The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II "Done"
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Pixel said:
Good idea. I have a 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and I like it a lot. It has been upstaged by the f/4 model. But my f/2.8 takes really, really great pictures. The color is awesome and it is so sharp. I like what it does just fine and I know this lens. There is no need to plunk down another $1K for the f/4.
Upvote
0
First point, it's a full stop from f1.4 and second: you gain nothing on moving subjects with IS.
A smaller diameter is good against flares and with weathersealing + fast Ultrasonic AF this lense could beat the Sigma Art out of the water. We should wait for judging the prices, some recent canonproducts had reasonable prices (even the "L" ones). The Sigma went down from 999€ to 683€ (today) in just 2 years, the Canon 35mm L stays since 11 years around 1180€. So you pay more but loose less after all. It seems to be more stable/valueable
Upvote
0
Well... yes and no. It's a full 'f' stop, but the reality is, by the standards of the current 35mm f/1.4L at least, there's only really about 2/3rds of a stop of difference. The 35mm f/1.4L (current version) is rated at a maximum t-stop of t/1.6, whereas the 35mm f/2 IS is rated at t/2, matching the started f-stop. SO when you use the 35mm f/2 IS at f/2, you're getting t/2. When you use the 35mm f/1.4L at f/1.4 you are getting t/1.6; two thirds of a stop more light than the 35mm f/2 IS, not a whole stop.vscd said:
Of course, there's a chance the new 35mm f/1.4L II will actually get t/1.4 at f/1.4, but it's very rare to see that and almost all of Canon's primes faster than f/2 lose at least a little light, so I think it's fair to assume that the 35mm f/1.4L II will not do any better in this regard.
Combine that with the diminishing returns you get after t/1.5 and you start to wonder why anybody buys the premium f/1.2 lenses which are actually giving you less light than their f/1.4 equivalents.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
aceflibble said:Combine that with the diminishing returns you get after t/1.5 and you start to wonder why anybody buys the premium f/1.2 lenses which are actually giving you less light than their f/1.4 equivalents.
Less halo with the 50mm lens, less LoCA with the 85mm lens. Better bokeh, shallower DoF (worth noting that the 85L delivers more OOF blur along with better bokeh than the 85/1.8 with both at f/1.8 aperture).
Or maybe just the red ring.
Upvote
0
I've been seriously considering selling my 35 ART since getting the 16-35 f4. I also have th 50 ART. Just no use for a prime in that focal length anymore. I've either been shooting a lot of 50mm with the prime, and if I want wider, I'm taking my canon zoom. Haven't really had much call for needing the extra stops at that focal range and if I want that shallow 1.4 effect I'll grab my 50 and back up some.
Kinda hoped Canon would release a new 50mm L prime first (or same time). I'd be very interested in that one if it matched the Sig optically with weather sealing and faster/more accurate AF. Wouldn't mind spending 1500 on that one vs 900 for the ART.
Kinda hoped Canon would release a new 50mm L prime first (or same time). I'd be very interested in that one if it matched the Sig optically with weather sealing and faster/more accurate AF. Wouldn't mind spending 1500 on that one vs 900 for the ART.
Upvote
0
Please buy a TS-E 45mm, 50L and a 135Lprivatebydesign said:As an aside, I believe you all should sponsor me, it isn't until I buy an alternative that something long awaited and interesting comes out, I just got the 16-35 f4 IS and they release the 11-24; I get a 35 f2 IS and they release a 35 L MkII! So what lens do you want relpaced and I'll buy the current version, that is sure to bring a MkII any day
Upvote
0
vscd said:
You are right on both counts, sorry for the brain fart on aperture :-[
As for me, personally, finding IS way more useful than another stop of light on a 35mm, well that is personal to my shooting and I realise it isn't appropriate for everybody. Personally when I am shooting low light with a 35mm I am either dragging the shutter with flash where I don't want especially narrow dof, or I am trying to steady myself against something to stop camera shake rather than be concerned with subject movement, for those situations the IS is more useful and I find I shoot in those situations more often than wanting less dof or a faster shutter speed to reduce subject motion. I can't speak for other users.
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:Please buy a TS-E 45mm, 50L and a 135Lprivatebydesign said:As an aside, I believe you all should sponsor me, it isn't until I buy an alternative that something long awaited and interesting comes out, I just got the 16-35 f4 IS and they release the 11-24; I get a 35 f2 IS and they release a 35 L MkII! So what lens do you want relpaced and I'll buy the current version, that is sure to bring a MkII any day
Send me the sponsorship cheque and I am all in....... ;D
Upvote
0
Mr Bean said:
You say that but have a 35 f2 and 40 f2.8 in your signature, and it is missing a 35 f1.4, so clearly you wouldn't.
Upvote
0
Correct. I don't have the 35 f1.4, but I do have the 24 f1.4 and the 50 f1.4. The point being, I'd prefer the f1.4 (35mm) over the f2 or f2.8. The 35mm f2 I have is around 7-8 years old and I never found it to be a satisfactory lens (quite possibly its just the copy I have). I may sell it and upgrade to the 35 f1.4 but its not high on my list at the moment.privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
Combine that with the diminishing returns you get after t/1.5 and you start to wonder why anybody buys the premium f/1.2 lenses which are actually giving you less light than their f/1.4 equivalents.
Which f1.4 equivalents do you mean @85mm? Even the Otus 85mm is rated @T1.7. I don't see any 85mm lens brighter than t1.4...
I think it's important to know the difference between T- and F-Stops but as most of the lenses fail to equalize the number of fstop/tstop it's negligible anyway. The 35mm f2 IS seems to be an exception.
The qualities of an 85L Lense are way beyond the large aperture. Sharpness, Bokeh and colours are fantastic... for portraits I would choose the 85L over the Otus. Anytime.
And by the way... faster lenses are important on DSLRs because they give you a bright viewfinder and with teleconverters more possibilities to enlarge the focallength. I tried the 85L with a 1.7x Kenko and got a nice 145 f2... can't say this makes sense in many cases but I used it once on a wedding and it worked out quite well, keeping the doublecross AF activ
Upvote
0
Thank you, Canon, for updating a fast favorite! (Though I admit, my copy of the 35mm was so awful with soft focus and CA--but CPS said "In spec"--that I got the Sigma 35mm Art and love it.)
Now, please don't keep us waiting long for the new 50mm 1.2 L!!! I don't want to try another Sigma 50mm Art and find that it works as well as the 35!!!
Yes, I'd pay for larger aperture over IS any day, and I don't have the steadiest hands. Unless someone is sitting frozen for a portrait, the higher shutter speed works best for me. And the shallower depth of field just adds a critical creative option, both for mood and reducing the impact of busy or irrelevant backgrounds.
Go, Canon, go!
(As for those obsessing over T values, way to go, thanks for staying out of the way of serious photographers. :
)
Now, please don't keep us waiting long for the new 50mm 1.2 L!!! I don't want to try another Sigma 50mm Art and find that it works as well as the 35!!!
Yes, I'd pay for larger aperture over IS any day, and I don't have the steadiest hands. Unless someone is sitting frozen for a portrait, the higher shutter speed works best for me. And the shallower depth of field just adds a critical creative option, both for mood and reducing the impact of busy or irrelevant backgrounds.
Go, Canon, go!
(As for those obsessing over T values, way to go, thanks for staying out of the way of serious photographers. :
)
Upvote
0
