Is 35mm f1.4 a good match with 5D2?

[wenhan_xue]

I have used Nikon cameras and lenses for over 10 years and will continue using them. However, I also made a

decision to purchase 5D Mark II when it comes out next month. The major uses of Mark II will be Landscape,

Architecture and portraiture. I like to use prime lens like my lineups of Nikkors. I plan to match the camera with

35mm f1.4. So my question is: will it work? I know this lens is too wide for portrait in most cases. But if some of you

out there indeed use this lens for portrait, please share your experience. And how about Architecture, will it be not

wide enough? Any inputs will be appreciated.

[mendel_leisk]

Why not:

 

1. Tape any zoom you have on your current system at the equiv. to 35mm on full frame. What are Nikon crop bodies, 1.5x? That would work out to 23mm. Try it out, shoot your usual subjects. I think the big "if" is if you can live without the zoom. Really: only you can decide your "will it work" question.

 

2. When you get your full frame Canon, maybe try the Canon 35mm f2.0 first, to avoid a big investment. It doesn't have the quality of the 1.4, particularly in the corner, but it's a fun lens worth having, very compact.

 

I use the 35mm f2.0 with a 5D. It's a nice combo, almost the ideal walk-around, *if* you like semi-wide and can live without zoom. I would say it's one alternative, I wouldn't want to be stuck with it, zooms are so much more flexible.

[PuppyDigs]

I find 35mm to be the most natural perspective for walk-around. I can pretty much see a scene and lift camera to eye to capture

it. With other focal lengths I must monkey around to compose properly. As for this lens being right for you, nobody

can answer that question but you.

 

It's certainly fine for most outdoor architecture if you don't mind a lack of perspective

controls. It will not cut it for tight interiors.

 

Portraits--not so great for head 'n shoulders (huge noses & foreheads)--but I love

35mm for "environmental" portraits, i.e., stepping back and revealing your subject in their surroundings. So 3/4 and full

body portraits certainly will be nice.

 

It is certainly a combo I'd dig.

[eric merrill]

Wenhan:

 

For available darkness shooting, the 5D + 35/1.4 combo is hard to beat. Given that the 5D II will be able

to go to higher ISO settings for the same noise, I can only imagine how sweet that would be.

 

 

Eric

[JDMvW]

I wouldn't be quite so sure that the 35mm f/2 doesn't stand well on its own. It's not quite the bargain of the 50mm f/1.8, but it certainly much cheaper than the 35mm f/1.4, which is about 4 or 5 times more expensive. With the enhanced ISOs of the new Mk II 5D, f/2 is pretty darn fast. I personally love the lens and use it on both my crop body digital camera and on older EOS film cameras.

 

I think that if I were getting an f/1.4, I'd get the 24mm instead for a 24x36mm sensor camera. It's pretty close to the same price.

[sheldonnalos]

The 35mm f/1.4L is one of the best Canon prime lenses in the normal focal length range (the others being the 85L

and 135L). It is an exceptional match to the 5D or 5D Mark II. It is my most used lens on my 5D, and I'll use it

on the 5D Mark II when I upgrade.

 

A good reference page for ranking Canon lenses is the Fred Miranda user review page.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

Just sort the lenses by "Most Popular" to get a feel for which lenses are really liked. It's more of a rank of

how satisfied the user is with their purchase than a rank of pure optical quality. However, you can pretty much

bet that any lens above a 9.5 is going to be a really, really good lens. The 35L ranks a 9.6 with 139 reviewers.

For reference, the 35mm f/2 ranks an 8.8 with 109 reviewers.

[William Michael]

> Is 35mm f1.4 a good match with 5D2 <

 

The lens is bliss on a 5D, I cannot envisage it any less so on a 5DMkII.

 

WW

[nksyoon]

You can also use your Nikon lenses on the 5D2 with adapters - manual focus and aperture stop down may be less of a problem with landscape, architecture, and formal posed portraits.

[g dan mitchell]

My EF 35mm f/2 makes a fine landscape lens - from my (brief) experience and everything I read it is the equal of the

35mm f/1.4 in _this_ type of use.

 

Dan

[model mayhem gallery]

I am a little confused on the use of a 1.4 lens for landscapes? I use the 85 1.2 L and 50 1.8 and love them when shooting portraits where I want to blur the background behind the subject. However, If I am shooting realestates or scenery I almost always stop down to about F8. At F8 I can't tell a difference between the 85 1.2 and the 50 1.8 at all. They are both SUPER sharp at F8. Nothing beats the broke effect of the 85 at 1.2 but I would never use it that wide open to shoot landscapes....

 

I plan on getting a 5D MarkII as well, but when I put my 50 1.8 on a regular 5D it was excellent I suspect it will be even better on a Mark II. I would suggest getting the camera first, then rent a couple lenses to see what works best at the lowest cost. Why pay so much for a 50 1.4 if a 50 1.8 looks just as good at 21 MP? PS - My Tamron 28-75 DI F2.8 at F8 is sharp as both the 85 and the 50.