What Canon Prime L to complete my kit

[tpurvis]

<p>I am looking at adding a Canon prime L lens to by bag. I make a little money with my photography, less than 10G a year, and really enjoy the art form. My work ranges from travel, wedding, family portraits, sports and events, indoors and out. My current kit includes a 7D, 5DM3, 17-40 4.0L, 24-105 4.0L, 70-200 4.0L, 28 1.8 USM, 50 1.4(2), 60 2.8 macro, 85 1.8, 135 2.8 Softfocus (for sale for the right price). I have passed on to my sons a Canon 10-22, 28-135 USM(2) and 70-300 USM. There is also a 40 2.8 floating around on the granddaughters old XT.<br>

I love the look of wide and shallow DOF. May be the most difficult look to get, short of medium format. You will notice that the lenses passed on were replaced with my set of three L 4.0 zooms. I do believe, tell me if I am wrong here, that my primes take a better pic than my selection of L zooms. The question: Is there a Canon Prime L that will give me a boost in image quality over my current set of primes? I am currently researching the 35 1.4 and like what I see. I saw a huge improvement in image quality, color, focus, contrast, when I upgraded to the L zooms. Could I expect to see equal or greater improvement in a L prime over my current set? I find find the 28 1.8 does not have a shallow DOF far enough into the image and the 50 1.4 is not wide enough. That is why I am looking at the 35 1.4. I am attaching an image example of the style I am looking for. I would like to have keep the SDOF on the bike and had another foot of sidewalk in the image. This was taken with the 50 1.4 at 1.4, 50 ISO on the 5DM3. Color enhanced in Lightroom.</p><div></div>

[robert_turner5]

<p>I think you're on the right track wrt the 35 1.4L based on your description. I'd recommend giving serious consideration to the 24 1.4L II(the II part is important) as well. I think it is a slightly more interesting lens, and the 35 is pretty close to your 50 in terms of FOV.</p>

<p>Either the 35L or the 24L will give much more pleasing results than your 28/1.8 imho.</p>

<p>$150 in rental costs and a fun weekend of comparing could work wonders!</p>

<p>Good luck,<br>

Robert</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I don't know your level of knowledge, so my apologies if you already know this. (Many people don't.)</p>

<p>DoF is a function ONLY of aperture and focal length, so an L lens won't give you any shallower DoF than a consumer lens.</p>

<p>What even fewer people know/understand is that the DoF will in some limited sense sense be identical for a given aperture and format, irrespective of focal length. Here's how: Let's use easy numbers, pulled out of the air: 50mm @ f/1.4 vs. 25mm @ f/1.4. At 25mm, to frame up the same subject with the same angle of view, you'll have to position yourself half as far to the subject. The apparent aperture is half the diameter. Therefore the cone of blur subtends the same visual angle through the point of focus. (You might need to read Merlkinger's DoF articles before this becomes intuitive.)</p>

<p>Now consider an object behind the point of focus. The cone of blur expands to exactly the same size with either lens, projected at the distance to that object, and the cross-section of that cone will give you the size of that blur. The only thing that differs is the perspective, the 50mm lens showing more compression than the 25. If you look at the size of the blur pattern at infinity, it will appear twice as large with the 50mm lens, but that is because objects at infinity appear twice as large. The blur as a proportion of object size is the same either way.</p>

<p>Anyway, there's no magic to the L with regard to depth of field.</p>

[tpurvis]

Thanks Robert. I will look into the 24 also.

 

Sarah, I enjoyed your article on full frame advantages you posted on the 16th. I have an extreme amount of knowledge

on the subject. My reason for considering a L prime is two fold. Image quality and max aperture not available in other

canon primes. The 28 1.8, for instance, is maybe too wide and not as fast as I need. I am looking for advise on that just

right combination of width and speed to give me a subject, 4 to 5 feet in length, 6 to 8 feet away that will be the only item

in focus.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“My work ranges from travel, wedding, family portraits, sports and events, indoors and out. . . I am looking for [advice] on that just right combination of width and speed to give me a subject, 4 to 5 feet in length, 6 to 8 feet away that will be the only item in focus.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="/photo/16675274">http://www.photo.net/photo/16675274</a><br>

<a href="/photo/16675273">http://www.photo.net/photo/16675273</a><br>

<a href="/photo/16814634">http://www.photo.net/photo/16814634</a><br>

<a href="/photo/16011795">http://www.photo.net/photo/16011795</a><br>

<a href="/photo/16977107">http://www.photo.net/photo/16977107</a></p>

<p>I think that you are sniffing in the correct area with the 35/1.4.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, technically nothing outside your plane of focus will be in focus. The DoF bounds are only a demarcation of what is in focus "enough" to be considered approximately focused. So I think your decision is simpler than you're making it. I'd say you need to select your ideal intended focal length with your zooms, and then buy the widest aperture prime lens at that focal length that you can find/afford.</p>

<p>~but~</p>

<p>There's another approach you might find interesting, but it would take a bit of cobbling to pull it off. You can create an ultra-wide synthetic aperture by combining multiple images in post that are taken with shifts of the camera position in a plane perpendicular to the axis of the lens. Each shot would actually have to be oriented to the same center in post. While this might be a tedious process, with little practical application, the results could be interesting. I've not yet tried this, but I intend to someday. I understand the rig is best made with a round tuit, which I have yet to get. :-D</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>The obvious answer is the 24 TSE. You can "play" around with the plane of focus to get what you want in terms of depth-of-field.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 35/1.4L will give you improved IQ, especially WO and near, than your 28/1.8. A 50/1.2L will give you improved IQ WO and near over your 50/1.4s.</p>

<p>However, there are more cost effective solutions which do the same. The Sigma 35/1.4 A performs very similarly to the 35/1.4L (though has some slightly different image characteristics), and the Sigma 50/1.4 also performs better WO and near than the EF 50/1.4. But all these lenses are indeed <em>different</em> than your current setup. If I were you, with $1-2K lenses, I think a rental is well worth it to see if you like what you see.</p>

 

[chris_clarke3]

<p>My most used lenses are the 50L and 35 F2 IS.<br>

The 35L is overdue a Mk II IMHO. I sold mine a few months ago and got the 35 F2 IS. The F2 is half the weight/size. Bokeh can be debated but the specular highlights are very nice and round compared to the pentagon type highlights of the L.<br /> IS really is a wonderful thing and add in the weight/size factor, the F2 is a contender in the FL. F2 gives a pretty decent shallow DOF and I'm pretty sure the F2 is sharper than the 35L at F2.</p>

<p>Now I could be tempted to buy a 35L Mk II with IS and weather sealing, until then the F2 more than adequately replaces my 35L.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Agree the 35L is a winner, I have one, however, I also agree with Chris: if I were buying a good 35 today, I would look seriously at the 35/2 IS - it's very good and a lot smaller and lighter as well as having IS- I suspect its performance is just as good, even if it lacks the magical f1.4. Others may suggest looking at the new Sigma 35/1.4. I like to keep the weight of all my lenses as low as possible and the Sigma is even bigger and heavier than the 35L so it would be a non-starter for me, although it has great reviews.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma 50/1.4 also performs better WO and near than the EF 50/1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is so commonly stated as a fact and yet no review I have read shows this - can you tell me a review that shows this? Lots of opinions, but nothing I have read suggests this to be true. The closest is the digital picture but he complains about AF inaccuracies. The Sigma has better build quality and looks considerably "cooler", but I see no evidence that it is actually "better" - although I suppose its bokeh might be(?)</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The EF 35/1.4 L is one of my favourite primes, but if I were buying a 35mm lens today I'd take a serious look at the new Sigma. The 24/1.4 L II is also a superb lens, but given your shooting preferences I think you'd use a 35mm prime more.</p>

<p>In my opinion, 35mm is not so close to 50mm as to render it redundant. At wide angles, differences in focal length make more apparent difference to the FOV than do equivalent focal length differences on the telephoto side. For example, the difference between 35mm and 50mm is more pronounced than the difference between 135mm and 150mm.</p>

<p>An aside - Like Robin, I get tired of hearing that the Sigma 50/1.4 is sharper wide open than is the EF 50/1.4. If you take a look at Photozone's MTF charts comparing the Canon and Sigma (as well as the Canon 50/1.2 L), you'll see that the EF 50/1.4 blows the others away at <strong><em>all </em>apertures</strong>: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1">EF 50/1.4</a>, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1">Sigma 50/1.4</a>, <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1">EF 50/1.2 L</a>.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Since you want to boost your IQ, I think you must first determine if you're maximizing the IQ of your current lens. If you're not shooting in Raw and using Digital Lens Optimation, then I'll guarantee that there's more IQ in your current kit. Particularly with your zooms and particularly at their wide ends, the geometric distortion is considerable. Vignetting and Chromatic Aberration are just two types of distortion that good DLO will correct and elevate IQ considerably and noticeably. DLO modules correct at every focal length and every aperture for your zooms.</p>

<p>DPP, which ships with Canon cameras, includes DLO, but you must download the modules. LR and DxO Optics Pro also include competing forms of DLO, but you must download the correct modules and activate them.</p>

<p>Since you've got DPP, try it, if you haven't already. You'll be amazed at the added IQ.</p>

<p>Your 70-200mm has nice bokeh and is one of my favorite portrait lenses and OOF BG shooting. You might look at a prime up in the 85mm and 100mm range to throw the kind of bokeh that you seem to crave.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<blockquote>

<p>This is so commonly stated as a fact and yet no review I have read shows this - can you tell me a review that shows this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since this is so commonly stated as fact, often by people who actually own(ed) one or both lenses, one might think that their experience was relevant. Since I don't write reviews (and more rarely read them) I cannot refer you to one. Of course if I <em>had</em> written one, it would be no better than a reflection of my opinion - though it'd still be a more accurate and specific about the optic's usability than a lab bench's opinion.</p>

<p>However, since you ask...<br /> ...(and this is obviously an aside to the OP's question given their non desire for the 50mm FL) I can relay my personal experience (which has furnished my opinion). I have owned 3 EF 50/1.4 USM lenses, and all have shown remarkably similar performance (though they did vary slightly). In essence, the weakness of the lens (aside from it's notoriously unreliable AF system - while 'notorious' may be a subjective term, give given I've had 2 of 3 copies die of seized AF, and the 3rd copy seized up twice (though it miraculously recovered(?)), 'notoriously bad' would be a good descriptor of my experience) is it's IQ WO and near. Beyond ~f2->2.2, it's really quite good.</p>

<p>WO, and near, the lens is so soft across the majority of the image area that it significantly and noticeably detracts from the IQ - to an extent that computer software analysis is not required. Without significant post, the imagery lacks definitition, contrast, crisp edges, and strong color preservation. As I said, beyond about f2.2 all these issues are resolved, and it's a marvelously usable optic. However, now that I've replaced my last EF50/1.4 with a Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, I've found that I can comfortably shoot portraiture and specific subjects at f1.4 with vastly superior IQ, at least through the center and middle of the frame (the edges are extremely messy, probably a bit more so than the EF 50/1.4). The bokeh may be a smidge better (or not), but I've never looked hard at it... for practical purposes, it's about the same. In essence, I now have an optic that is capable, even @f1.4, of allowing me to preserve an ultra shallow DOF, while still pulling sharp, crisp, contrasty, non-muddled images straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>As I said, I don't write reviews. But the imagery I've drawn out of the camera @f1.4->f2 is vastly improved with the Sig 50/1.4 over the EF 50/1.4. Of course a review would have to detail a 'balanced' analysis, which I don't need to do, since I don't care how either optic performs @f4->16 (that's what the 24-70 is for), but that's me. Also, I don't need an edge to edge assessment, since I very rarely take a picture who's subject encompasses the <em>entire</em> frame. I also have <em>never</em> counted lines of resolution, at any aperture - very rarely do they make a bit of difference in a picture. Instead I just take pictures. I take lots of pictures, and love to work in the f1.4->f2.8 range. <em>I</em> found the EF 50/1.4 to be very very limiting in that respect. If you only work at @f2+ you probably wouldn't even notice the difference (until your EF's AF seizes up).</p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>DxO shows the Sigma and Canon 50/f1.4x as very close, but with the Canon coming out on top, with the Sigma superior in vignetting at wide open. Of course, that's without correction and Digital Lens Optimization will fix that easily. They're essentially the same.</p>

<p>See:<br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/196/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/201/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/0">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/196/(brand)/Canon/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/201/(brand2)/Sigma/(camera2)/0</a></p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>Is it fair that, given the attention the Sigma 50/1.4 has received in this thread, no mention has been made of the supposed focusing issues? These stories were enough to scare me away three years ago- has Sigma fixed it, or was it one of those overwrought "internet memes"?</p>

<p> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>David - exactly. This is pretty well what the other reviews say.<br>

Marcus. It is interesting you say this about the performance wide open as all the reviews I've read expressly do not say this - just check out the digital pictures ISO crops as an example - if anything the Canon is better.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Either of the 24mm or the 17mm TS-E lenses gives you more control where your focus plane is (tilt).</p>

[dcstep]

<p>JDM said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Either of the 24mm or the 17mm TS-E lenses gives you more control where your focus plane is (tilt).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an expensive solution, BUT this may be the best IQ possible, particularly on a full-frame body. The extra large image circle required to allow for tilt/shift means that the corners are as sharp as you can get. Canon puts extra effort into these specialty lenses, bringing the build quality and IQ up to levels comparable to their super-telephoto lenses.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>This is an expensive solution</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no doubt about that, but the TS-E 17mm that I have is my most prized and useful lens. I've had not the slightest "buyer's remorse" since getting it. It is exceptional just as a 17mm lens, but its extra capabilities elevate it to instant "classic lens" status, IMHO.</p>

[cmphoto]

<p>24 1.4L II. One of the sweetest lenses I have ever worked with. Fairly light, scary sharp and FAST. <br />I love the perspective...adds that little "pop".</p>

[cmphoto]

<p>24 1.4L II. One of the sweetest lenses I have ever worked with. Fairly light, scary sharp and FAST. <br />I love the perspective...adds that little "pop".</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I can hardly imagine a more different lens from the 35L than a 17mm TSE.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>35 f2.0 Carl Zeiss lens. You need something more exotic and actually less expensive than the Canon L-series primes. Try the Ziess. Has a very unique look and wil lstand out from all the other lenses you already have. No need to add more of the same flavor...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Isn't the excellent Zeiss a MF lens? If so, then you'll want to change your focus screen to better see when things are truly in focus. The stock screen is hard to judge focus through the VF.</p>