Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ lens test report: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 USM L II
#1
Marginal bokeh fringing ...

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...on35f14mk2

 

Otherwise ... EOS 5Ds R vs lenses ... 3:0

#2
It's app. 2.6 times more than the Sigma and depending to some special offers is the difference even higher. I also doubt the Sigma would be better and for sure the bokeh fringing is in a class of it's own, but the price tag is pretty massive given it's neither a spectacular focal length nor a breathtaking fast aperture. On the other side, for some people 35 mm is more of a "standard lens" than a nifty fifty. I'm still using my 35 mm quite often and sometimes only. And it's still cheaper than some Leica 35 mm... Smile
#3
Thanks for the review Klaus. "However, lately Canon was starting the feel the heat" small typo here.


Given the signifience of this lens review, it surely would be really great to have it benchmarked on the 5D3 also.
#4
Quote:It's app. 2.6 times more than the Sigma and depending to some special offers is the difference even higher. I also doubt the Sigma would be better and for sure the bokeh fringing is in a class of it's own, but the price tag is pretty massive given it's neither a spectacular focal length nor a breathtaking fast aperture. On the other side, for some people 35 mm is more of a "standard lens" than a nifty fifty. I'm still using my 35 mm quite often and sometimes only. And it's still cheaper than some Leica 35 mm... Smile
"nor a breathtaking fast aperture"???  :wacko: f/1.4 is as fast as it gets in FF land as far as 35mm focal length is concerned.  B) And f/1.4 is pretty darn fast any way you slice it.

Now, Klaus, all you need is to retest the other 35mm lenses to give you a frame of reference (35/1.4 L, 35/2 IS, Sigma 35/1.4 A... or even the old 35/2 for some comic relief).

#5
35/1.4 is nothing of a wow these days, 30 years ago I had one and there's no manufacturer around who didn't make at least one of these. Literally, there are and have been dozens of these lenses. Which says something about people demanding AND buying them. With "breathtaking" I took the liberty to exaggerate a little, as there are some lenses around like f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.95. That would be something really new for a 35, but instead Canon was clever and focused on some real improvements like the bokeh fringing. Now, with something like 45% more costs than the old version I think it's a valid question " is that all? No bokeh fringing? High centre resolution, but only good corners?" I'm looking forward to lenscore's results to compare them to other 35's
#6
Quote:35/1.4 is nothing of a wow these days, 30 years ago I had one and there's no manufacturer around who didn't make at least one of these. Literally, there are and have been dozens of these lenses. Which says something about people demanding AND buying them. With "breathtaking" I took the liberty to exaggerate a little, as there are some lenses around like f/1.2, f/1.0, f/0.95. That would be something really new for a 35, but instead Canon was clever and focused on some real improvements like the bokeh fringing. Now, with something like 45% more costs than the old version I think it's a valid question " is that all? No bokeh fringing? High centre resolution, but only good corners?" I'm looking forward to lenscore's results to compare them to other 35's
Let me repeat it: in the SLR land, f/1.4 is as good as it gets, and then, the only faster lenses in the 35mm range on FF, the f/1.2 Voigtlanders version 1 and 2, are only 1/3 of a stop faster. Regarding the difference in quality between versions 1 and 2 of the Canon L lens, we cannot be sure since they have been tested on sensors of wildly different (like 2.5x different) resolution! But check out the SLRGear review which was done on 1Ds Mark III - the blur plot is beyond remarkable wide open; many lenses struggle to reach that kind of (even) sharpness at their optimal apertures.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.p...816/cat/10

Again, there is no direct comparison there as the 35L non-II was only tested ages ago on a 5D, but even there it was nowhere near as sharp and well-behaved.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.p...148/cat/10

Dang, I never thought I'd caught defending a Canon L lens... Big Grin I'd get a Sigma (if I had needed a f/1.4 lens at 35mm) or a Tamron (if I had just needed a 35mm prime) and be done with it; either of the Ls is out of my scope.

#7
f/1.2 is half stop faster, I thought. f/1, 1.4, 2, 2.8 is the row I have I mind. But of course, difference is tiny and marginal, and can easily be eaten up by different transmission values. SLR land really offers faster glass than f/1.2 at least in my mind: Canon 50/1.0 (so they CAN do faster lenses, lots of them...) Wink


http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions...for-a-dslr

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/08/...l2kRsTGurU


And here is one f/0.95 for FF: http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.de/nocturnus-f095-50mm/ currently in production.


Don't want to split hair, but the choices are a bit more. And of course, all of them very exotic and only good for saying "it"s more fast glass around" 8)


Now, I agree, the 35L II is really a nice thing of glass and surely capapble to resolve far more than "only" 50 MP. In centre. The sheer numbers "35/1.4” to me remain asking "nice, but what IS better on it than on others of the same specs?"


And I don't only have Sigma 35/1.4 since two years or longer? But also replaced the Nikkor 24/1.4 against the Sigma art version which still gives more crisp and crunch. Depending of the distance and aperture, I also like the bokeh better. But that's predictable to read from my side.
#8
Quote:f/1.2 is half stop faster, I thought. f/1, 1.4, 2, 2.8 is the row I have I mind. But of course, difference is tiny and marginal, and can easily be eaten up by different transmission values. SLR land really offers faster glass than f/1.2 at least in my mind: Canon 50/1.0 (so they CAN do faster lenses, lots of them...) Wink

http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions...for-a-dslr
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/08/...l2kRsTGurU


And here is one f/0.95 for FF: http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.de/nocturnus-f095-50mm/ currently in production.


Don't want to split hair, but the choices are a bit more. And of course, all of them very exotic and only good for saying "it"s more fast glass around" 8)


Now, I agree, the 35L II is really a nice thing of glass and surely capapble to resolve far more than "only" 50 MP. In centre. The sheer numbers "35/1.4” to me remain asking "nice, but what IS better on it than on others of the same specs?"


And I don't only have Sigma 35/1.4 since two years or longer? But also replaced the Nikkor 24/1.4 against the Sigma art version which still gives more crisp and crunch. Depending of the distance and aperture, I also like the bokeh better. But that's predictable to read from my side.
f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8.. that row should teach you that indeed f1.2 is not exactly half a stop faster.  If f1.2 was half a stop faster than f1, and f1.4 a whole stop faster than f1, two stops faster would be f1.8.  and 3 stops faster would be f2.2. But things are clearly not linear.

F1.2 is not 1/3rd stop, nor half a stop. It is almost some arbitrary number, given to lenses a bit faster than f1.4. In practice, f-numbers are rounded, and at these low numbers the rounding error/margin has a relatively big impact. Most f1.2 lenses are not anywhere near half a stop faster, due to their too narrow mount losing a lot of light.

 

Rover points out that in the 35mm range f1.4 is about as fast as it gets for FF. It then makes little sense giving links to lenses not for FF, or lenses of a different focal length than 35mm on FF.
#9
Quote:Given the signifience of this lens review, it surely would be really great to have it benchmarked on the 5D3 also.
 

I thought along the same lines ... Would there be any chance to

retest the Sigma 35/1.4 on 50mpix? ... This way or the other would

make it a bit easier to compare.
#10
I don't think that I have the immediate capacity to do a test of the Sigma.

 

As mentioned in the other thread - I am, however, considering to abandon the "dead" center analysis in favour of near center.

Honestly I was always a bit uneasy about the dead center because it is heavily dependent on the centering quality - more so than the borders I mean.

When choosing a somewhat more off-center approach, the spread wouldn't be quite as excessive as it is now.

 

However, honestly speaking the charts make perfect sense to me when thinking about it. The 5Ds R simply illustrates that we have reached a pixel density where scaling effects are no longer taking place at the borders but only in the center.

 

The charts don't quite look as "pleasing" anymore than before because the spread is extreme. e.g. look at the LW/PH figures at the borders - they aren't so bad really. I mean the numbers.

 

PS: The dead center is not really in the dead center but very close to it.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)