35 L vs. 35 L II

Feb 23, 2014
68
2
#21
takesome1 said:
lightthief said:
takesome1, you make me thinking again!
What is the "wow" you are missing now? Can you show some pictures from the old/new one - sure, not the same moment, but some examples, please?

Thanks!
I wouldn't have any that show that difference. They both have done a great job.
The reference was about money, I just didn't see a significant improvement (if any) for the value of the money.
Okay, thank you. I thought that you see a difference - the old one locks wow and the new one... not.
Some people say they see a difference and some of them prefer the "look" of the old lens. I believe there is more to a lens than sharpness, ... but i do not find the words to describe that.
At least those comments made me asking myself: What is more important to me - perfect IQ or the "look"?
I don't know...
 
Feb 23, 2014
68
2
#22
Larsskv said:
drjlo said:
Larsskv said:
When it comes to the overall look of the images though, I am not sure which one is my favorite. They produce different looking images, and I very often appreciate the look I get from the original 35L. I like the ones from the 35LII as well, but those images have a more clinical look to them, while the 35L pictures have more mood to them - which I often prefer.
I, too, am often surprised by how I often prefer photos from older "less sharp" lenses than recent batch of super-sharp lenses. I have the 35L, 50L, and 85L II, and while their sharpness have been eclipsed by new lenses, I am not sure if the overall picture has been..
I agree!

I have much love for the 50L and 85LII as well.

I bought the new 85 f1.4 L IS a few months ago. It is a very good lens, and it is better than the 85LII in every objectively measurable way - sharper, less CA, shorter minimum focus distance, faster and more precise AF, weather sealed... While it takes very good looking images, I prefer the pictures I get from the 85LII.

My "secret" when using the 50L and 85LII - for portraits - is to use them at f2. I know people say they buy a f1.2 lens to shoot it at f1.2, but people should really explore the quality of these lenses at f2-f2.8. They are plenty sharp at f2, they have nice contrast and clarity, they have a nice amount of depth of field, and they make subjects stand out from the background in a very pleasing way.

In my experience, the 35L is very nice already from f1.4.
I use the 35 L from 1.4 to >4 and i like it. Sometimes some purple-whatever is visible, but it doesn't kill me. The 85 is very good to me from 1.8 on and close to perfect at 2.8. I love it, too. But both lenses are very often too slow for my moving kids.
You and some other people do not help me... :mad: ;)
 
#23
I own the 35 L II and love it. it was a replacement for a 35 F2 (none Is).

I new the 35 L II was sharp but OMG.. it's great. AF took a few attempts to get dialled in calibration wise but I attribute that to it being a new lens and needing to bed in time.

Love what the lens does with my 5D Mark II bodies.
 

Larsskv

Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Jun 12, 2015
622
36
#24
lightthief said:
Larsskv said:
drjlo said:
Larsskv said:
When it comes to the overall look of the images though, I am not sure which one is my favorite. They produce different looking images, and I very often appreciate the look I get from the original 35L. I like the ones from the 35LII as well, but those images have a more clinical look to them, while the 35L pictures have more mood to them - which I often prefer.
I, too, am often surprised by how I often prefer photos from older "less sharp" lenses than recent batch of super-sharp lenses. I have the 35L, 50L, and 85L II, and while their sharpness have been eclipsed by new lenses, I am not sure if the overall picture has been..
I agree!

I have much love for the 50L and 85LII as well.

I bought the new 85 f1.4 L IS a few months ago. It is a very good lens, and it is better than the 85LII in every objectively measurable way - sharper, less CA, shorter minimum focus distance, faster and more precise AF, weather sealed... While it takes very good looking images, I prefer the pictures I get from the 85LII.

My "secret" when using the 50L and 85LII - for portraits - is to use them at f2. I know people say they buy a f1.2 lens to shoot it at f1.2, but people should really explore the quality of these lenses at f2-f2.8. They are plenty sharp at f2, they have nice contrast and clarity, they have a nice amount of depth of field, and they make subjects stand out from the background in a very pleasing way.

In my experience, the 35L is very nice already from f1.4.
I use the 35 L from 1.4 to >4 and i like it. Sometimes some purple-whatever is visible, but it doesn't kill me. The 85 is very good to me from 1.8 on and close to perfect at 2.8. I love it, too. But both lenses are very often too slow for my moving kids.
You and some other people do not help me... :mad: ;)
I am helpless myself. It is expensive, because I am unable to choose, and ends up with several lenses with similar focal length and aperture. ???

I’m glad I’m not into Leica... :eek:
 

Arty

EOS M50
Jun 5, 2014
58
0
#25
You need faster shutter speeds and more depth of field when trying to capture moving kids. I like my Canon 35F2IS for this purpose, as the AF is very fast, and I need F2 or smaller apertures for depth of field with moving kids.
My taste (and wallet) are not unlimited.
I usually try to shoot at as low an ISO as I can, but F2 is usually workable in my house, even at night. What ISOs and shutter speeds are you using? If taking a photo of more than one person, even F2 is iffy.
 
Jan 2, 2014
18
1
#26
I've had all the main 35mm lenses. The original 35 f/2 many years ago, which created beautiful family snaps despite the noisy af. The original 35L is superb. I thought it was a big lens at the time but lenses seem to be getting bigger, it's a nice size and image quality and af were always great to me. I ended up selling the 35L for a 300 2.8 and still regret that somewhat. After selling it I eventually started the search to replace it, starting with the 35 f/2 IS. This is a superb little lens in every way but I found it lacking that dreamy something that the 35L gave. Next was the Sigma Art 35 which I absolutely loved the image quality of but had AF issues. Finally went for the 35 1.4 ii and wont be changing again. The image quality is near perfect and AF extremely good (though not certain I can tell a difference from the original 35L there personally but can't compare side by side, only from memory). I'd say go with the 35ii if you are a perfectionist and want ultimate quality and possibly best AF in class. Otherwise the original 35L will almost certainly suffice and still product images with that magical look. I know I'd still be happy with the original. The mkii lens is significantly bigger and heavier - that is my only complaint about the lens.
 
Jul 22, 2011
35
2
#27
I have tried 35L and 35L II and i honestly hated how v2 renders background. It doesnt have that original 35 quality that i love and adore. Even Sigma 35 Art is closer to original then 35L II.

I will not be selling or replacing my original 35L
 
Jan 2, 2014
18
1
#28
I've had both lenses and would base it on what you plan to photograph. If you need technically perfect pixel peeping sharpness then go with the 35ii. I use it for landscape and it is probably sharpest lens I have right to edges. I had no issues with focus on 5dsr. I now use it on A7r3 and it works very well on that with mc11. For portraits I'd personally be perfectly happy with the original 35. I don't recall any focus issues with that one. I prefer the size and weight of the original, the 35ii feels bigger and heavier.