Maybe it's just me but i prefer the 1.4 version. Looks like we will have another 1kg lens to lug around.
Upvote
0
Yeah... the 35L II is probably the LAST lens I'll be updating! Still one of the best Canon lenses made! I'm keeping my EF L glass but when adding new glass I'm getting the RF versions. So far only have the RF 50L (amazing glass). Would eventually probably upgrade my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II (mainly to get the IS in the RF version).It's hard to imagine it being better than the 35L II, but if they use BR optics, it just might.
Absolutely. I shoot at 1.2 on my RF85mm 99% of the time and I have never had an issue nailing the pupil with eye af. Will be even easier at 35mmJust wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.
Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.
So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?
Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.
Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.
So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?
I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.Ugh, a 1.2?! Who wants to carry these bricks? It's going to be 1,000 grams (face in palms, shaking back and forth)
Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.I’ll tak’em all day and everyday.
You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.Where's the consumer glass?
The wider the focal length the wider I like the aperture.Same! I love lugging around my massive rf85 1.2.
I have the battery grip on my R5 and it’s pretty well balanced. I never feel like the setup is that heavy. I was adapting a sigma 105 1.4 on my R and the new setup feels like a point and shoot in comparison lol
Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!You mean the 600 f/11 isn't enough for the masses. People are so demanding.
Me Majestyk Just gave me my laugh for the evening! Thank you very funny!
Yes! That is exactly my impression of the DS lenses as well. I much prefer the non-DS version because it still has the traditional characteristics of what we have become used to for blur created by a lens not a computer.Anyone else out there feel like the Defocus Smoothing produces backgrounds that look too much like computational background blurring from smart phones?
For every example photo I've seen, I much prefer the standard over the DS version for that very reason. Rather than looking "dreamy," it just looks kinda fake.* Maybe it's just 'cause I'm old and didn't grow up in the smart phone Instagram filter era...
* It's a real background that looks like a computational fake background. Would that be a fake fake background?
I seem to have a different experience to others when it comes to Eye-AF on the R5. I get about 80% accuracy with Eye-AF regardless of aperture used. Sometimes it will decided to focus on an ear or a nose and miss the eye by quite a margin.Just wondering... Someone here can HONESTLY reply. I'm waiting on my R5.
If the eye autofocus of the R5 is as super as advertised, then a 35mm at 1.2 would really be worth it. If you could nail the eyes with any kind of consistency, then the f/1.2 would be great. REALLY GREAT.
We have to understand, sometimes our discussions even with manufactures and somewhat based on calculations (sometime subconsciously) on old 35mm film cameras. Once we began to make the move toward digital that thought process carried forward. But some of it should have been changed or dropped.
Some of the early digital phots were characterized as being too clinical, without warmth. Sorta like first going from the turntable to compact disc. ( The accuracy of digital is off putting at first.) Now we want as much sharpness as we can get. If we need to add a little "romance" or character we can add it--very easily in post.
So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?
So...back to my question. Is the eye focus good enough to offset the narrow focus plane of f/1.2?
Generally agreed - not the greatest focal length for blurry backgrounds, although if you get the subject close enough you can get the background to melt away. But even then, seems like the situations where DS would offer a notable difference in the background blur at 35 would be pretty niche and not likely significant enough to justify losing a stop or more of light.35mm is too wide to have DS. For me.