1.4, 1/15, ISO 100. http://www.photo.net/photo/4171567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 John: thanks for your good advise regarding lens testing - the main reason why I am using the infinity setting is because it is the view right off my balcony and it gives me plenty of tiny detail in the distance. By the way, my 70-200L is really AS SHARP as my 135L, I have a hard time telling them apart. Will post a sample below. Paul: Could you do me a BIG favour and test your new 35L against your 135L like I did? I find that my 135L is really excellent wide open and does improve very little when closed down. Same with my 70-200IS. That's why I was so surprised that the 35L needed to be closed to f4.0 to become "perfect". Please try to test this if you have time, and let us know, but I suspect that Bob Atkins is right (as usual ;-) and that my results are indeed the typical behavior for this lens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreas_carl Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 Same scene (but different time of day, so different color balance):<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now