| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
  | sent on 13 Ottobre 2017 Pros: Excellent sharpness, built quality,design, handling,creamy bokeh almost everything. Cons: None. Opinion: This lens is perfect for crop sensor considering its equivalent focal length of 56mm on my 7d. I used this as my walk around lens from landscape,portraiture,macro & almost everything. At first i was thinking twice if i will buy this lens because it was very expensive but i was very very happy with the results and forgot that price. I almost forgot I have other lenses because it's always attached to my camera. i have made this opinion before i had no 5D IV. Now i am used it FF what can I say wow wow can express how happy with this lens the versatility, sharpness, color, bokeh, whether seal,mobility almost everything. |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
 | sent on 21 Aprile 2025 Pros: Excellent quality both for resolution and autofocus for a focal length that cannot be renounced Cons: At the moment I don't see any Opinion: With a bit of hesitation I have recently replaced the already excellent 35 1.4L first version. I wanted to update this indispensable focal length in a valuable photographic kit. From the first photos compared with the old man I struggled to notice a substantial difference, but then comparing the raw on the screen the extraordinary performance of the second version begins to be noticed, especially at the extremes of the frame. The slight aberration present at TA in mark1 disappears and with mark2 there is greater contrast and definition, a global perception of sharpness over the whole photo. However, I'm talking about slight differences, as the first version I owned was already excellent for an amateur not sick with pixelmania. Still using both the reflex system (which I will not abandon) and the mirrorless, I was also thinking about the 35 R, but reading here and there I realized that it did not improve this 35 ii, although adding some functions that only videomakers appreciated. On the contrary, the R version has a greater vignetting and distortion, ok correctable in the camera or with software. In addition, with a greater outlay of money, so except for a few cases (50-85) the R versions have not improved much the corresponding EF versions as far as fixed focal lengths are concerned. This mk2, despite already having about ten years since its debut, remains a reference for this focal length, to be compared perhaps with the Zeiss Milvus 35 1.4 only but which however is and remains a manual focus albeit mechanically, like all Zeiss, at the state of the art. |
 | sent on 02 Marzo 2023 Pros: Sharpness, colors, ergonomics, robustness, speed, bokeh Cons: Plastic hood, high price, unobtainable used Opinion: Lens with really good features especially for professional use. Excellent sharpness and a soft bokeh. I also use this lens to make macros (rings) preferring it to the canvases I have in my backpack (85/135). It is fast and quiet. The only flaw is that the hood seems to be a number one chinoiserie! The weight is not a cons, the price maybe yes but now it is much less. I would replace it only with the RF version that I hope will come out soon maybe more macro and IS |
 | sent on 03 Maggio 2019 Pros: Sharpness and character Cons: Size Opinion: Excellent optics, three-dimensional, beautiful blur, destined to be always mounted. Great for the street but also for the portraits. Absolute precision with closed diaphragm. The weight is important but adequate to the type of lens. Excellent combination with the Canon R with adaptor. The optics can not miss in the Canon kit. The cost is not excessive for what it offers. |
 | sent on 26 Aprile 2019 Pros: Sturdy and well done; Heavy, but light to be a 35mm f1.4; Sharpness character at full aperture; Simple and ergonomic use Cons: Plastic lens hood, metal was better; Important dimensions. Opinion: As a lens is great and weight, but you need to make some considerations: the lenses from 35mm to aperture F1, 4 for reflex, are all big and weights. But this compared to the Zeiss Milvus that I used for a long time, is much lighter. As far as size is concerned, it is true that a small lens is better, but I find that large ones are easier to handle: they give more stability when you grab the camera. This is a purely personal opinion because I have big hands, but that obviously goes to the detriment of weight and clutter. The 35mm lens for me is irreplaceable and has always been the fulcrum around which I have always made my choices. Until just now I had the 35mm F2 is, of which I was more than happy, but this optically was an unexpected surprise. I never thought I'd find all this difference. Quietly holds the comparison with the Milvus 35mm f1.4. Probably the pure quality of the Zeiss is better, but at certain levels it counts more the taste of the absolute performance and in this case I must say that this Canon I find it beautiful. The yield of the blurred is very beautiful, the colors are dense and plastic, the light-dark well modulated makes an excellent relief effect and all this in a way quite similar to the Zeiss. The surrender to all openness is truly exceptional and gives it its specific character. If you grant me the license, I would say that the photo with the 35mm f1.4 full aperture is everything except perfect, but in much like other Canon lenses, are beautiful, even more than when you use them to intermediate diaphragms of work. |
  | sent on 23 Agosto 2018 Pros: L-series, 1.4 maximum aperture, creates addiction because of its very pleasant and creamy three-dimensionality. Cons: Was it really a series two? Opinion: My fifth 35mm f1.4, of which two Sigma art and three L series. I got in order: L Series first version, Sigma Art, L series first version, Sigma Art, and now this second version. In all cases where there was the transition between Canon and Sigma I regretted the canon. Innutile write a lot of disappointment on two different lenses sigma, usual problems known that many persist in hiding.... Anyway about this L series.... Very well built, it looks like a 16-35 F4 is, excellent three-dimensionality to TA, hooks the subject even with low light, no sign of gost or flare. Honestly I did not find much difference in the files between the first and second series, I do not know if you actually needed a makeover, maybe it's just a talk of marcendising and marketing. It is definitely a light optics to have in your kit, perhaps at the expense of a zoom. Personally I would have liked the diameter of the filters from 77 instead of 72mm, so as to exploit the same diameter from 16 to 200 mm. |
  | sent on 25 Luglio 2018 Pros: A little ' all the things already written by those who preceded me. Cons: Nothing. Opinion: Leaving out the 100-400 L II I use for Auto/moto, the 35mm focal is the one I use the most, both with my FF (lenses 35 and on average zooms that allow the focal) and with the M6 (22mm/35 equivalent). I also own the 35 F2 IS that I find irreplaceable for certain jobs where I am obliged to average diaphragms, times and low ISO. Coming to the objective of the review, I find it higher than the 35 F2 IS at all openings and, without prejudice to the above, I prefer it on every occasion. The sharpness and the blur at all the openings are great. And, as Peppe Cancellieri expressed in his review, allows a "posthumous zoom"...;-)) the weight... well I'll be trained using freehand the 100-400 mounted on 5d4 with BG for a whole day, so the 760 grams of this 35 are almost a relief...;-) Great optics, worthy companion of my 5d4 and 5DSR! |
 | sent on 24 Luglio 2018 Pros: Construction, solidity, precision, blurred, colors, sharpness even at full aperture and long distance. Cons: If I think about it, I can't find it. Opinion: The 35mm are a focal length with which I am at ease: just more wide angle than the 50mm, capable of wide-ranging, without the ' risks ', for someone like me, not too expert, who can present the 24mm or the most pushed wide angles. In short: A perspective with which I can go out without feeling the need for other (on many occasions, even if not all). That being said, I add that I had the Ef 35 F2 IS USM (Excellent lens) and the Tamron 35 1.8 VC (which gave me satisfactions). But here you find yourself as ' at home ', that is, you have the feeling that you have achieved what you really were looking for. I do not love (very personal taste) the surgical sharpness of certain objectives that seem to focus only on a hyper detail, at the expense of other essential requirements. Here the sharpness is there, other than that! But that's not all. There is the color, the detail in the highlights (with 5d Mk III), the softness where it must be, the blurred gradual and ' creamy ', the right weight (does not weigh little) on a FF body. And then... there's the ' quid '!! That thing that (fortunately) you can not always explain and can arouse an unexpected amazement. It is built very well and gives the impression of an object of high professionalism and safe solidity. The yield on the whole frame is full and without decays. The usual vote? A 10 full! Is it expensive? Yes, but every valuable object is placed in a market ranking, which has its proper proportions. For technical details I refer to those who have more competence than me and the many existing reviews on the net. After many, a lot of optics, which I'm not going to list here, I found the best. We are at the level (made the due distinctions that involves the very different focal length) of the 135l F2, which I had to resell to monetize another purchase and that I will have to buy back. If you are looking for a bright set of excellence, this is it! |
 | sent on 05 Ottobre 2017 Pros: Sharp, blur, tropicalized, fast AF. Cons: Weighs but is f1.4 Opinion: Great lenses, my second 35mm, taken after years of thinking due to a "disappointment" with sigma art, the model in question had serious AF and FBfocus constancy problems, a sluggish eheh! After many photos and a long time to try slow, I realized that the 35mm is a good focal point for what I have in mind: less exasperated than 24mm and fairly wide angle to give breath. What to say: great on everything, maybe you will not have the magical blur of the 1.2 or the first version, but the quality is all there and you see. Who can take it and will not regret it. |
 | sent on 23 Aprile 2017 Pros: Sharpness, fast and precise auto focus, bokeh, construction. Cons: I have not found it. Opinion: Hardly I write reviews but this time is a must. If some Sigma Art has always said that they were level at Otus home Zeiss, this 35mm completely redesigns the way of thinking for that focus. Precise, quiet, crisp at every opening, it is heavy, but as it should be for a view of this solid, mishandles fixed zoom colleagues and the best of all the competition. Before buying it, I had seen, test in hand, which was recorded by 35 and 50 Sigma Art, but to see it with their own eyes astounds. The price? Well, for a professional perspective of this kind it is an investment. |
 | sent on 09 Dicembre 2016 Pros: Exceptional sharpness even at full opening, image quality, colors, autofocus accuracy Cons: for now none Opinion: 35mm "definitive" probably the best in circulation (probably as I have never previously had 35mm fixed but for a long time I look at everything I can of other equal focal and brightness). The construction is also at the top, I do not even find it cumbersome indeed it is very pleasant to handle it. The lampshade is of the comfortable type with the clip. It looks constructively like 16-35/4 and 24-70/4 and I really like this aesthetic. The image quality is excellent throughout the frame and the autofocus is fast and accurate. It costs a lot, indeed a lot, but it also returns a lot. I found myself again doing virtually no intervention in pp, if not marginal as some cut, which I tried only with the 70-200/2.8 L IS II. I used it with the 6D, 6d2 and now 5d4. In my opinion it does not "replace" any previous Canon optics of the same focal. For example the 35 L I which (as well as other well-known Canon optics) has a typical and recognizable imprint that is difficult to give up, economic availability allowing I would like to have both but I can choose only one. I kept this optics a few months, sold and bought back, hard to do without. The 35 Art in the interlude is a good lens but nothing comparable (leaving out the many shots to discard for the usual problems of Sigma on Canon). My opinion is this:10 and praise and it is the first time that I happen to give such an extreme judgment, if only for that ability to sharpen the whole frame even at 1.4 and also for subjects taken from afar, great quality for a 35mm that allows to carve out the part that interests among many that a 35mm resumes. Some kind of posthumous zoom. |
 | sent on 07 Marzo 2016 Pros: Monstrous sharpness, bokeh, construction, precision and speed autofocus. Cons: Obviously, weight and price. Opinion: I begin by contrast, that really can not be considered such when you go to buy an optical TOP, built like a tank for durability with materials and top quality glass. You certainly can not expect a compact lens, cheap and lightweight that you use on FF and who wants to be a reference category. For the rest, well, a stunning glass. A surgical made, an AF precisissmo and a beautiful bokeh. I owned even 35L "old" (wonderful lens), and frankly, I find the new superior to the old in everything, even in the "magic." If you like the focal not get any better at the time. |
 | sent on 28 Dicembre 2015 Pros: Exceptional sharpness even at full aperture, image quality and three-dimensional, color, precision autofocus. Cons: nobody Opinion: In short, the best 35 I've ever avuto.rnNitido and sharp even at 1.4, with a creamy and mild blurred photos ... returns with an atmosphere and a communicative language unico.rnTutto joined a fast autofocus but also very precise ... contrary to what usually happens with optical bright, even at this 1.4 does not make a wrong, both short distances to long. Really incredible perspective coast ... a blunder, but I can safely say that they vale.rn |
 | sent on 10 Ottobre 2015 Pros: Sharpness, edges, colors and contrast, virtually no chromatic aberration, out of focus, building Tropicalised Cons: Cost, weight and size, some parts are now plastic Opinion: I wanted to change my old EF 35mm f / 1.4 L with the second version. Not that I had a particular need ', since' the version I was already 'very well his duty. The new version and 'slightly more' sharp edges species. The focus and 'good, like the old, in my opinion, but slightly different. The colors and contrast instead find them on the best again. Some parties are now plastic of good quality ', but were on the previous metal (for example, the attack of the thread for the filters). They probably have a little 'should contain the weights of this maximum weight. I do not understand how you keep doing Leitz lenses superlative limiting the rooms, while others continue to increase weight, dimensions and prezzo.rnUna nice things to have fixed, as well as the quality ', it was to have small lenses and compact dimensions. I think that we are now at the level of zoom. |
 | sent on 07 Ottobre 2015 Pros: Three-dimensional feeling and sharpness, a blade Cons: Nobody Opinion: Objective of excellent quality with blurred beautiful and large three-dimensional feeling, very clear already at maximum aperture, excellent colors and very natural, fast in focus and with 1dx is a great coupled, are already owner of a Canon lens 85 f 1 , 2, and with this new acquisition is a good couple ... for a while 'I use it with 5dsr and is excellent |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
