35/1.4@PZ

[yakim_peled1]

<p>IMHO wide open sharpness is disappointing. <br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff</a></p>

<p>If we combine the fact that it it's in the lineup for ages with the fact that Canon released so many Mk II versions in the recent years, one may speculate that a 35/1.4 Mk II will be released shortly.

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<br>

 

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>OK, Yakim we believe you! Honest!</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's certainly logical, but Canon has a bunch of older designs that they are leaving alone. I think their energies are largely going into newer zoom versions where, no doubt, they feel the competition more. I wouldn't hold my breath, but I think predicting what Canon will do is fraught with peril. I, at least, rarely call it right. :p</p>

<p>Also remember that an upgrade to a mark 2 version of anything is almost certainly going to see an increase in prices and the old EF 35mm f/1.4 may look pretty good. That's not to mention that the great bargain, the EF 35mm f/2 is still pretty good despite its old focus mechanism, etc. (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/428-canon_35_2_5d">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/428-canon_35_2_5d</a>).</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I am somewhat suspect of these review sites pointing out the flaws of a lens that most often do not show up in real world results. <br>

<br /> I would really love an upgrade in the non L primes ( 24, 35, 50 ) even if the price was a bit higher. How come the 85 is so good but everything wider seems to lack in one area or another?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Photozone is a great site and I believe them. However I do think they are a little stingy with respect to the 35mm L, which I find to be one of the best 35mm lenses I have ever owned (Leica M and R, Canon FD, Olympus). I think PZ's expectations were sky high for this one -- and I guess a little too high so they felt slightly disappointed. They admit as much. I find the 35mm L is a stellar lens "in the field"- everything seems right about it: handling, bokeh and performance. No doubt it could be better, but personally I would not make it a priority for an update for Canon. How about a good new f1.4 28mm? Or a really good 50 f1.2?</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO wide open sharpness is disappointing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know...<br>

The 200/2 L IS is probably the best lens Canon makes and the 35/1.4 Lis not far behind in my experience. Yes, I use both. Get one, shoot with one for a while, form your own opinion. </p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>"One may speculate..." Everyone on this board is always speculating about replaced lenses. News flash: Canon doesn't listen to people here. They release updated lens models on their own schedule and according to their own plan. Everyone has been clamoring for a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens, but Canon released a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II lens which more or less NOBODY was hoping for (not that some people aren't very happy about it).</p>

<p>Until some sort of genuine product leak occurs, speculation about upcoming lens refreshes / replacements is pointless.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>I'd still prefer an EF-S 35/1.8. Something like a light weight nifty fifty for the APS-C bodies.</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>Please explain something to me:<br>

You say wide open sharpness is disappointing. But, you point out that the center at 1.4 is already sharp. So, you're examining "corner performance" of a fast lens, wide open. But, what could you possibly photograph that would have the center of the object the exact same distance from the lens as the edge? Wouldn't you have to photograph rulers radiating out from the lens in order to see if the same distance is in focus at each angle? Photographing a flat test chart SHOULD show soft edges, just as it would if you focused on one small object, and then shifted the camera/recomposed. Am i not understanding this? [i'm sure this has been explained somewhere - forgive my ignorance and point me toward a link, please.]</p>

<p>So, yes, if you stop down a bit, you're getting a bit more DOF, which should help to keep the edges a bit more in focus. Aren't some lenses designed for 'flat field' performance? But, aren't they more often 'normal' or macro lenses? A wide angle is going to show more distortion, inherently, no?</p>

<p>I don't really feel the need to defend this lens. I've had one for several years and it has always been the best of any lens i've owned for Canon, Leica, Nikon, Contax.... I'm just trying to understand how any lens of this specification could meet your 'requirements' in this respect. Just what would anyone want to shoot at f1.4 where they'd even want (not to mention expect) a lens to resolve the edges as crisply as the center?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>DS, I think the lens you want is the already available, one-of-the-oldest-in-the-stable 35mm f/2 I already mentioned above. One thing it really needs is USM full-time manual focusing to make it perfect, but the nifty fifty doesn't have that either. It's not so cheap as the 50mm, but the 35's pretty affordable all the same.</p>

 

[daniel flather]

<p>My 35/1.4L is sharp wide open. My other lenses are 10-22, 85/1.8, and 100/2.8 marco. </p><div></div>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Derek, the majority of photographic lenses, including Canon's lineup, are designed to have as flat a field as is reasonable given the lens's price range and intended use. Canon says as much in their official manifesto on lens design, that one of the four top characteristics they strive for in their lenses is flat field (if I can re-find this quote I will link it). Given the 35 f/1.4L's pricetag, one would hope it would have a relatively flat field.</p>

<p>Of course in reality some deviation from perfect flatness of field usually exists. But it is considered an aberration in lens design, not a feature.</p>

<p>And by the way, field curvature is not the only, nor is it always the greatest, reason for corner softness.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Double post. Sorry.<br>

 

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <br>

 

<p dir="ltr">FWIW, I had the 35/1.4. I loved my 35/1.4 and it was plenty sharp for me. Nevertheless I used it on low resolution crop bodies (1D, 40D) but this test is much more rigorous. The thing I didn't like was bokeh. Mediocre to say the least.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<br>

</p><div></div>

[fotograf]

<p>I wouldn't consider that German's opinion as anything earth shattering. What background does he even have? I saw a review of his on Nikon's legendary AF 85mm 1.fD and he gave it somewhat lukewarm reviews and it's an incredible lens.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>mean, 85mm f/1.4d</p>