6 ms·

I'd argue if you're using Canon's 35mm F1.4 at anything other than F1.4 you're wasting a lot of money. I hear the v2 rev is also very sharp compared to the ori

I'd argue if you're using Canon's 35mm F1.4 at anything other than F1.4 you're wasting a lot of money. I hear the v2 rev is also very sharp compared to the original. Although I find the rendering of the original quite good enough.

melted 11y ago
Compared to 35mm 'Lux, Canon is a Coke bottle bottom. It's worse than Nikon 35 f/1.4, and it is really an f/2 lens at best, with inflated specs. Rent a Lux if you get a chance. I held Canon/Nikon in much higher regard until I tried Leica.
- vvanders 11y ago
  Cool, I'll make sure to drop my 35L off at the local recycling center then.
- flaie 11y ago
  From what I've seen the Canon 35L II is unbeaten
foldr 11y ago
When would you ever want to shoot at f1.4? The low light argument makes less sense in the context of digital cameras with VR lenses, since bumping up the ISO a stop or two, or using a longer shutter speed, would usually degrade the overall quality of the image less than having almost everything out of focus. Nothing wrong with a bit of bokeh, but at the focal lengths typically used with a full frame sensor, f1.4 will almost always give you less than the desired depth of field.
- melted 11y ago
  35 benefits significantly from f/1.4. 50 benefits too, but to a lesser extent. You get better subject separation at greater distances.
- vvanders 11y ago
  All the time, otherwise you'd buy the 35mm F2 and save about $1.2k. Depth of Field is a function of Aperture , Focal Length and Distance to plane of focus. The focal length drives how wide the "scatter" of the blur is, so wide angle lenses like the 35mm have a very "soft" blur as opposed to something like a 400mm F2.8 which just obliterates backgrounds. This is also driven by how close you are focusing so you can shoot a 35mm F1.4 wide open, focusing around ~15ft away and the detail of the scene is very much preserved. It lets you focus on a subject and give them a slight "pop" of focus while keeping the rest of scene coherent.
  - foldr 11y ago
    Can you give an example of the sort of scene you have in mind? I often play around with 4x5 photography, where it would be trivially easy to get that effect for a subject 15ft away with a $100 lens, but I've never actually wanted to do it.
    - vvanders 11y ago
      Yeah, in 4x5 you've got a larger "sensor" which also contributes to DoF. [edit] If I remember my lens geometry correctly, film size is just the other side of focal length when it comes to bokeh calculations. I grabbed this random image from the 35L group on Flickr, they didn't include EXIF so I can't be 100% certain they shot it at F1.4 but it looks very close to shots I have at F1.4 from that lens. https://www.flickr.com/photos/49830238@N04/25021998886/in/pool-27449914@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/49830238@N04/25021998886/in/po...
      - foldr 11y ago
        >Yeah, in 4x5 you've got a larger "sensor" which also contributes to DoF. It’s only the focal length and aperture that contribute to DoF. With a larger sensor you are typically using longer focal lengths since you need a longer focal length to get the same FoV. That being said, you also have the option of using movements on 4x5, so subject separation can be achieved by changing the plane of focus even when using a narrow aperture. There are some very technically accomplished examples of this at http://www.p1600.com/en/portfolio/london_5x4/ http://www.p1600.com/en/portfolio/london_5x4/ (not my photos), but on balance I think that these are more of a technical tour de force than an artistic success. There's no way to know what aperture the photo you linked to was shot at, but it doesn't look to me like it would have to be particularly wide. Honestly, I find it a bit depressing that there are flickr groups fetishizing particular lenses.
- zobby 11y ago
  I would like to shoot at 0.95 forever, even in full midday light, because lenses are dreaming at that aperture. https://www.flickr.com/photos/102221463@N02/24974701115/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/102221463@N02/24974701115/

melted 11y ago

Compared to 35mm 'Lux, Canon is a Coke bottle bottom. It's worse than Nikon 35 f/1.4, and it is really an f/2 lens at best, with inflated specs. Rent a Lux if you get a chance. I held Canon/Nikon in much higher regard until I tried Leica.

vvanders 11y ago
Cool, I'll make sure to drop my 35L off at the local recycling center then.
flaie 11y ago
From what I've seen the Canon 35L II is unbeaten

foldr 11y ago

When would you ever want to shoot at f1.4? The low light argument makes less sense in the context of digital cameras with VR lenses, since bumping up the ISO a stop or two, or using a longer shutter speed, would usually degrade the overall quality of the image less than having almost everything out of focus. Nothing wrong with a bit of bokeh, but at the focal lengths typically used with a full frame sensor, f1.4 will almost always give you less than the desired depth of field.

melted 11y ago
35 benefits significantly from f/1.4. 50 benefits too, but to a lesser extent. You get better subject separation at greater distances.
vvanders 11y ago
All the time, otherwise you'd buy the 35mm F2 and save about $1.2k. Depth of Field is a function of Aperture , Focal Length and Distance to plane of focus. The focal length drives how wide the "scatter" of the blur is, so wide angle lenses like the 35mm have a very "soft" blur as opposed to something like a 400mm F2.8 which just obliterates backgrounds. This is also driven by how close you are focusing so you can shoot a 35mm F1.4 wide open, focusing around ~15ft away and the detail of the scene is very much preserved. It lets you focus on a subject and give them a slight "pop" of focus while keeping the rest of scene coherent.
- foldr 11y ago
  Can you give an example of the sort of scene you have in mind? I often play around with 4x5 photography, where it would be trivially easy to get that effect for a subject 15ft away with a $100 lens, but I've never actually wanted to do it.
  - vvanders 11y ago
    Yeah, in 4x5 you've got a larger "sensor" which also contributes to DoF. [edit] If I remember my lens geometry correctly, film size is just the other side of focal length when it comes to bokeh calculations. I grabbed this random image from the 35L group on Flickr, they didn't include EXIF so I can't be 100% certain they shot it at F1.4 but it looks very close to shots I have at F1.4 from that lens. https://www.flickr.com/photos/49830238@N04/25021998886/in/pool-27449914@N00/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/49830238@N04/25021998886/in/po...
    - foldr 11y ago
      >Yeah, in 4x5 you've got a larger "sensor" which also contributes to DoF. It’s only the focal length and aperture that contribute to DoF. With a larger sensor you are typically using longer focal lengths since you need a longer focal length to get the same FoV. That being said, you also have the option of using movements on 4x5, so subject separation can be achieved by changing the plane of focus even when using a narrow aperture. There are some very technically accomplished examples of this at http://www.p1600.com/en/portfolio/london_5x4/ http://www.p1600.com/en/portfolio/london_5x4/ (not my photos), but on balance I think that these are more of a technical tour de force than an artistic success. There's no way to know what aperture the photo you linked to was shot at, but it doesn't look to me like it would have to be particularly wide. Honestly, I find it a bit depressing that there are flickr groups fetishizing particular lenses.
zobby 11y ago
I would like to shoot at 0.95 forever, even in full midday light, because lenses are dreaming at that aperture. https://www.flickr.com/photos/102221463@N02/24974701115/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/102221463@N02/24974701115/