The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II is a very versatile lens. The performance is amazing in well-lit and low light settings alike. It is dust-sealed as well and made from high-quality materials, which make it durable. Color, sharpness, focus, and aperture it checks out on all of these aspects. Many buyers have even uploaded sample photographs to make a point about the amazing results one can achieve with it.Įvery single thing about this lens stands out. The performance that this lens provides is what captures the hearts of its users. This Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens is an instant favorite for the majority of buyers. Lens is a bit bulky and a little on the heavier side.Coated with a sub-wavelength coating (SWC) which reduces ghost flares.Sharp lens provides crisp and clear images without distortion.Low aperture provides excellent performance in low light.Auto focus feature works well and provides clear images.Full-frame lens that works with all formats.Thanks to those above for the helpful, firsthand observations.Check Price Best Overall: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II That, coupled with the curse of focus-by-wire prevailing in the mirrorless world. But both AF Nikon and AF Pentax glass are handicapped as lenses practically adaptable to EOS-M or Sony by the long term retention of lever actuated aperture control over the years. pretty useful on mirrorless w/ EVF or a good LCDVF if you prefer prime lenses as I do. Nikon loses bigtime with regard to a choice of compact, broadly useful, VG quality, decent handling (MF-capable) prime lenses for APS-C or future mirrorless Pentax is. most of the rest of the ICL market, have not been encouraging for the most part. Canon's marketing practices in this regard, vs. Canon lenses, on EF-M and Sony mirrorless, are a 'secondary system' in my case so price really does matter. Except that I wouldn't enjoy waiting two or three years for sensible pricing to evolve. Almost all of the other lenses I had or have were much worse.įor me a 85 1.8 IS with more sharpness wide, less PF but a $1.000 price tag and an ugly bokeh like the 35L II I would not see as an improvement of this very fine budget lens. Even on very busy backgrounds, backlit tree leaves and such I have always have a creamy bokeh. Which $300 f1.8 Lens is better? The Bokeh is a very subjective matter but I am surprised you disagree so much with me in this aspect. From 2.8 on it is so sharp even on 50MP that it beats some much more expensive lenses. If you shoot wedding for a living then just take the 85 L, other people just don't shoot in that kind of light.Īs for sharpness, I must disagree strongly. I rarely shoot in light like this and if I do I stop down or use another lens. The 85 has a tendency for PF in extremely high contrast situations, but in real life I have only seen that in white on dark shooting wide open in bright sunlight. I cannot add much as yet on my EF IS lenses' sample performance due to a persistent, temporary disability but from my research, I concluded that the 24mm IS presented an overall advantage to the 24mm STM for my M3 + A5000 (therefore, 'worth it', as 'commodity priced' used) & that the most compact 28mm IS, as a complementary FL to the 40mm STM's, seemed "best behaved", w/ least focus shift & best close focus IQ w/ least L-CA. And film had nowhere near the effective vulnerability to image degradation from hand holding as do modern high pixel density sensors. Herbert Kepler pretty much proved this point definitively back in Modern Photography's film era heyday with many test sequence comparisons. I, too, endorse IS and feel that many must be living in a kind of fool's paradise regarding the consistent sharpness of their "better" handheld shots. for use on Canon M3, Sony A7 II/MC-11 + A5000 (over A6000 for IQ & rendering, AS PRINCIPALLY EMPLOYED). Not the worst, but definitely not the best. It really destroys an image because it is such an odd visual artifact and it's unfixable.Ģ- Not as sharp as reviewers claim Hell, just check the charts at TDP (i check all lenses against it, and its always correct) and you can see that wide open it's mildly sharp in the center. And this lens has a few.ġ- Ghosting- it can be serious or mild, especially up close, but let me tell you it sucks, sucks, SUCKS. What i dont like about these articles regarding this lens, and possibly others, are the negatives that get passed over. 100% honestly, my 50 1.4 - yeah, canons hated lens (psssh) - demonstrably outclasses the image quality of this 35mm. It went back twice actually, and is now a suitably usable lens. It was yet another piece of broken equipment i've gotten from them, and immediately had to go back to the shop. I purchased mine a year ago from canon refurb, after renting it a few times. Wow, this lens is finally getting shine on here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |