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
#11
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
 

For those who want to find out reasons for the price tag: Roger and Aaron did it again, they opened it. Fantastic. True, one could buy two new and one used Sigma for the money, but the Canon will still work, when these 3 are all broken in harsh conditions. Sigma gives a warning about weather resistance: "This lens is not waterproof. When you use the lens in the rain or near water, keep it from getting wet. It is often impractical to repair the internal mechanism, lens elements and electric components damaged by water"

 

A clear warning and I'm aware to disobey it sometimes  <_<

 

I wonder how the higher price tag manufacturers could compete with the Canon. I'm suspecting this is where the very small variance comes from, just a lot of careful design and assembling. I know Nikon is not at the same level.

#12
Very nice.

#13
Quote: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.
True dat, therefore the references to 50mm lenses are beside the point. I should also point out that all the 35/1.4 lenses are not created equal: many of the old spherical ones were not known for decent quality at large apertures, so their 1.4ness was more for bragging rights rather than for unconditionally usable output.

 

Re: the lens teardown by Lensrentals... wow. Just wow. This is the real "tank-like build", not the Tokina kind - where metal-clad lenses snap into pieces because the actual structural pieces are held by something plastic and flimsy. I've seen a colleague's 16-50/2.8 blown into chunks because of that. Must be still serving as a paperweight in her house.

#14
It's a walk on the large side. To me 35mm (equivalent) primes have to be small. It's a Zen thing to me. I liked my Planar 35/2 (Contax G) when shooting film.


Would have liked one of these: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm</a> but the price was never my house number.


The Canon is just to large on my books. Not very Zen to me 😉
enjoy
#15
You cannot compare an f/1.4 lens to an f/2 lens... the former is inevitably going to be larger, especially if it's well corrected. So if one 35mm lens can be small, it doesn't mean all of them have to be small. Smile

Quote:It's a walk on the large side. To me 35mm (equivalent) primes have to be small. It's a Zen thing to me. I liked my Planar 35/2 (Contax G) when shooting film.


Would have liked one of these: <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm</a> but the price was never my house number.


The Canon is just to large on my books. Not very Zen to me
#16
Quote:You cannot compare an f/1.4 lens to an f/2 lens... the former is inevitably going to be larger, especially if it's well corrected. So if one 35mm lens can be small, it doesn't mean all of them have to be small. Smile
He did point to a small and light Leica M 35mm f1.4, but thatone is for a rangefinder flange distance (so no wonder it is smaller than the DSL R lenses).
#17
Quote:He did point to a small and light Leica M 35mm f1.4, but thatone is for a rangefinder flange distance (so no wonder it is smaller than the DSL R lenses).
Ah, I overlooked that link, but I'm not sure how good that small and light 35/1.4 is going to fare at large apertures. Hence my comment above about the differences in large aperture quality. I know that Leica _may_ have made a miracle but... at what price glory? Smile
#18
I might add that EPhotozine has tested the lens on the 5DSR - and arrived at the same conclusion: beautiful center, soft corners up to and at f/2.8.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon...view-28614

So that's pretty much in line with your results Klaus, and contrary to what SLRGear has seen on 21MP 1DS Mark III. Serves as a confirmation that this is a true result, not any error in methodology. In truth, it looks like the 5DSR should be avoided lest the user be hit with a double whammy of the greater corner softness at large apertures and the earlier onset of diffraction limiting.

I wonder how well the best known zoom lenses would fare on the 5DSR? (16-35/4 IS, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 IS II...)

#19
The 5DS-R won't get softer corners, Rover. It just will allow the pixel peeper to view the corners at greater magnification?

 

What is odd about the EPZ review: The f1.4 bar shows higher corner res. than f2, and "Resolution at wide apertures starts with a good level of sharpness, but with the images being quite soft at the edges. This is rapidly improving by f/2"

#20
Well, I may have simplified things a bit, of course, but isn't that the result we're getting anyway? I guess the first retesting of a known lens already tested on the 5D Mark II will show just this?

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)