35/1.4L - performance wide open, flare control, distortion and bokey

[alex_uch_a]

Hi, I'm looking for information about the 35/1.4L.

 

I pretend to use the lens wide open, in close distances (max.

3meters) to get most portraits, with the model in focus and the

background out of focus.

 

 

My question is, how is the performance of this lens wide open in

close distances. And what about the bokey with the lens wide open

(1.4 and 2.0). Is similar to the bokey of the 135/2.0L? Anybody have

a side by side test with the manual nikkor 35/1.4? I'm curious why

this lens is more expensive than the 24/1.4. And what about

distortions and flare control, any comments?

Thank you very much and sorry for my poor english, Best Regards, Alex

Uchôa

[aaron_rocky]

I think there are a couple sample photos taken with this lens at f2 in eos 1v(or 3) camera brochure. Canon will send the brochure free if you request.

[derek_stanton2]

Alex,

1. The word is "bokeh."

 

2. I'm curious about why you'd choose to use a 'wide-angle' lens to shoot model portraits. Of course, it can be done, but the general practice is to use longer than 'normal' focal lengths in order to avoid distortion, especially of facial features. Are we talking about female models? It would be especially difficult to use a 35 with women, especially if you're talking about close-ups. To minimize distortion, though, try to keep your camera focus plane parallel with the model's face...

 

3. You're comparing bokeh of a wide angle lens with that of a medium telephoto. The 135 will more easily give you out of focus backgrounds. With the 35mm, you really will have to be shooting pretty wide-open. There really is no comparison of bokeh between these lenses. With a 35mm, your background will have to be significantly further away from the subject.

 

4. I don't have the 35 1.4. I did recently buy the 35 f2. It does, though, have nice bokeh, but that was countered by significant flare when i shot backlit subjects outside. I don't consider it problematic, as i knew i'd get Some flare.... The 35mm f2 is pretty sharp, as i recently shot a 'cat portrait' indoors, against seamless, with a D60. Sharp.

 

5. If you really want to shoot model portraits, but don't have a lot of room, my first choice would be an 85mm 1.8, on a film camera. If you have a digital with a 1.6x crop factor, the 50mm 1.4 would be great, as well. If you have more room, longer primes or the excellent zooms (70-200 2.8 or 4L, or a Sigma 70-200 2.8) would give you more 'compression effect.'

 

6. Your English ain't bad. Where are you from?

[raymond_raymond1]

Just my 2 cents

 

I had 35/2, and have 35/1.4

 

First of all, it is not that easy to see bokeh for a 35mm focal length lens, unless 1) you focus very close, i.e. your model is very close to you, 2) there are a lot of highlights in the background. 3) you use really big aperture like 2.0 or up. Otherwise, the boken will not be very exergerated. If you really want to see exergerated boken, buy 85/1.2 instead

 

BTW, 35mm lens is not a bad choice for portraits. You can always include a lot of background for composition. Keep using 85mm or 135mm all the time and blur the backgound will make you bored somedays.

 

Think twice for this 35/1.4 lens. I am not saying it is not good. Compare 35/1.4 with 35/2, the former is better in nearly all the aspects, e.g. optical, mechanical, user friendly... but the former is nearly 4.5 time the price (in Hong Kong). From my viewpoint, it is not that value for money.

 

Don't ask me why I bought it, it is a long story. But if you ask me, I have no regret since I am a "big aperture freak", I am mentally very very happy with 35/1.4.

 

Happy shooting!

[alex_uch_a]

The option for the 35/1.4 is because I want to include some "bokeh" background in the photo and sometimes its only possible with this lens set at 35/1.4 or 2.0, where I will use mostly. For this I will pretend to put the subject close to lens to show this caracteristc.

 

Anybody have a example of this lens shot in close distances at 1.4 or 2.0.

 

I pretend to use this lens in a camera film or in the future with a FF DSLR.

 

To DEREK: I'm from Brazil.

 

Thank you very much for the imput.

 

Best regards,

 

Alex Uchôa;

[raymond_raymond1]

Hi, Alex

 

Please let me attached a photo

 

As far as I can remember I was using around F2.0. There is small amount of boken above the model

 

This scan is from my very cheap scanner of a 4" X 6" print, hope that will not disappoint you. The actual print is much sharper.

[raymond_raymond1]

Sorry, I keep spelling "boken", it should be "bokeh"

[derek_stanton2]

Oi, Alex.

Where in Brasil? I feel like Rio is my second home. I'd like to make it my true home. I've been learning Portuguese for three years (and struggling), so i empathize with your efforts in English.

 

Here is a recent shot in Rio using the 35mm f2 (the tech details on the page are not accurate). I don't remember if the aperture was 2 or 2.8, but it would have been close to wide open. There seems to be a lot of flare, and a lack of contrast, most probably because i was shooting into the sun for the backlighting effect.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1060943

 

Like the above advice, I don't know that I'd recommend buying the 1.4 version over the f2. The price is very high, and that extra bit of aperture you're paying for may not even be seen in the images. Also, I'm finding that with my 50mm 1.4, you have to be extremely careful that the depth of field may be TOO shallow wide open. If you're shooting moving subjects, you might want to stop-down to 2 or 2.8 to make sure you're getting the entire face in focus (if that's what you want). Of course, if you want to isolate only one eye, and have the rest of the face, ears, shoulders falling out of focus, you'd probably want to be using a longer lens anyway....

 

Bem. Boa sorte.

At? logo,

derek

[alex_uch_a]

To Derek: I'm from Natal, northeast from Brazil.

 

To Raymond: This is exactly the kind of photo I want to do. A crisp model in the foreground with a soft "bokeh" in the backgroung. Unfortunalty the 50mm can't show de among of bakground I want, so the requirement for the 35mm. Do you have others examples. Your example was did with the 35/2.0 or the 34/1.4?

Just another question,

 

The 35/1.4 is usable full wide open (1.4)? I'm asking this because many nikonians had confirmad that the nikkor 35/1.4 is not usable wide open.

 

Does Anybody know how many aperture blades the 35/1.4 have?

 

Thank you very much for all the information,

They are very useful.

Regards,

 

Alex.

[raymond_raymond1]

Hi, Alex

 

The photo was taken with 35/1.4

 

Pls find below another taken on the same day. But no bokeh as you could see.

 

I just counted the number of blades on my 35/1.4, it should be eight blades.

 

Please let me attach another photo, aperture should be around 2.8

 

As I have mentioned in my above message, really really really think twice about 35/1.4, it is not that value for money. I believe, with the optical performance of 35/2, can do 95% of 35/1.4's job. And the price of 35/1.4 is 4.5 times the price. Well, you may say that I am kicking my ass, but this is a piece of advice from the owner of 35/1.4 and also the ex-owner of 35/2

 

Enjoy shooting

[raymond_raymond1]

Hi, Alex

 

Forget to talk about the performance at F1.4

 

I have read some review from the web saying that it is great. But in the real world, when your model is close to you (this is what you intend to do, right?), and you open at F1.4, the depth of view is just too shallow that you can hardly focus.

 

Well, you can always say using a tripod and focus manually / slowly. True, but it takes much longer time and much more effort. For myself, I seldom use a tripod for ourdoor portrait, since I would always like to catch "that" moment / facial expression. A tripod adversely affects.

 

That's why I seldom use F1.4 when there is enough light....... Well, don't blame me, I am just one of the stupids who want a 35/1.4 mainly to show off

[alan_krantz]

Hum - from your uploaded image there appears to be a ton of chromatic aberration - is this from the lens or scanner ?

[raymond_raymond1]

Hi, Alan

 

As I have mentioned in the above messages, I use a <$100 worth desk top scanner on a 4" X 6" print. That degrades the image a lot, the original print is much better.

 

I used Fuji Superior 100, frontier machine to develop and print. I donno how to say in English, but my feeling on the colour of the original print is quite "hard" and "exegerated". Well, not very natural from my viewpoint, but not too bad.

 

On the other hand, I believe the 35/1.4 lens does not have the chromatic abberation problem. This kind of problem is more common on tele lens.

 

I not not trying to be a sales from Canon, but I could not believe this damn expensive 35/1.4 has chromatic abberation problem, which can even be seen on a 4" X 6" print

[gary voth]

In terms of overall performance this is the best high speed 35mm lens I have ever used. Wide open (with careful focus) mine is already critically sharp.

 

It is superior to the vaunted Leica 35mm f/1.4 M-ASPH, and leagues better in all respects than the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS, both of which I also own. It is mechanically very solid and butter smooth for an AF lens.

 

That said, it is 3 times the size/weight of the Leica lens and too pricey for most users.

 

For less bulk and weight, I would love to see Canon replace its "ugly duckling" 35mm f/2 (and 24 f/2.8) with a more modern version having a USM motor, FTM focusing and better build quality... I'm guessing this is not a high priority for Canon however.