Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Image Appears

[Maiaibing]

Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2

No, it's just 1,41 times that big.

You both need to read up on what determines f-stop's.

Let me suggest:
http://pleasemakeanote.blogspot.com/2010/10/mathematics-of-fstop-aperture-numbers.html
and more straight forward
http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/how-tos/digital-camera-operation/how-is-an-f-stop-calculated.html

 

[scyrene]

Forgive me.
I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.

You are forgiven

Say you at least like cachaça!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Ok....wading back into the whole Sigma vs Canon discussion.
The old ef 35mm f1.4 L is a far better investment than the current Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens in my professional opinion.
As a professional wedding photographer, there are other considerations to a lens beyond the usual lens test charts. Firstly, the Autofocus' speed, accuracy and reliability are more important than mft chart scores. I've had countless sharp Sigma lenses which had dubious Autofocus systems when compared to Canon. Then there's the repair and warranty considerations. Canon has THE biggest dealer / repair network than all of the other brands put together...that's an important factor if your main lens goes down in the middle of a peak season flurry. It's not uncommon for me to shoot three or four weddings back to back in as many days. Gear fear should be the least of my worries. I've yet to use a Sigma lens which fills me with the same confidence as Canon's L gear. Canon's gear, I can use, abuse and forget about it ever failing. With Sigma...I have a very different story, sorry but their gear is more fragile...end of story. Then there's residual value. My ef 35mm f1.4L is 6 years old and has had a hard life. But a simple clean and it looks like new. I spent £850 buying it 6 years ago and it's paid for itself many times over. Currently it's worth around £750-800 on the second hand market...so it's hardly cost me anything to own. Every Sigma which I've bought over the years has deteriorated significantly after just one year and by the time I've come to sell it...it's looked like a wreck. I've been lucky to get half of what I paid for it and in some cases it's been only a third. So is the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art a bargain? In my opinion...no, not if you intend to use it in a professional context and intend to sell it after 5 years.
Do I care that the Sigma is optically better shooting walls and lens charts? No...I've got countess beautiful images and happy customers using the Canon ef 35mm f1.4L....shooting stopped down or wide open. I've never had any issues with the current Canon lens' image quality. Of some one thinks that the Canon version is lacking in some way...you need your head examined and your shooting priorities looked at. I meet a lot of semi pro / amateur club photographers who seem to enjoy a cache of new gear than a cache of new and great photos.

The new lens is going to be expensive at launch. I remember the 24mm f14 II L coming in at £1599 at launch, but soon settled down to realistic levels after a year or so. I'm sure the new lens will do the same. I'm sure the new weather proofing and optical coatings will be very useful and I hope the new hood is a better design. But until I have a compelling reason to upgrade...I'm happy with my current lens (except that it's AF isn't reliable in really low light).

So that's my statement from my professional point of view. Naturally, you are entitled to your own opinion.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.

I think I'd count in the camp of people who really want this.

The 35mm f/1.4 has always attracted me, but it's not weathersealed. That's a problem for me, because I can't stop shooting just because of the weather. I was out at the scene of a large house fire in heavy rain and heavy smoke for about four hours last week, and I had left my weathercover at home thinking it wasn't going to rain. Though my 5D3 and 24-70mm took an absolute beating by the rainstorm, not a drop of water ended up inside my camera or lens, even after a very close inspection. I'd also like to mention the smoke, which coated my camera bag, throat, and the inside of my nose with dust! That would've been nasty inside my lenses.

I've used my ef 35mm f1.4 L in heavy rain and gotten mine properly soaked. It's been fine every time. In fact I'm more likely to get camera issues than lens issues in heavy rain. I'm a UK wedding photographer and sometimes I take soaking. That's life as a wedding photographer in a wet country. My main lenses of choice are 16-35IIL (weather sealed), 35 f1.4L, 85 f1.2 II L, 100 USM LIS macro (weather sealed), 135 f2L. My most used lenses are the 35 and 85 and neither are weather sealed...and i've never has any issues with rain water.

Here's a photo from a few year's back...5D2's:

 

[sanj]

Man! I would be wiping it rather than photographing it...!!

 

[eninja]

You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.

I think I'd count in the camp of people who really want this.

The 35mm f/1.4 has always attracted me, but it's not weathersealed. That's a problem for me, because I can't stop shooting just because of the weather. I was out at the scene of a large house fire in heavy rain and heavy smoke for about four hours last week, and I had left my weathercover at home thinking it wasn't going to rain. Though my 5D3 and 24-70mm took an absolute beating by the rainstorm, not a drop of water ended up inside my camera or lens, even after a very close inspection. I'd also like to mention the smoke, which coated my camera bag, throat, and the inside of my nose with dust! That would've been nasty inside my lenses.

I've used my ef 35mm f1.4 L in heavy rain and gotten mine properly soaked. It's been fine every time. In fact I'm more likely to get camera issues than lens issues in heavy rain. I'm a UK wedding photographer and sometimes I take soaking. That's life as a wedding photographer in a wet country. My main lenses of choice are 16-35IIL (weather sealed), 35 f1.4L, 85 f1.2 II L, 100 USM LIS macro (weather sealed), 135 f2L. My most used lenses are the 35 and 85 and neither are weather sealed...and i've never has any issues with rain water.

Here's a photo from a few year's back...5D2's:

You shoot with prime lens for wedding events??

I bet you image crop a lot? Yes? No?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Forgive me.
I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.

You are forgiven

Say you at least like cachaça!

Caçacha is great when I'm wet from rain, but I left this habit in my teenage years. It is a great drink to warm the body in the cold. Just do not drink while taking photos since its framework would be seriously impaired.

The Brazilian does not make sand castles on the beach. You know, we do not have castles in our country.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

An updated 35 1.4 L would be nice, but over 2000$ sounds a bit heavy for my Needs an Bank Account .

If it will be aviable with an realistic Price Point - it could be mine.

Awaiting the real Numbers when it is aviable.

Greetings Bernd

 

[Luds34]

Man! I would be wiping it rather than photographing it...!!

Haha, exactly how I felt. I don't feel I'm terribly OCD but all I wanted to do was reach into the photo with a towel and wipe that baby down!

 

[roberthajdu]

Ok....wading back into the whole Sigma vs Canon discussion.
The old ef 35mm f1.4 L is a far better investment than the current Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens in my professional opinion.
As a professional wedding photographer, there are other considerations to a lens beyond the usual lens test charts. Firstly, the Autofocus' speed, accuracy and reliability are more important than mft chart scores. I've had countless sharp Sigma lenses which had dubious Autofocus systems when compared to Canon. Then there's the repair and warranty considerations. Canon has THE biggest dealer / repair network than all of the other brands put together...that's an important factor if your main lens goes down in the middle of a peak season flurry. It's not uncommon for me to shoot three or four weddings back to back in as many days. Gear fear should be the least of my worries. I've yet to use a Sigma lens which fills me with the same confidence as Canon's L gear. Canon's gear, I can use, abuse and forget about it ever failing. With Sigma...I have a very different story, sorry but their gear is more fragile...end of story. Then there's residual value. My ef 35mm f1.4L is 6 years old and has had a hard life. But a simple clean and it looks like new. I spent £850 buying it 6 years ago and it's paid for itself many times over. Currently it's worth around £750-800 on the second hand market...so it's hardly cost me anything to own. Every Sigma which I've bought over the years has deteriorated significantly after just one year and by the time I've come to sell it...it's looked like a wreck. I've been lucky to get half of what I paid for it and in some cases it's been only a third. So is the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art a bargain? In my opinion...no, not if you intend to use it in a professional context and intend to sell it after 5 years.
Do I care that the Sigma is optically better shooting walls and lens charts? No...I've got countess beautiful images and happy customers using the Canon ef 35mm f1.4L....shooting stopped down or wide open. I've never had any issues with the current Canon lens' image quality. Of some one thinks that the Canon version is lacking in some way...you need your head examined and your shooting priorities looked at. I meet a lot of semi pro / amateur club photographers who seem to enjoy a cache of new gear than a cache of new and great photos.

The new lens is going to be expensive at launch. I remember the 24mm f14 II L coming in at £1599 at launch, but soon settled down to realistic levels after a year or so. I'm sure the new lens will do the same. I'm sure the new weather proofing and optical coatings will be very useful and I hope the new hood is a better design. But until I have a compelling reason to upgrade...I'm happy with my current lens (except that it's AF isn't reliable in really low light).

So that's my statement from my professional point of view. Naturally, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Very much agree with you on the current Canon 35L, which I believe it's an excellent lense and it outperforms most recently released lenses. I'll find very little reason to upgrade to the new lense.

 

[vscd]

It's a little bit tricky with the weathersealing... I always thought my EOS1n is quite a good rain-keeper until last week where it failed in a normal summerrain. The 100L was ok but the cam was wet under the top-plate which kept the whole thing from working. There was even some water nearby the filmentry but it didn't came full to the inside. The batteries got destroyed, too.

After baking it in the oven @50°C (for ca. 20 hours) the body worked again but hey I don't trust it anymore. The thing with the weathersealing on lenses is not to full destroy them, they work for 99.99% of the time. But they will get fog or fungus after a few years... that's the problem fo sealing. If I hear the advertisement for the 5D Mark III Bodies which Canon claimed to be "as weathersealed as the old EOS1n" I don't have any good feelings with it

Damn, If I only could effort the 1DX ;D

 

[Viggo]

It's a little bit tricky with the weathersealing... I always thought my EOS1n is quite a good rain-keeper until last week where it failed in a normal summerrain. The 100L was ok but the cam was wet under the top-plate which kept the whole thing from working. There was even some water nearby the filmentry but it didn't came full to the inside. The batteries got destroyed, too.

After baking it in the oven @50°C (for ca. 20 hours) the body worked again but hey I don't trust it anymore. The thing with the weathersealing on lenses is not to full destroy them, they work for 99.99% of the time. But they will get fog or fungus after a few years... that's the problem fo sealing. If I hear the advertisement for the 5D Mark III Bodies which Canon claimed to be "as weathersealed as the old EOS1n" I don't have any good feelings with it

Damn, If I only could effort the 1DX ;D

When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?

 

[vscd]

When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?

I never maintained the seals (I don't know I have to)... the cam is from around 1995/1996. Does Canon still support the EOS1n with new seals?

 

[Viggo]

When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?

I never maintained the seals (I don't know I have to)... the cam is from around 1995/1996. Does Canon still support the EOS1n with new seals?

The rubber will wear out over time, so a new 5d3 will endure much more than a 20 year old 1d. Not sure if Canon re-seals cameras.

I clean all seals from dust and other once every 4 months, and lubricate with silicone to keep them tight and flexible.