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

[andreas_carl]

And here the same with the 70-200IS lens at 135:<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

I seriously doubt that John will be able to substantiate his claims with actual data.

[michaelschrag]

Sorry - I meant Paul.

[stacy]

Hmm- I just bought a 35mm and a 5D too and I have been very impressed with how sharp the lens is. Have you tried any other shots?

 

I don't have any at 1.4, but here is 100% crop at 1.8:<div></div>

[kenghor]

I had 2 copies of the 35L and they certainly sharp wide open. However, between these 2

copies, there are are some variations in the colour and contrast. One copy was good wide

open while the other had to be stopped down to improve the contrast and saturation.<br>

I also find that u really need to focus this lens properly. the usual techinic of foucs and

recompose will render inaccurate focus. Thus the 1 series camera with 45 focusing points

comes in very useful.<br>

Recently I had a CZ 35 f1.4 and find that at wide open, the centre is sharp but not the

centre. The corners looks like what you have shown. But the centre is sharp. I don't like

this and have it sold.<br>

So to me, your lens seems like a lemon if the focus is correct and it is in the centre frame.

Get it exchanged.<p>

<p>

<img src="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/35mm14a.jpg"><br>

EF 35 @ f1.4

[kenghor]

100% crop of the above:<p>

<img src="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/35mm14ai.jpg">

[alan_krantz]

Oddly all the "sharp" pictures@1.4 are of moderately close subjects and the not so picture is near/at infinity....

[pturton]

Carl,

 

It's dark here so infinity is out. But here is a quick comparison between my 35 & 135 wide open as requested. http://www.photo.net/photo/4185809

[michaelschrag]

Paul,

 

Very nice - I stand corrected. Thank you for your effort. I was very skeptical of your claim based upon MTF curves that I had found for the lens. To me the 135 still looks sharper but not by any huge margin. It would be very interesting to see the results of a similar comparison at infinity as Alan suggests, if you have time.

 

I have been trying to figure out what lens-camera combination to use at the shorter focal lengths for either Canon or Nikon. This post has been interesting. So far I have found a review of this lens that shows it stacking up nicely against a Contax V-S 35-70 and Distagon 35 f/2.8 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/321503), here it is bested by a sigma 30mm (http://www.whichlens.com/index.php?blog=5&title%CAnon_350d_vs_canon_20d_comparison_revie&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) and here in some astrophotographs where it was judged to be soft wide open in the center (http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm) and finally MTF curves by ephotozine make this lens look soft wide open (http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=361).

 

Various results from different sources. Could it be due to distance or sample variation?

[robert_luhrs]

You should have shot wide open and set the focus manually to infinity, this would have eliminated the varying depth of field of each aperture. The way it appears to me, the foreground is the focal point, and it remains fairly sharp, while the horizon alters in sharpness. The subject is not conducive to the test, since the focal point it not easy to see. At 1.4 the lens is the least of your worries. The depth of focus (or lack of it) is everything.

[andreas_carl]

Hi Robert, I agree with your opinion that the shallow DOF at 1.4 is a problem when doing these tests, I am however fairly certain, that the lens was NOT front-focused. Notice the tree branches in the lower left and lower right, they are about 5-10 yards from my balcony and (as would be expected for a lens focused on infinity) come gradually more into focus, as the aperture is closed down. Need to do more testing I guess, especially at shorter distances...

[andreas_carl]

Paul - your result look samazing to me! Here are my comparisons at more close distance, but it still looks like 1.4 is significantly softer and looks low-contrast / washed-out. (Left is f1.4, right is f2.8).

[andreas_carl]

And here another one shot at an oblique angle to exclude possibility of focusing error. Of course f2.8 has larger DOF, but I cannot see any area in the f1.4 that is as sharp as the ones at f2.8. Both this shot and the one above are 100% crop from the very center of the image. The difference in the corners is actually much more pronounced (as expected).

 

So - what is the verdict? Does this lens need to be returned?

[andreas_carl]

So - what is the verdict ? Does this lens need to be returned?

[pbizarro]

How big do you print? Are you happy with the prints?

 

You can return the lens and get a new one, but if you get involved in pixel peeping trying to get the ultimate lens, you will miss a lot of photos and a lot of fun. For example, I was scanning some slides yesterday, shot with my 35 f/2. I noticed, at 100%, that the corners were not as sharp as the centre. Do I care? No, because it is irrevelant at A4/A3 print size.

 

Also, proper tripod technique, and mirror lock-up, can make a huge difference.

[andreas_carl]

Paulo, basically you are right, and yes, I am sure I would be happy with this lens as is. On the other hand, it cost me >$1,000 so I want to make sure I got a good one, or at least a "typical" one...

[dirk_dom]

I'm a Canon FD user. FD lenses are from the dinosaur time of Canon.

 

I have the 24mm F1.4, the 55 mm F 1.2 ASPHERICAL, the 85 mm F 1.2 L , the 20 - 35 mm F 3.5 L, all of which are aspherical.

 

The very purpose of an aspherical lens is that they remain tack sharp, even wide open. That's why you buy them.I read a study on the internet that says the center image piece of the 55 mm ASPH, resolves 160 lines per mm at F 1.2, albeit at low contrast. The corners resolve 70 lines per mm at F 1.2. This lens renders subtle colors in a way you should see to believe.

 

These FD lenses are indeed extremely sharp: I mostly use them wide open. The most amazing one is the 20 - 35 L zoom: It's so contrasty and sharp that the colors in my vieuwfinder are more beautiful than when watched directly.

 

Since your 35mm is also an aspherical lens, I think either you got a lemon, or Canon lens standards got worse since FD times. I think you should resolve this by testing another 35mm F 1.4. Try to shoot a page of newsprint.

 

Bye,

 

dirk.

[matt_sallis]

I think we have another example of Canon QC. This is touted as one of there few flagship lenses. It looks quite poor to me and I would definitely replace it.

 

"No lens is "really sharp" at f/1.4. Not even this one."

 

Below is an example from a Zeiss 55mm f1.2 @ f1.2, read it and weep boys :-)<div></div>

[matt_sallis]

And a 100% crop:<div></div>

[pturton]

Andreas,

 

The following link is to test shots of a subject at 250 Meters comparing the 35L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135L wideopen. It seems that MF is a must for landscapes shot with the 35L. Series 1 bodies may do better with AF since they have more accurate focus.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4192714

 

I hope this helps you with a decision on your lens problem.

 

BTW, the lenses had no filters attached.

[pturton]

"Below is an example from a Zeiss 55mm f1.2 @ f1.2, read it and weep boys :-)"

 

Matt,

 

I'm not weeping. Your lens is 55mm and not a 35mm AF Canon lens. For my usage, subjects at close to mid distance, the 35L with AF is what I want.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4193152

 

and a 100% crop

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4193162

[andreas_carl]

Matt: Your picture is stunning and it indeed makes me weep, cause my 50/1.4 is nowhere near as sharp wide open.

 

Paul: Thank you so much for your further testing, the infinity subject renders very similar to my lens, quite soft and low contrast wide open, with significant improvement at f4.0 - of course there is no reason to shoot landscapes at infinity wide open so I am not too worried about that. However your close-ups look stunningly sharp, much better than mine... both the feathers you had posted earlier and also the japanese doll. Thanks so much for your help!

[andreas_carl]

OK - I have decided to RETURN this lens, after seeing Paul's photos, especially his close-focus ones, I have become to believe that my lens is not all it could be. Take a look at the series below: close-ups from f1.4 to f4.0, ISO100. The lens should not be THIS SOFT wide open, right? It is a very painful decision for me, cause I really want this lens for the wonderful images it can produce and it may be weeks 'til it's in stock again anywhere... and worse: I am going on an overseas trip tomorrow where the lens would have come in very handy... oh well...

[matt_sallis]

Paul, My post was merely intended as a light hearted means of showing that some lenses are sharp at f1.4 (or f1.2). Of course a 35mm f1.4 AF is a very different lens, and I'm glad to see that your copy is sharp wide open (as it should be).

 

Andreas, It may be a shame to have to return the lens (love your sense of humour with the last batch of photos!) but it would be more of a shame to spend that much and have a poor copy.

Yours is clearly not performing as well this lens can.

 

Another alternative is of course to send to a Canon service centre and have it recalibrated, but this would also take time.

Good luck with the replacement.

[pturton]

"Paul, My post was merely intended as a light hearted means of showing that some lenses are sharp at f1.4 (or f1.2). "

 

Matt,

 

Did you not notice that the doll is also smiling? ;-) As you can see from my comparative test, my EF 50 f/1.4 is dirt compared to your Zeiss.

 

Kind regards,

Paul