Jump to content

Canon 35/1.4L - did I get a bad one?


andreas_carl

Recommended Posts

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>00FVQL-28571984.jpg.f739053e054ce564a25d389988451d1c.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...