More Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Talk [CR2]

[vscd]

I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.

You make something wrong or have a bad copy I really like the images straight of the small pencake. For the given size the images are quite good and the performance of the autofocus is useable. But of course this is just to see in correlation to the size.

The only thing I could blame is the boring focallenght, but that's the way it is :

 

[Etienne]

I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.

You make something wrong or have a bad copy I really like the images straight of the small pencake. For the given size the images are quite good and the performance of the autofocus is useable. But of course this is just to see in correlation to the size.

The only thing I could blame is the boring focallenght, but that's the way it is :

Sure it is sharp and contrasty, but the focal length is readily available on better lenses, the aperture is nothing special, and there's no IS. So the only remaining qualities are that it is tiny and cheap. There's a place for that, but it certainly won't dissuade me from buying, and using better lenses when I can.

 

[martti]

The law of diminishing returns tells us that you will pay 50 to 100 percent more to get an improvement up to 10% in the picture quality. Smaller, more compact, sharper, lighter and what have you.
The point matched improvements will be carrying a hign unit price.

 

[surapon]

Itll happen but... i doubt i'll get one. I am too satisfied with the 40/2.8 pancake. ;D

+ 100 for me too, Dear friend Dolina, For the low cost and Super High quality lens/ glasses like 40/ 2.8 Canon Pancake---She look like has a wings on the Lens too, She can fly---In my Imagination, from my Pants pocket to my jacket pocket.
Have a great work week, Madame..
Surapon

 

[vscd]

Sure it is sharp and contrasty, but the focal length is readily available on better lenses, the aperture is nothing special, and there's no IS.

It's nice for what it is. There will *always* be a better lens available, but the 24-105 or even 24-70 are too large and bulky. I was really surprised about the IQ from such a simple formula and you could go to the holyday with it if you just have a small package to carry. Stitch some picture together for wideangle or crop from the centre for longer focallenghts ;D

The f2.8 is a little bit slow, ok... but IS on a wideangle/standardprime is nothing I'm concerned about. Canon should check the 38mm f1.8 from my Konica Auto S3, a fantastic lens for fullframe and just a bit larger than the pancake

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.

You make something wrong or have a bad copy I really like the images straight of the small pencake. For the given size the images are quite good and the performance of the autofocus is useable. But of course this is just to see in correlation to the size.

The only thing I could blame is the boring focallenght, but that's the way it is :

Sure it is sharp and contrasty, but the focal length is readily available on better lenses, the aperture is nothing special, and there's no IS. So the only remaining qualities are that it is tiny and cheap. There's a place for that, but it certainly won't dissuade me from buying, and using better lenses when I can.

Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special?
The 35mm f1.4 L is one of Canon's finest wide portrait lenses. It's an amazing lens, if you are finding your images from this lens are sub standard...it's not the gear that needs to improve...

 

[vscd]

Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special?
The 35mm f1.4 L is one of Canon's finest wide portrait lenses. It's an amazing lens, if you are finding your images from this lens are sub standard...it's not the gear that needs to improve...

Calm down kid and learn to read before you talk that big. I wrote about the 40mm 2.8 STM.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special?
The 35mm f1.4 L is one of Canon's finest wide portrait lenses. It's an amazing lens, if you are finding your images from this lens are sub standard...it's not the gear that needs to improve...

Calm down kid and learn to read before you talk that big. I wrote about the 40mm 2.8 STM.

Ah...that's ok then....putting my big hammer back in the box....

 

[Bernd Stuht]

Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .

If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .

AF is relevant for me, so Sigma´s ar not on my Wishlist for now.

It would be used for Streets in the Night, Party´s - whatever ... .

Portraits with 35mm - ok, if the Lens delivers f1.4 - new Possibilities : .

Greetings Bernd

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .

If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .

AF is relevant for me, so Sigma´s ar not on my Wishlist for now.

It would be used for Streets in the Night, Party´s - whatever ... .

Portraits with 35mm - ok, if the Lens delivers f1.4 - new Possibilities : .

Greetings Bernd

I have a 24mm f1.4 II L and a 35mm f1.4 L and comparing both side by side...the 24mm is better built and more sturdier feeling. The 24mm feels heavier and has newer coatings...It's AF is snappier and more accurate in lower light. But I prefer the photos I get from the 35mm, which is the focal length and not the quality of the optics. I find that my 24mm flares less and is a bit sharper in the centre. I couldn't care less about the wide open periferal sharpness...I use it for it's intended genre....portraiture and that's one of the features which I like....soft creamy corners.

 

[PureClassA]

If they produce a lens whose performance is on par with the ART for about $300- 500 more, I'd consider selling my 35mm ART. Same with the 50 if they can pull that off too. Certainly people are willing to pay more for the red rings, but it's not as elastic as it used to be, now with so many well regarded third party options in recent years.

If it stays at or under $1500 (with the current model getting a drop to match Sigma pricing until it runs out), I think they do well. Canon has been very price conscious lately. Most people WAY over estimated the prices of things like the 7D2 and 100-400 mkII when they were announced. I don't see Canon veering off course here either.

 

[Viggo]

Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .

If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .

AF is relevant for me, so Sigma´s ar not on my Wishlist for now.

It would be used for Streets in the Night, Party´s - whatever ... .

Portraits with 35mm - ok, if the Lens delivers f1.4 - new Possibilities : .

Greetings Bernd

I have a 24mm f1.4 II L and a 35mm f1.4 L and comparing both side by side...the 24mm is better built and more sturdier feeling. The 24mm feels heavier and has newer coatings...It's AF is snappier and more accurate in lower light. But I prefer the photos I get from the 35mm, which is the focal length and not the quality of the optics. I find that my 24mm flares less and is a bit sharper in the centre. I couldn't care less about the wide open periferal sharpness...I use it for it's intended genre....portraiture and that's one of the features which I like....soft creamy corners.

So you only shoot center comp? I very often use the outer most points for portrait.