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

[tord_suikki]

Firstly ? I am new in this discussion, thanks for the interesting opinions in this matter, I have a related problem and some opinions in this.

 

It is not fair to test such a lens wide open on a long distance scene. I can?t see any scenario when I would use a lens wide open like that. If I don?t have tripod with me there is almost always the possibility to make some kind of a la MacGyver kind of solution, as leaning against a tree, putting the camera on a dull stone, or something else. Wide open wide angels should be tested in low lightning and be judged for there ability to keep the centre of the image as sharp as possible. The corners of the image are for me certainly not interesting.

 

I am very pleased with my EOS 5d and with my EOS 50/1.4L, witch I use only from 2.8 and up to 8, for wider use I have always use the 17-40/4.0L, witch I only us on F/8.0, and I always use a triploid on ISO 100. I interpolate my pictures quite hardly and therefore the optical performance is crucial. Since I transferred from Leica and sold my Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH I don?t think that I would be satisfied with the performance of the Canon 35/1.4, therefore I save my money and stick to the zoom lenses from Canon.

 

The 17-40L from my opinion is a ok performer, but not even close to the 50/1.4L, I am therefore on the look out for wide angel lenses that really performs in a spectacular way, to step them down to 4.0 or to 8.0 is not a problem. Is there any idea to buy the cheaper wide angels from Canon?