# 35mm 1.4L II



## gjones5252 (Oct 12, 2015)

I recently received my new lens and I am stoked to take some real pictures with it. I had a few minutes to walk around and capture some random stuff. I figured you would enjoy seeing these and hopefully it will help some of you buy it or not. I am happy to try and answer questions or take pictures of something if you would like. Sorry they arent award winning. 
This also showed me i have no idea what 35mm looks like. I am so used to 50mm it was freaky.
Edit-this is my first time posting pictures so if its wrong or looks weird I am sorry. also these apparently direct you to my site. Please do not judge, i am way overdue on a update and it seems like a overwhelming task right now.


----------



## Cali Capture (Oct 12, 2015)

Thanks for Posting Pics! Look Sharp. What are your impressions of the lens? Focus speed, build, contrast, ect. I'm curious as to the CA abilitys of the organic Blue Gu, so if you can snap some pics of coins in the corners, print or hard lines in full sunlight! Thanks.


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 12, 2015)

Cali- I would be happy to see if i can get some good pictures of some CA. if i can..
So far i am liking it in my limited use. i am eager to try its focus capabilities at nights. 
I will say that i have 3 other primes-50 Art, 85 1.8, and 100 macro. I have always felt like my 100 focuses very reliably while my 50 focuses well but its seems to have the slightest spread. With the 35 i feel like its always spot on. If its back or forward I can usually see why very quickly. Like animals or people moving quickly or me moving as well. 
Its not as heavy as people have cried. its heavy but balances easily on my 5d3. I have yet to put it on any other camera. Build is identical to all other new lenses 24-70, 16-35f4.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 12, 2015)

gjones5252 said:


> Its not as heavy as people have cried. its heavy but balances easily on my 5d3. I have yet to put it on any other camera. Build is identical to all other new lenses 24-70, 16-35f4.



This lens has more heft than the old 35L but it is still a feather weight compare to 85L II and 70-200 2.8 IS II. ;-)


----------



## teddbell (Oct 12, 2015)

Got mine a couple days ago. Definitely a fun lens. Sold the old 35 L about a month ago and really missed the perspective when I was using my 85mm. 

I'm really just an amateur, so I can't comment on the technical aspects of the lens, but the autofocus blows the old lens out of the water. Definitely much quicker and quite accurate out of the box (I don't AF microadjust). I haven't missed a whole lot of shots with the new lens. Was even able to focus quickly in near darkness in a poorly lit beer garden Saturday night (coupled with a 5D mark III). The lens also seems to have a stronger vignette, but that might just be subjective on my part. 

Definitely worth the price. I got $1K for the old one (had paid $1040 4 years ago), so it was an easy upgrade. 

The attached shot with my wife and baby was 1.4, 1/200s, 1600iso. The shot with the ice cream cone was near pitch black condition with some soft light coming in from a window behind the camera (1.4, 1/60s, 6400iso; i lifted the exposure 0.35. I also cropped about 60% of the photo for the internet post, since my friends kids are in it). Had no problem focusing near dark; the old lens would have focused hunted forever I think. No regrets about this lens.


----------



## adventureous (Oct 12, 2015)

My 16-35II shot at 35 would look 10 times worse in the first cow photo because of the sun's angle. I see a big difference, which isn't saying much as the 16-35II has been due an update since 2007.


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 12, 2015)

adventureous said:


> My 16-35II shot at 35 would look 10 times worse in the first cow photo because of the sun's angle. I see a big difference, which isn't saying much as the 16-35II has been due an update since 2007.


 This is the reason I have this lens. I sold this lens to get the 35mm. I loved my 16-35ii but it was only useful for video for me. I just hated the quality of the image when i used it for pictures. They were good but when they were displayed next to pictures taken by other lenses it was night and day.


----------



## persiannight (Oct 12, 2015)

I've currently been shooting the 35L extensively for the last 3 years. It is my goto lens and on my camera 90% of the time. I've been evaluating the 35L II for the last 5 days. It is an incredibly sharp lens, edge-to-edge sharp, little-to-no CA, and focuses very fast. NOW with saying all that I DO feel that the original 35L renders a more "organic" or "film" like image and is my preference. Technically and on paper the 35L II is better than the old one but there is just something of how the old one renders an image. To me the bokeh is nicer (most likely due to the lens not being as sharp) on the old lens as well. If you're shooting the 5ds/5dsr then by all means the 35L II is probably worth the upgrade. True, the sharpness difference, particularly wide open, is noticeable on the 5d2/5d3 but, again for me, I feel the original 35L, produces a more pleasing image.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 12, 2015)

persiannight said:


> I've currently been shooting the 35L extensively for the last 3 years. It is my goto lens and on my camera 90% of the time. I've been evaluating the 35L II for the last 5 days. It is an incredibly sharp lens, edge-to-edge sharp, little-to-no CA, and focuses very fast. NOW with saying all that I DO feel that the original 35L renders a more "organic" or "film" like image and is my preference. Technically and on paper the 35L II is better than the old one but there is just something of how the old one renders an image. To me the bokeh is nicer (most likely due to the lens not being as sharp) on the old lens as well. If you're shooting the 5ds/5dsr then by all means the 35L II is probably worth the upgrade. True, the sharpness difference, particularly wide open, is noticeable on the 5d2/5d3 but, again for me, I feel the original 35L, produces a more pleasing image.



Have any side by side comparison samples to show us that "film" like images you're talking about? I'm sure you would find the same result from the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 IS, and all other lens that went through the upgrade recently. Pretty much all the old MK1 got that same "organic look" due to the hazier and softer images they reproduced. If that's your cup of tea you should definitely try the Canon old school 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 MK1 wide open, it's like a USDA Prime grade "organic". ;-)


----------



## persiannight (Oct 12, 2015)

I did say personal preference 

Also shoot the 50/1.2 so I know all about USDA prime grade looks...

I'm just offering a different angle than the typical "sharpness sharpness sharpness" viewpoint..


----------



## Viggo (Oct 12, 2015)

Thanks for sharing! Much appreciated. I think the new lens draw much nicer than the old one. The bokeh looks wonderful. It has more pop, due to less distortion, ca and the fact that it's much much sharper.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 12, 2015)

persiannight said:


> I did say personal preference
> 
> Also shoot the 50/1.2 so I know all about USDA prime grade looks...
> 
> I'm just offering a different angle than the typical "sharpness sharpness sharpness" viewpoint..




I hear ya, for portraiture I'd have to apply more softening now since all the skin imperfection are being magnified under 35L II. LOL 

But it is easier to soften a sharp image than sharpen a soft image though, can't really create something out of nothing when the data wasn't captured.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 13, 2015)

teddbell said:


> Got mine a couple days ago. Definitely a fun lens. Sold the old 35 L about a month ago and really missed the perspective when I was using my 85mm.
> 
> I'm really just an amateur, so I can't comment on the technical aspects of the lens, but the autofocus blows the old lens out of the water. Definitely much quicker and quite accurate out of the box (I don't AF microadjust). I haven't missed a whole lot of shots with the new lens. Was even able to focus quickly in near darkness in a poorly lit beer garden Saturday night (coupled with a 5D mark III). The lens also seems to have a stronger vignette, but that might just be subjective on my part.
> 
> ...



Where did you focus on the shot of the kid and woman? It's pretty much not sharp anywhere except maybe her forhead. If you focused on the baby's eye you have missed completely. "I don't do afma" You REALLY should, or else buying a sharp lens makes no sense.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 13, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Where did you focus on the shot of the kid and woman? It's pretty much not sharp anywhere except maybe her forhead. If you focused on the baby's eye you have missed completely. "I don't do afma" You REALLY should, or else buying a sharp lens makes no sense.



Both of his shots are extremely soft, like 18-55 MK1 kit lens soft  I suspect he got a defective copy, I saw someone got a defective copy on different forum the other day, it probably went through some Ace Ventura treatment, his replacement was much better.


----------



## turbo1168 (Oct 13, 2015)

ben805 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you focus on the shot of the kid and woman? It's pretty much not sharp anywhere except maybe her forhead. If you focused on the baby's eye you have missed completely. "I don't do afma" You REALLY should, or else buying a sharp lens makes no sense.
> ...



Easy enough to at least test for free. I'm sure a professional tool is much better, but this gets it in the ballpark.


----------



## Pookie (Oct 13, 2015)

Man, these images look bad... either poor subject choice (to demonstrate wide open aspects) or complete lack of focus shows nothing this lens can do. Real shame... you could pull any of these images off with kit lenses on a XSi.


----------



## Mike9919 (Oct 21, 2015)

Hello,

I'm new to the forum and hope someone can provide some input. I just upgraded to a 6D and decided to buy the 35 mm F2 when a friend told me about this lens. 

It looks great, but the price is (obviously) much higher than the F2 and I'm not a professional photographer. I'm just a rank amateur who is enjoying the new camera. I used to have the T3i.

For someone who just does landscape shots, night shots and street photography, is this lens worth the extra $$ or will the F2 be all I need?

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 21, 2015)

Mike9919 said:


> For someone who just does landscape shots, night shots and street photography, is this lens worth the extra $$ or will the F2 be all I need?
> 
> Thanks for any help!



It's all subjective to whims and desires but for the uses you describe no one would ever tell the difference. 

My own personal opinion: the 35/ 1.4 L is a wedding / social photographers lens for producing shallow dof shots in relatively confined spaces. 

Might be worth having a look at the new Tamron 35/1.8. Dustin Abbot has given it a glowing review here on CR.


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 21, 2015)

Mike9919 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm new to the forum and hope someone can provide some input. I just upgraded to a 6D and decided to buy the 35 mm F2 when a friend told me about this lens.
> 
> ...




Hi and welcome to the forum, I would say stick with the 35 f2 IS it's an amazing lens. I use it professionally, as an architecture, interior and industrial photographer. I have nothing bad to say about it, it is tack sharp at every stop. Yes the bokeh will be softer wide opened with the 1.4, but honestly I would be surprised that you see such a difference in general use. It's half the weight, 1/4 of the price and you get IS as a bonus. 

Honestly, I chose the f2 for work because it gives tack sharp pictures from f2 to f22 and I don't need 1.4, none of my clients ever complained about lack of sharpness, it is as good as any of my other L lenses. I doubt the 1.4 L II would bring you much more for landscape and night photography. IMO the 1300$ difference would be better invested in other equipment / accessories. 

For street photography, it is quite a bit more discreet as well.

On the other hand, if you have the cash to burn.... But better photography doesn't always mean the newest and most expensive equipment, IMO, in your case, save your money and buy something else with the difference.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Mike9919 (Oct 22, 2015)

Sporgon and symmar22:

Thanks for your replies. I'll take a look at the Tamron 1.8. 

You bring up a good point about using the money for other equipment. I checked and I can get the 35 1.2 and the 16-35L for $200 less than the 35 1.4. I think I'll stick with the F2 as the front runner, check out the Tamron and wait on other lenses for now. I've heard very good things about the F2.

Thanks again for your input!


----------



## Ivan Muller (Oct 28, 2015)

mike9919

I do this for a living but probably have fewer lenses than most of the posters here. 

My advice is always start off with just one prime lens for at least a year....try the 40mm pancake, (its cheap, small and very good) after a year you will have a very good idea what you really NEED...


----------

