Is the 35L worth the money?

Electrin · 3rd February 2006

I've the 35/2, which is great. I like its small size, but after getting the 135/2L I see the difference an L might make.

Is the 35/1.4L worth it?

sk.images · 3rd February 2006

I don't have either, so my comments are general L vs non-L from what I have readand seen on various web site reviews and forums.

L lenses have better construction(i.e. more solid, will last longer, heavier (may not be a good thing)), and generally provide better colour and contrast then non-L's.

As for price, they are always significantly more expensive, but to get the above that is the cost - value is a subjective thing and becomes an individual decision.

Russ · 3rd February 2006

Canon primes are already pretty good in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness and going for an L in this case may not be worthwhile unless you really must have the extra it brings.

For zooms, I think some Ls are worth the extra money, as the differences are more noticeable. Esp the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L.

My 17-40L is no match for my primes (50/1.8 and 85/1.8) although it gets close to my 24/2.8. It beats the other mid range zooms that I have used (28-80 MkI and 24-85) though

Snoweagle · 3rd February 2006

Ls are expensive due to the fluorite elements and coatings.

Fine · 3rd February 2006

I have 35 F1.4L, and since I got it, it's my primary lens always sitting on my cam. With 1.6x DSLR factor, it's actually more or less standard 50mm lens. I use it more for portrait with more background. I like its color and bokeh, and of course, it's very shap. Its sharpness is good from F1.4-1.8, and from F2, it's excellent. For me, I never regretted the purchase.

tOGGY · 3rd February 2006

Very high resolving power. Very fast. Excellent for pictures where sharpness and resolution counts. No no lens for shooting ladies with poor complexion imho. Sure kena left right and centre.

n0d3 · 3rd February 2006

The f/2 you're using doesn't have USM, so you'll defintely see an improvement sound/focusing wise with the f/1.4L. Its expensive though...

Canonised · 3rd February 2006

Is the 35/1.4L worth it?
For the quality and build ..... YES!

But 35mm is a difficult length. Not wide enough for most shot indoor or scenery, and not long enough for portraits, etc... But when the length is right or not enough light condition, nothing beats the 35/1.4L!

Electrin · 3rd February 2006

Wow. Thanks for the great input.

The 35mm focal length works beautifully on my 10D, but it would be a little difficult should I eventually move to a FF (if ever). Might be good to do a side by side comparison of 35/2 and 35/1.4L.

Anyone wants to do?

freelancer · 3rd February 2006

Originally Posted by Russ

Canon primes are already pretty good in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness and going for an L in this case may not be worthwhile unless you really must have the extra it brings.

For zooms, I think some Ls are worth the extra money, as the differences are more noticeable. Esp the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L.

My 17-40L is no match for my primes (50/1.8 and 85/1.8) although it gets close to my 24/2.8. It beats the other mid range zooms that I have used (28-80 MkI and 24-85) though

I would politely disagree. L primes are clearly better in color contrast than non-L primes. Even the L zooms seem to render better colors out of the camera before post processing. Sure the non-L primes are sharper than the L zooms but when it comes to printed images of say 10" x 12" the better color contrast actually shows.

Ris Goh · 3rd February 2006

Question:

1. Do you shoot at f1.4?
2. Do you need the "silent" USM AF?
3. Do you need a nicer bokeh?
4. Do you need a nicer colour?

If the above are all YES then go get one!

If you don't need AF then you can consider other makes like Zeiss 35mm f1.4... cheaper than canon 35L.

Electrin · 3rd February 2006

*laughs* I like how you put it Ris.

Do you "need"?

Not sure about need...but want.

freelancer · 3rd February 2006

Some reasons for the 35/L which I had bookmarked from a discussion at another forum

http://kurtjones.com/jillian.html

shinken · 3rd February 2006

Originally Posted by freelancer

Some reasons for the 35/L which I had bookmarked from a discussion at another forum

http://kurtjones.com/jillian.html

I assume some of them were shot with the 35L? Ah, finally some photos to explain to people who feel portraits have to be tele

RonSS · 3rd February 2006

Originally Posted by freelancer

Some reasons for the 35/L which I had bookmarked from a discussion at another forum

http://kurtjones.com/jillian.html

Wow great shots you have there

freelancer · 3rd February 2006

Yes, with the 35L. Here are the discussion threads if anyone wants to follow the discussion there

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105405/0#841991
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105406/0#841944

Stoned · 3rd February 2006

Depends on your application I feel. F2 is still a fairly bright lens and for me the only reason to get the L would be lots and lots of really low light work where you can't live without the extra stop plus. Colour and contrast are a bonus for the L of course but not absolutely necessary in these days where you can get pretty punchy colour through appropriate PPing.

The big question is, will you be using the extra oomph derived from the 35/1.4L enough to justify the 1500-2000 more you'll need to top up to get it? I'd say go for it if

- 35mm is a frequently used F length for you.
- You have spare cash and want to upgrade something for the hell of it.

shinken · 3rd February 2006

Originally Posted by freelancer

Yes, with the 35L. Here are the discussion threads if anyone wants to follow the discussion there

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105405/0#841991
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105406/0#841944

Last 2 pics are very good tightly cropped protraits with very good control on the characteristics of the wide angle perspectives.

Xing · 4th February 2006

Originally Posted by Electrin

Wow. Thanks for the great input.

The 35mm focal length works beautifully on my 10D, but it would be a little difficult should I eventually move to a FF (if ever). Might be good to do a side by side comparison of 35/2 and 35/1.4L.

Anyone wants to do?

Hi Electrin, this guy has done a comparison for three 35mm lens, you might be interested to take a look here

Electrin · 4th February 2006

Cool! Thanks guys. I think I need to take my hand out of my pocket and get my priorities straight for a bit.

L-euphoria is a bit scary.

3rd February 2006	#1
Electrin Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 176	Is the 35L worth the money? I've the 35/2, which is great. I like its small size, but after getting the 135/2L I see the difference an L might make. Is the 35/1.4L worth it?

3rd February 2006	#2
sk.images Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,253	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? I don't have either, so my comments are general L vs non-L from what I have readand seen on various web site reviews and forums. L lenses have better construction(i.e. more solid, will last longer, heavier (may not be a good thing)), and generally provide better colour and contrast then non-L's. As for price, they are always significantly more expensive, but to get the above that is the cost - value is a subjective thing and becomes an individual decision.

3rd February 2006	#3
Russ Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 1,613	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Canon primes are already pretty good in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness and going for an L in this case may not be worthwhile unless you really must have the extra it brings. For zooms, I think some Ls are worth the extra money, as the differences are more noticeable. Esp the 17-40/4L and the 70-200/4L. My 17-40L is no match for my primes (50/1.8 and 85/1.8) although it gets close to my 24/2.8. It beats the other mid range zooms that I have used (28-80 MkI and 24-85) though Last edited by Russ; 3rd February 2006 at 11:05 AM.

3rd February 2006	#4
Snoweagle Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hougang Posts: 11,829	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Ls are expensive due to the fluorite elements and coatings. __________________ Canon EOS 5D w/BG-E4, 50 f/1.2 L, 580EX II. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO.

3rd February 2006	#5
Fine Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 536	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? I have 35 F1.4L, and since I got it, it's my primary lens always sitting on my cam. With 1.6x DSLR factor, it's actually more or less standard 50mm lens. I use it more for portrait with more background. I like its color and bokeh, and of course, it's very shap. Its sharpness is good from F1.4-1.8, and from F2, it's excellent. For me, I never regretted the purchase.

3rd February 2006	#6
tOGGY Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 522	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Very high resolving power. Very fast. Excellent for pictures where sharpness and resolution counts. No no lens for shooting ladies with poor complexion imho. Sure kena left right and centre.

3rd February 2006	#7
n0d3 Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,494	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? The f/2 you're using doesn't have USM, so you'll defintely see an improvement sound/focusing wise with the f/1.4L. Its expensive though...

3rd February 2006	#8
Canonised Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 2,505	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Is the 35/1.4L worth it? For the quality and build ..... YES! But 35mm is a difficult length. Not wide enough for most shot indoor or scenery, and not long enough for portraits, etc... But when the length is right or not enough light condition, nothing beats the 35/1.4L! __________________ always the Light, .... always.

3rd February 2006	#9
Electrin Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 176	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Wow. Thanks for the great input. The 35mm focal length works beautifully on my 10D, but it would be a little difficult should I eventually move to a FF (if ever). Might be good to do a side by side comparison of 35/2 and 35/1.4L. Anyone wants to do?

3rd February 2006	#11
Ris Goh Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 750	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Question: 1. Do you shoot at f1.4? 2. Do you need the "silent" USM AF? 3. Do you need a nicer bokeh? 4. Do you need a nicer colour? If the above are all YES then go get one! If you don't need AF then you can consider other makes like Zeiss 35mm f1.4... cheaper than canon 35L.

3rd February 2006	#12
Electrin Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 176	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? laughs I like how you put it Ris. Do you "need"? Not sure about need...but want.

3rd February 2006	#13
freelancer Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 476	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Some reasons for the 35/L which I had bookmarked from a discussion at another forum http://kurtjones.com/jillian.html

3rd February 2006	#16
freelancer Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 476	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Yes, with the 35L. Here are the discussion threads if anyone wants to follow the discussion there http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105405/0#841991 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/105406/0#841944

3rd February 2006	#17
Stoned Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Changi Posts: 4,376	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Depends on your application I feel. F2 is still a fairly bright lens and for me the only reason to get the L would be lots and lots of really low light work where you can't live without the extra stop plus. Colour and contrast are a bonus for the L of course but not absolutely necessary in these days where you can get pretty punchy colour through appropriate PPing. The big question is, will you be using the extra oomph derived from the 35/1.4L enough to justify the 1500-2000 more you'll need to top up to get it? I'd say go for it if - 35mm is a frequently used F length for you. - You have spare cash and want to upgrade something for the hell of it. __________________ My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

4th February 2006	#20
Electrin Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 176	Re: Is the 35L worth the money? Cool! Thanks guys. I think I need to take my hand out of my pocket and get my priorities straight for a bit. L-euphoria is a bit scary.