Going Prime - Opinion on 35mm 1.4L

[brambor]

Well. It is time to start replacing my old lenses. My 35-105

3.5-5.6,100-300 5.6 and 50 1.8 are about 15 years old and the age

shows with some scratches on the glass. I also went retro last year

and started using old Konica T1 with 35mm 3.5,57mm 1.4 and 100mm 3.5

prime lenses. The 57 1.4 is one of my favorite lenses and I really

like the way it frames the picture in the viewfinder.

 

 

 

 

I want to start using prime lenses on my Canon EOS D30. A 35mm lens

will give me 57mm lens on the D30 so I thought I'd start saving for

the 35mm 1.4 lens. I would like to hear some opinions on the 35mm 1.4L

 

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

 

 

rb

[eos 10 fan]

Compare the MTF charts of the 35mm f/1.4L USM & 35mm f/2. As you are shooting with a D30, I don't think extra image quality of the 35/1.4L will come through (just speculating). There is a one stop diff between f/1.4 & f/2, so if you need the speed, then you need the speed. The 50mm f/1.8 can be replaced for less than USD$100.

 

For the price of a new 35/1.4L (USD$1100-$1200) you are probably better off ditching the D30 (~USD$600) and upgrading to a 10D (~USD$1500) with a 35/2 lens (USD$215-$225).

 

--

[brambor]

Interesting. The stop difference is almost negligible. I do like to shoot high action events like soccer and hockey but I doubt that I'll be shooting it with the 35mm. I thought that the L designation also gives you better 'color rendition' and better overall picture quality. The question remains whether it is worth $700

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Disclaimer: I've never used either lens.</p>

 

<p>For the most part, the ultra-fast L-series primes which share focal lengths with not-as-fast non-L primes don't get the letter L because they have better optics; they get the letter L because the fancy L technologies (primarily aspherical elements, but Canon has been adding low-dispersion glasses to recent designs to suppress chromatic aberration) are required in order to make them so fast without sacrificing optics. For example, the now-discontinued 50/1.0L is almost universally held to be inferior, optically, to either the 50/1.4 or the 50/1.8. Once in a while, someone will ask whether they should get the 24/1.4L or the 24/2.8, and the usual answer seems to be that if you're planning on stopping down a bit (and for the most part, wide angle lenses aren't used wide open), you'll get pretty much the same picture from either one.</p>

 

<p>While I don't recall seeing a comparison of the 35/1.4L vs. the 35/2, I wouldn't be surprised if the two produced virtually identical results from, say, f/2.8 or f/4 onwards. FWIW, photodo.com gives them almost identical ratings - 4.0 for the 35/1.4L and 3.9 for the 35/2, with the 1.4 holding a slight edge at f/4 which disappears by f/8. Canon's own MTF graphs shown very close performance at f/8 (each lens is better at some points on the graph and worse in others, but apart from the corners, the two are close throughout the frame); while it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, the 35/2 has better MTF wide open than the 35/1.4L does.</p>

 

<p>Unless I needed the extra stop, I'd get the 35/2 and put the extra money into another lens.</p>

[peter_foiles2]

As Steve pointed out, the L designation is not given based on reaching a given level of optical performance but on the use of either a ground aspherical element or low dispersion glass. The only thing the f2 version lacks compared to the f1.4L is one stop in speed and USM focusing. Neither of these features justifies the substantial difference in price IMHO. The f2 is much smaller and more compact as well. I recently bought one for my D60 and it is now the standard lens for that camera. Tack sharp performance, highly recommended. As your lens collection grows keep in mind the 24/2.8, 85/1.8 and 100/2. All give top notch optical performance at bargain prices.

[yakim_peled1]

The 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are two lenses that I dream about but will probably never buy. It's just that I don't shoot wide that often so I cant justify the cost.

 

This month I am going to buy the 24/2.8 and 35/2. I think they will probably last for a long time.

 

My advice ? Buy the 35/2 first. Not good enough ? Sell it and buy the 35/1.4. Chances are that the 35/2 will suffice so you find that you saved a small fortune.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[bill_goldman]

It's a bit misleading to say that the L designation is given to a lens simply because it has fluorite, UD or aspherical elements and not for its optical performance. If that were the case, they would just slap some exotic glass into each lens anc call it an L so they could charge some exhorbitant price for it.

 

In general, L lenses are designed to outperform non-L lenses (at comparable f-stops) and they are built to higher standards than non-L lenses. In addition to being faster, they all have USM with FTM and a number have IS.

 

Although, the slower primes represent excellent value and perform very well, they are not L lenses and not built to the same standards and may not have the same smooth operating focusing ring, weather protection, metal construction, etc. I.e., you get what you pay for.

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

Get the L.

 

- since you seem to have the money. Youll forget the cost once you see the images. You wont have room to blame the lens if an image isnt what you expect. You wont feel regret that you settled for the slower lens. <P>

 

If and when you get your full frame DSLR, youll have a world class wide angle lens ready for it.