|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on September 03, 2018 Pros: Crisp, fast, color Cons: Maybe AC at full aperture Opinion: I'm not a professional, but it's not hard to understand that this lens is fantastic. I tried the 35mm 2.0 is sharp too, but this one to my opinion churn out photos with sharpness colors and atmosphere that the other does not.... I'm not a fan of fixed I prefer zooms but this is an exception. I recommend it to everyone, if you can find it in good condition take it with your eyes closed. |
 | sent on August 24, 2018 Pros: Bokeh, colors. Cons: Softness Opinion: Excellent quality lens, especially given the age. I haven't tried the series II so I can't tell the improvements of the current model. The first series is one of those lenses that give a very creamy and deep background effect: great blur. Honestly with the time I preferred the 24-70 2.8 II for versatility, but this is my personal choice. Too bad you face now hard to find it around put well because off the market. |
 | sent on June 07, 2018 Pros: Outstanding for portraits Cons: Nobody Opinion: For me together with the 85 1.2 II among the best fixed goals of the Canon House, I use almost always 1.4 and I almost never disappoint, apart from when I am wrong distance, a lens that I recommend to all those who want to do portrait but also landscapes and stars in short a Buo No handyman, certainly 85 1.2 II creates that magic in more that you have to try to believe, for me 9 full vote. |
  | sent on December 02, 2017 Pros: Lightweight, compact, clear Cons: Nobody else, otherwise I took something else Opinion: Among the fixed, the only focal with which I have always found good is 35mm. I had for a while the Sigma Art. Bello, clear to be disgusting, but just the excessive sharpness and af "dancer" made me give up and I sold it to those who have more patience than me with focus charts and via saying (and now he uses it with satisfaction). I had three options in the canon house, and thanks to a well filled piggy bank, I was almost decided on the second series. But here too the problem of sharpness (for me in some cases the sharpness is a problem). In the end the only real choice (which was the first) was the 35 1.4 I series. rnA TA is obscenely mellow, clear only in the middle, it seems almost a mistake. And instead in that mistake, in that pastiness there is what I was looking for. Today with the various sw you look for the tiltshift effect, this lens has already incorporated it. A gradual loss of sharpness that almost seems like a brushstroke. rnE just close a little bit that becomes a blade. One nitsurgical ideology, which despite the years of difference has nothing to envy to the latest projects by Canon and Sigma. I waited a long time to decide, but in the end it was. rn |
 | sent on November 24, 2017 Pros: very clear lens in the center / focal lengths of the frame with the soft and gradual blur / has a bokeh from scary / nice compact / while being out of production for a long time keeps well the price on the used and new (it can also be a counter for those who buy) Cons: difficult to use at 1.4, more than 5-6m from the subject, it is likely to have blurred photos (but to say the truth is not said to be either a counter) / not very sharp edges / expensive enough, but it holds the price well Opinion: taken in August for my trip to Vietnam, after so many reflections between the canon 35 1,4 old, the canon 35 1,4II and the sigma 35 1,4 I decided to take "new" the canon 35 1,4 old to I'm not going to talk about why after so much to evaluate, reason, search, and ask for information to industry experts, so I'm preparing a little comparison that you will find on my profile in a few days, but I'll tell you the beautiful and the least beautiful of this lens. A really dated lens (98's project), but really done, a quick and silent focus system is not a mistake at f1.4 but simply needs to be understood. consider that a focus at 1.4 involves a very low focal range, if not mm, so mistake is easy, it is often difficult to understand it by looking in the car but only visible on a monitor. so making so many shots trying to stay motionless is crucial !!!! this optic is mostly use at 1.4 within 5-6m from the subject, gives bokeh for fear, passes by paSharp, crisp, delicate, delicate crisp, this can lead to a lack of clarity at first impression, but if you look at the picture, you notice a sharp scratch that goes slowly down the edges. this is a defect, not a defect, in the sense that its characteristic mark is this softness, this bockeh knife that personally makes me crazy (similar to 135mm f 2). the only true defect in this lens that is more than 5-6m should close the diaphragm at at least f2 to return sharply sharp, in fact at f1.4 with distant subjects this softness becomes "pastone" losing its great sharpness in the center. Attention is not to say that it is a slider because as mentioned just close the diaphragm, but at distance it is difficult to use the 1.4. for the rest I love this lens there are those who define it magically, with character, I just say that the pictures that come up make it !!!! I use it with satisfaction also on APS-C where I was astonished as a rendering, I was losing weight more than FFrn |
 | sent on May 18, 2017 Pros: Three-dimensional yield in the first place. Very bright, balanced as size and weight. Almost to envy a Leica 35 with the red strip instead of the red dot that you can detach it much easier than the strip! Cons: IT IS NOT A ZOOM. The same drawbacks that might have the 50L. But can you find out if the result is superb? I know only photographers who have places and people as subjects and not good laboratory optics! Opinion: Canon's historic lens. Very bright but not impossible to handle. Perfect companion of the same masterpiece, always Canon, 85L f 1.2. If you can compare it with the Canon 50 f1, then it will be very clear with a comparable three-dimensional effect. If you are looking for greater clarity that many current optics do better, but with more than double cash outlay. I do not think it's worth it. Stabilizer? But for charity! Just a solid mechanical construction like this, a good autofocus, how is this and what else? |
 | sent on May 17, 2017 Pros: Weight, blur, openness, handling and excellent wear rating. Cons: It is not tropicalized Opinion: I took this 35mm after a thousand doubts and perplexity. Reasoning and reflection on all useful reviews on the web. Are we joking!!!! There are those who hate 35 mm for charity ... But it's a show! You can not absolutely judge this lens with a grimace. Crazy. Certainly not easy to handle especially for the MAF that often moves by 1 cm and is likely to bring us home a job that is not perfectly focused. Put your hand away from the reflex. RnLarge colors, three-dimensionality, sharpness and blurry of fear.rnTo make street is upsetting even in the absence of light. It is not tropicalized (manned) but really to have in the kit. RnCredo is one of the lenses that impressed me most even though at first impressions I could not find a straight one. Then with a touch of PP you have impressive prints. Qualitatively sublime. |
 | sent on March 14, 2017 Pros: Magical goal, wow assured effect Cons: Do not break the hair at all Opinion: The most beautiful goal of my kit, even the most beautiful I have ever tried. If I often prefer other lenses it is just for the low versatility. Fantastic lens, it delivers really magical images. It was love at first sight: colors, contrast, bokeh, sharpness ... all perfect, as I always dreamed of. Incredible detachment of floors considered the wide-angle focal plane. Obviously it is often opened at all or almost, conditions in which it is not easy to use due to the reduced PDO. AF and L series construction, for me is also aesthetically beautiful and light the right one. My own, after some time-to-day microregulation attempt in the room with improvised focus charts, needed calibration in CS (which I strongly recommend to those who should see clarity issues); it was well worth it, but at f / 1.4 it was still a little soft, but already from f / 1.8-2.0 it is very clear. There are certainly 35 mm f / 1.4 sharper than allat opening (Sigma Art above all, online also for the price) but if you look for the wow effect there is no match. To try. EDIT: Replaced at a time of madness with Sigma 35 Art: there is not, I came back to my steps. Unsellable. |
 | sent on March 08, 2017 Pros: Beautiful, compact, heavy (for me not 'a defect), blurred and colors dream, series L Cons: At least in my copy: very poor sharpness at wide apertures Opinion: And 'the only L-series that I sold. Saro 'was unlucky as a copy but I must say that is not' was never true love between us. Nothing: clarity "awkward" (in the bad sense of the term) between f / 1.4 and f / 2.2 then a knife. Adjusted with AF Micro immediately but nothing, absent from the picture detail and knead. In more 'much too much trouble' with the side maf points. Superb in video. Blurry magnificent but unfortunately the lack of detail ke I found the maximum apertures made me lean towards part with it. Having a must like that and not esserene satisfied (since 'limiting in sharpness at TA) and' frustrating but time and 'was. Can 'be, indeed certainly,' was the fault of an unfortunate example. Tried both APS-C and on FF. Sin! |
 | sent on February 18, 2017 Pros: unique, maf surgical .. color blur .. .. .. 3d up 2.8 build quality. Cons: between 8 years no more canon assistance. Opinion: I come from 35 art .. crisp, beautiful but with a maf always approximate, when I remember the feeling I experienced seeing a photographer at a wedding abroad using 35l..rnuna lens that creates paintings, paintings with 3D on the subject from the magnificent colors .rnrnal that i try and i always immaculate with mounted filters and focus ring consumed at the same price fel sigma nuovo.rnrnla take it, change the tire .. and now is when the uso..che when the riding school that when i look at the files in monitor .. the grin on my face is huge ..rnrnUnica.rnrnda 1.4 to 1.8 you are dreaming sometimes with exuberant sharpness to centro..piu brother 50l.rnrnda 2 to 2.8 sharpness becomes blade throughout the frame while maintaining the pop up extreme of the subject with the background still disconnected esageratente.rnrnda 3.2 onwards .. as a 35 rasoio.rnrncolori top .. really unreachable except by going on German giants to find the same character and the same quality in a single lens . |
 | sent on February 14, 2017 Pros: Bright, trimensionalita effect, focal length Cons: ... 72 mm filter Opinion: I had the opportunity to own it in the past, then sold to finance the purchase of a 2x multiplier and a 'other ottica.rnrnCercavo to be used as a fixed everything fare.rnDa different tests I did with a zoom I found out that 24 is too wide, too 50 canvases, while 35 I are a great focal, suitable for many situations. rnrnScelta the focal length I was left to choose the apertura.rnL 'the f2 or discarded because not very bright, quindirnLa choice was between the L and the sigma.rnEbbene, I do not trust the sigma and the various problems that many have found with 35 art. So. ..rnrnQuesto 35 is a great lens. Well done, weight and dimensions (compared the mk2 and sigma), aperture f1.4 3d effect fabulous. rnNon care if it's not neo tropicalizzato.rnL'unico for me are the filters 72. having already with optical filters by 67-77 I ??would rather it had been a 67-77 so I could use the same e nd polarizing filters. It does not take me around the filters only dedicatedfor this ottica.rnVoto: 9.5rnrn |
 | sent on June 21, 2016 Pros: color rendition, tonal contrast, sharpness, brightness, detachment and three-dimensional effect, lightness, construction, auto focus, design (?) 35mm rn Cons: Nobody! Opinion: The 35L mkI has now assumed the status of "classic", for the release of the Mk II, the focal course (35mm, a classic!), For barrel materials and design conceived in fact some five years ago but ... which is fixed !!! Construction of L-series, perfect ergonomics, surgical focus, fast and quiet; It is lighter than the Sigma Art (not to mention the MkII) but also more predictable, more reliable. A TA sometimes the sharpness in the center is stunning, to scream! It is not easily usable in any situation, requires some experience, but the 35L mkI always pays off, as something more, has the class of champions ... of the classic indeed! The color rendition, contrast of tones, colors, the three-dimensionality of the image are a reference and its "defects" such as Chromatic aberration (but the Art will suffer far greater extent), the slight decline at the edges ( TA because already af 2 splits) and the littlecorrection of distortion, make it unique and distinctive, with a view to "must have"! Irreplaceable and must, with a three-dimensionality and a detachment of the stunning plans for a wide-angle lens. In a word, a sublime picture quality! Just consider the effort made to give him a worthy heir (after almost twenty years) and how this has affected the size and weight of 35L MkII ... Given the price of used, attested to date of similar figures compared to Sigma (new) , it is with the excellent Art that makes sense to do a comparison: I got them both and I think the 35L "smooth" worth every penny it costs more, in my opinion is of another category! |
user80014  | sent on April 16, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, brightness, color rendering and construction Cons: Nobody Opinion: excellent lens, bright with a remarkable clarity even at the widest apertures and that becomes great to F / 5.6. Used on Canon 7D thanks to the reduced size sensor becomes little more than a 50 mm without distortion at the edges to F / 1.4 (not even know whether it is so high on FF or less). Rendering of realistic colors and stunning three-dimensional rendering of the subject with a really nice blurred making it very incisive portraits (to understand just try to F / 2.0). excellent construction typical of the Canon L series with a fast AF speeds and quiet shooting. I was torn between Sigma Art new and used Canon and I opted for the latter even though it is a perspective more dated mainly to have a more reliable target in all conditions. Certainly it is not given even by used (located on 800 euro) but assessing the characteristics and yield in the picture is worth them all and still valid characteristics compared to the Mark II which was designed primarily to take advantage of the 50-megapixel sensor ofCanon 5Ds. It seems obvious to say but if you're just like all neophytes used to zoom, it is worth trying the photographic experience with fixed luminous perspective like this. |
user39791 | sent on June 01, 2014 Pros: Sharpness in the center even at maximum apertures, sharpness throughout the frame by stratospheric f4, detachment of plans for a wide-angle fire resounding, colors, very fast autofocus. Cons: Lack of sharpness at the edges f1, 4, AC, price. Opinion: Optics fantastic for lovers of deadlifts plans breathtaking, this feature makes it unique such as wide-angle lens. My copy has had the need for a calibration in CS (was +10). I also tried the 35Art that is recommended for lovers of absolute sharpness and blur the "clean", but if it is overcome by the typical yield of the optics with little spherical aberration corrected this view is not to be missed and forever (the face of II and III ........... that will come out sooner or later.) rn |
 | sent on January 14, 2014 Pros: Very defined, a handyman, a guarantee. Cons: not easy to use in all circumstances. Opinion: Compared to 50L much more homogeneous in performance and more predictable. Excellent sharpness even open, the bokeh gives something compared to big brother since the aperture and focal length. You feel like you have a zoom lens attached to the car, it becomes a bit 'of everything. Small and lightweight, you must always consider that deforms when used with close subjects. The've found one of the lenses that I have used more three-dimensional. |
 | sent on August 29, 2013 Pros: a lens ultra defined from center to edge. Bright and adapts to any genre. Putty in his blurred, fast AF and in his light in the uses Cons: only the lens hood that binds very old system in rotation with the camera body, but apart from the unpleasant feeling nellavvitaggio, does not create any problem. Opinion: Paradoxically lower price if he considers the high quality ... equal to various mkII other optics (see 85 and 24, and 24-70) ..... of course, the cheaper the better :-) RNE my optical preferita.rnHo a park optic envy but this ugly duckling is what gratifies me more ... excellent quality in everything and for everything to do tutto.rnUn real lens ... great trips to be light and have that light required for portraits notturni.rnrnE 'quite wide but retains a degree of blur at the best suitable optical ritratti.rnCome Street is really perfettarnCome landscape has a three-dimensional ineccepibile.rnrnSono happy with this purchase ... . bought and then resold to monetize ... then, just could, immediately resumed .... if it feels too lack when it is left |
 | sent on August 04, 2013 Pros: Opening, sharpness, blur, compactness and light weight (relatively open) Cons: I would like a little 'less distortion in Opinion: My optical handyman. I love it. I love his focus, his ability to shoot in low light, resistance to flare, softness veiled in backlight, sharpness already at room temperature, which becomes wild when you close af/2.rnCi do everything, and I'm using it lot even for wide-angle landscapes, instead of zoom expensive but they have flaws that this lens does not know. Better an angle of less, but better results .... RNE 'the perfect finish? Almost ..... imho deserves a little 'less distortion. Not that I have much, but if he did not, I'd be happier. ;-) RnrnImpressioni based on 4 years of using two different sample and thousands of photos taken ;-) |
user26730 | sent on June 06, 2013 Pros: Quality construction (L series) rnapertura (f 1.4) rnnitidezzarnsfuocato Cons: no if you have a good feeling with the fixed lenses, otherwise it can 'be short or long in different situations. Opinion: I possess a couple of years and it gives me satisfaction continuously. I always keep it in zaiono when I travel because 'always comes out the situation where you want to shoot and the light and' little and lose the flash with the "taste" of that time. In this case, mounted on a full frame (my 5D II digests very well up to 1250 ISO), you can always click and comunque.rnNon paesagistica I do, I use it for portraits and even if it has 1.4 seems a bit soft ( black and white does not bother at all) already at 1.8 / 2 and 'very "sharp". rnConsigliatissimo. |
  | sent on September 13, 2012 Pros: resolution - construction - speed AF - containment fall light at the edges - uniformity of yield of the field of view - keeping the backlight Cons: blurred a bit 'structured compared to the corresponding Leica Opinion: To find him a "counter" although very relative, I've had to think a lot. It 'a perfect lens, simply a must for those who love the bright optical and reportage in ambient light. You can shoot without the bother of opening, f: 1.4 is a real working aperture. It goes without saying that f: 2.8 I earn in micro-contrast edges, but unlike many bright, this lens can be used wide open without any hesitation. |
 | sent on April 18, 2012 Pros: Build quality and excellent optics, excellent ergonomics and AF fast and silent. Cons: A bit 'heavy and slightly soft at room temperature, requires attention to f1.4 Opinion: I have this lens for about 3 months and I made a lot of shots with the 550D, the EOS 500N analogy and 5dmk2. I chose this lens because I need to make a lot of shots in the house with my daughters without a flash. The optical behaves egreggiamente in all conditions even with the format FF. I think it's worth all the money it costs, among other things if purchased used takes great price even after years. '' The only drawback (if we may so call it) and the difficulty of ages in the subject in focus when shooting on the fly. My daughters keep moving and shallow depth of field at F1.4 makes it difficult to "work". Besides, if the focus chooses a closest point (such as the shoulder) is obtained by the face out of focus! If you change your car and take the 5Dmk3, which has a higher sensitivity, I would opt for the 35F2, lighter and with more depth of field and lighter weight. |
 | sent on September 24, 2011 Pros: Constructiveness good, fast and accurate AF, super bright, three-dimensional rendering and blurred beyond excellent. Cons: Aberration at large apertures. Opinion: A lens that is definitely worth what it costs. Bought this summer before leaving and used to shoot landscapes to portraits. Incredible f: 10 as f: 2, falls a bit 'in sharpness at maximum aperture. Personally, I always take her back, maneuverability and the focal length, both on FF on APS-C, allowing almost any kind of shot, maintaining the quality of a fixed lens. |
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
