Canon 35mm f/1.4L Size and replacment?

[marknagel]

I think I am going to buy a 35/1.4 in the next month or so. No one has this

lens locally (Minnesota). I had two questions...actually one question and one

prediction request.

 

1. Does anyone have a link that compare the size of this lens to other lenses so

I can see how big it actually is? Is it 85/1.8 size or closer to the 24-70L?

Anyway I looked and couldn't find anything showing the size difference.

 

 

2. How long has this lens been out? Any rumors o it being replaced? I'm not

looking for newer model, I just saw how much I could have saved if I waited a

few months on my 16-35L. Not a deciding factor, just don't want to buy it now

if it been rumored to be replaced this fall.

 

Mark

[jeff mein smith]

1. www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx has the lenses side-by-side.

2. Introduced late 1998. As for up-grade/replacement, who knows? (other than Canon)

[saurabh1]

This may help <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Link</a>

 

I am also waiting for a smaller and lighter version of 35mm f/1.4 geared for 1.6 crop factor cameras. I do not think its size and weight can be reduced for a full frame camera though. It appears smaller than 24-70L.

[david_oskarsson1]

<A HREF="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">link</A>

[William Michael]

Q1. no link comparisons but data:

 

 

24 to 70 F2.8L: 83.2mm max dia; 123.5mm maxlength; 950gms

 

85mmF1.8: 70.0mm max dia; 71.5mm maxlength; 425gms

 

35mmF1.4L: 79.0mm max dia; 86.0mm maxlength; 580gms

 

 

Q2. As above.

 

WW

[eric friedemann]

The size of the lens isn't that dramatic- about 3 x 3 inches. The 35mm f/1.4L does, however, weigh 20 oz., almost three times the weight of Canon's 35mm f/2.0:

 

 

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7304

[rainer_t]

And another link ...

 

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

 

click on ef-lenses and 14-45mm and there on the 35/1.4L

[marknagel]

Thanks, I see its slightly smaller than my 16-35. Thats perfect.

 

m

[andreas_carl]

I had this lens for a while and frankly, was a bit disappointed in it. Simply wasn't sharp at all (maybe I just got a bad sample of that lens...?!). Anyway, I returned it and bought a used Carl Zeiss 35/1.4 which I used with an adapter on my Canon 5D. It made me totally happy and I ended up buying several more Carl Zeiss lenses in the wide angle range. These lenses are not only significantly sharper than Canon's, they are also much smaller!

[valo_soul]

Not sharp at what aperture? Mine is quite good wide open and absolutely stunning by f/2.0 But yes, Zeiss has fantastic optics as well :) (or so I hear)

[eric friedemann]

You gotta also compare apples to apples. The Canon L lens is designed to accomodate a built-in ultrasonic focus motor, adding size and weight to the lens. The Zeiss lens is manual focus.

[William Michael]

> Thanks, I see its slightly smaller than my 16-35. Thats perfect. <

 

Curiosity got me: Perfect to fit into a slot in a bag, or perfect to work with / carry etc. ?

 

WW

[berni_landau]

Andreas,

 

I also have a couple of Contax Zeiss primes and would like to use them on my 5D. What adapters are you using?

[jwhite3.0]

Berni, I use Fotodiox (Ebay store and a regular website) Contax/Carl Zeiss-to-EOS adapter on a 1D but I think a 5D should be no problem. Cost was $35. They have a "pro" version but I don't see a major advantage. There are a couple other companies that push their adapters at >$150. Don't see any advantage to these other high-priced adapters when the Fotodiox one allows for infinity focus and is made of solid metal as well as provides tight mount fit.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fotodiox-Contax-to-EOS-Lens-Adapter-NEW_W0QQitemZ220043706932QQihZ012QQcategoryZ30059QQcmdZViewItem

 

and

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Fotodiox-Contax-C-Y-lens-Canon-EOS-mount-adapter-PRO_W0QQitemZ230004347498QQihZ013QQcategoryZ30059QQcmdZViewItem

[marknagel]

WW,

 

I'd like this for weddings, I carry a 24-70L, 16-35L and 50/1.4. I'd like to replace the 50 with the 35, and the 24-70L is too big to carry as is, but from the photos, I was expecting it to be that big and thats too much to carry around in my vest.

 

m

[William Michael]

>> I'd like to replace the 50 with the 35, <<

 

Thanks. That info, by coincidence, has added a good suggetsion to a problem we are resolving: the `vests` might be the answer.

 

WW

[chris_mills1]

I use the 35/1.4 all the time. It is sharp enough. It's autofocus is fast enough. I like the

proportions at the focal length. The color and contrast are excellent. I can shoot

handheld with available light at dusk. It'll do weddings and street photos well without a

flash.

 

It's not huge, but it is relatively heavy. And the weight is right at the front of the lens, so if

you are attaching it to a light camera your center of mass will be in front of your hands.

 

The lens has been out a long time. I doubt it's a big candidate for replacement. It's too

short for IS to be of any use. The current version already has a ring USM autofocus motor

and no big flaws. And, of course, it's a prime. I think Canon has a lot of lenses they'd

rather spend their R&D cash on.

 

As for the mentioned alternative, if you need f1.4, f2.8 just won't cut it. If you can live

with f2.8, the 16-35 is a real workhorse. I have used both. For what I shoot, the 35 is a

better fit.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I haven't much to add to all the good info provided, but I think you have touched on soemthing I've noticed in the EF lens lineup.

 

I've often wished Canon would offer a lens in between the 35/1.4 and the 35/2... Something compact, but with USM especially. Manual focus override is the biggest deal to me. To me speed isn't the issue, f2.0 is marginally fast enough, I've used a number of 35/2s in other systems over the years. Optically, I have heard plenty of good reports about the current EF 35/2, so that's not an issue either. It would also be nice if any such lens shared the 58mm filter thread size of a lot of other common Canon primes.

 

I think there's a similar gap between the 24/1.4 and 24/2.8.

 

Of course, nothing is very likely to happen. Today most buyers choose zooms for convenience, so that's where the manufacturers put most of their efforts.

 

Back in the FD "New"-era, there was a concerted and very successful effort by Canon to make their entire system as compact as possible. That's sure gone by the wayside, ever since the first EOS camera and EF lens came out.