Please Tell Me How You Like the Canon 35mm f/1.4L

[astrostu]

After completing my first commercial sale (see this thread), I've decided to splurge with some of the money and buy myself a nice lens - the one I wanted vs. the compromise due to cost, as described here. As per the subject line, I'm referring to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens.

From all the reviews that I've read, this sounds like the best of its kind for the specs (though I'm not a fan of the 77 mm filter size since I'll need to buy new ones or step-up rings ... though Amazon says it's 72 mm filter ... and so does Canon's site, so I guess it's 72 mm).

But, I wanted to hear from those of you who have this lens. Is there anything BAD about it? Or after using it for awhile, is there any time where you think, "if only it did this" or "didn't do this?"

Also, I was planning on buying it from B&H since their prices are low ($1119 when I last looked), but even though Amazon's are slightly higher, Amazon would be cheaper once shipping is included (and cheaper than Adorama). Is there any reason NOT to buy such an item from Amazon?

And finally, is this going to be discontinued? Amazon has a small note saying that it's been discontinued by the manufacturer, though Canon still has it on their site with no such message.

 

[Big Mike]

I hadn't heard that it was being discontinued but maybe they are going to make a 35mm F1.2 to go along with the 50mm F1.2 and 85mm F1.2.

I don't have this lens but I've seen some absolutely fantastic results from it. I think Cindy (elsapet) has this lens and uses it a lot. Dan (Danalec99) might also have it.

Since you have a crop body (XT), you might want to consider the Sigma 30mm F1.4. It's much cheaper, less than half, but the image quality is pretty close to the Canon L. I recently purchased this lens from someone on the forum and I must say...the sharpness from this lens blew me away. It really is amazing. Certainly something to consider anyway.

 

[EOS_JD]

There's many threads around the forums comparing this with the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I'd go with the Sigma as it's a cracking lens for the money and use the rest for another nice lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Read the paras near the end (the paras above the image of the lenses without the hoods).

 

[astrostu]

There's many threads around the forums comparing this with the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I'd go with the Sigma as it's a cracking lens for the money and use the rest for another nice lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

Read the paras near the end (the paras above the image of the lenses without the hoods).

I did search and only found three threads on the site under the Reviews forum, which is why I posted a new topic specifically asking for TPF users' experiences.

To quote from that site:

Canon's most-similar lens aperture-wise is the slightly longer focal length Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens. This is a much more expensive option, but the Canon 35 L is a sharper lens (especially in the corners as can be expected as it is a full-frame lens). It is also larger, more flare prone, and it focuses closer. The Canon shows CA more frequently in specular highlights while the Sigma has more distortion. (emphasis mine)

For astrophotography, I really need as sharp as possible throughout the field. I don't want stars in the center to be ~3 px while the stars in the corners are ~10 px (exaggerating, but you get the idea). I also need minimal distortion for some of the other photography I intend to do with this lens. Meanwhile, chromatic aberration, while a pain, can be corrected in software (well, so can distortion, but CA's more obvious in how to correct), so that's not as big a deal to me.

 

[Big Mike]

I think we are splitting hairs at this point...they are both excellent lenses.

I haven't really examined the corners all that closely from my 30mm...but that is one issue where I would expect the Canon to have the greatest advantage...as it's a full frame lens.

 

[EOS_JD]

I did search and only found three threads on the site under the Reviews forum, which is why I posted a new topic specifically asking for TPF users' experiences.

To quote from that site:



For astrophotography, I really need as sharp as possible throughout the field. I don't want stars in the center to be ~3 px while the stars in the corners are ~10 px (exaggerating, but you get the idea). I also need minimal distortion for some of the other photography I intend to do with this lens. Meanwhile, chromatic aberration, while a pain, can be corrected in software (well, so can distortion, but CA's more obvious in how to correct), so that's not as big a deal to me.

I think you'd actually be hard pushed to see the difference. But I see what you are saying and only you can decide if you want to spend that extra cash on the L (which is obviously a fabulous lens by all accounts).