Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - White Box (Brand New in Bulk Packaging) Review

I changed 16-35 f.4 to this fix, because I realized that I almost never use such a wide angle even when shooting landscapes. In conjunction with the aperture ratio and the figure of 35 fixes, there was nothing to think about. Happiness. Got pros: Aperture Definition sharp focus Colors Picture Without HA Some cons: On the open sometimes smears Less sharp in corners compared to 16-35

A very interesting focal length combined with a large aperture makes this lens, in my opinion, the most creative Canon L-fix. Worth your money. Pros below: Great big picture. Working open aperture. Sharp since 1.4. Fast focus. Build quality. Cons below: I want to write something here, but I can't. I can't think of anything. The price is not a disadvantage, but rather a feature.

A very interesting focal length combined with a large aperture makes this lens, in my opinion, the most creative Canon L-fix. Worth your money.

Great sharp lens. Nice soft bokeh. Sharper at aperture 1.4 than Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II at 1.8. Picture . well, what can I say, a fix is ​​a fix :) Bought for filming at home. Very satisfied. After buying lenses like this one, I don’t want to buy any others at all :)

I exchanged 24-70 for a subject, realizing after buying it that "not mine. " It proved to be an excellent all-rounder on a crop (500d), on a full frame - just wonderful. Photo examples: With its pros: Surprisingly sharp in the open. Weight and dimensions are modest compared to other L-optics. Yes, the speed and accuracy of focusing, constructive, etc. , etc. , but! the main thing for which people give over 50 pieces is a drawing ! Volume, expressiveness, bokeh and color cannot but rejoice…

I noticed that the review refers to the Canon EF 35mm f / 1.4L USM, but in reality I am writing about the Canon EF 35mm f / 1.4L II USM I have been using it for 7 months. I thought that itcomuld become something like a regular lens. Alas, it cannot. I am a beginner photographer, but I started with him and I will say that there is something tocompare with. I tried lenses from cheaper categories - heaven and earth. Ofcomurse the L II came out victorious. Night landscape with almost no digital…

from eLek there were only zooms that also proved themselves only from the best side (special rep 24-70 / 2,8L), but by purchasing this fix you most likely always want to forget even about the coolest zooms, believe me) I don’t have a sideways relationship with the trade in photographic equipment or specifically with Canon, I’m a simple amateur photographer . TAKE IT DEFINITELY .

The lens is ideal for reportage and genre shooting at dusk or in rooms with poor lighting, for evening and night landscapes, as well as booze and parties. Yes, yes, it is for capturing booze and parties that high-quality and expensive optics are required, no matter how strange it may seem! Ofcomurse, a banquet to a banquet is different. Ordinarycomrporate gatherings can be photographed with a soap dish - and everyone will probably get familiar insane pictures: red eyes, glaring moon-shaped…

When buying, I chose between it, 24mm and 16-35 mm. Zoom immediately dismissed. Perhaps I came across one, but I lathered quite strongly around the edges, plus XA in the open. I liked 24 mm, but it seemed to me that it should be treated more carefully, the angle is wide enough and the edges distort noticeably. But 35 mm just blew me away! In the presence of several more L-series glasses, this one has become standard! The picture is simply amazing. The sharpness is excellent even on an open…

Some emotions from buying this lens! Before that, I didn’t shoot on L, except for 70-200 f4, but it doesn’t even come close to the quality of the resulting picture of the 35th. On the full frame there is a small vignette and a bit of a barrel, but all this is corrected with one click in the lightroom, and sometimes it is not required at all. In general, if you want the best 35mm lens, this is it. No Sigma 35 is even close, although of course the price at the moment differs by 30 thousand…

Has some pros Sharp, contrasty, colors are good, focus is fast, picture is beautiful, well made. Works great in the dark. Its cons: Price and legs have to run. Follow the geometry of the image, it is already wide enough. Expensive, should cost twice as much.

When buying, there was a choice between two, both were with the same exhaust. Whoever takes it and thinks that 1.4 is a panacea for a dark room, then you are mistaken. Yes, L class glasses, but working apertures, I repeat from 2.8. And he also has a rough focus adjustment step, i. E. in the camera you can not correct the back or front focus, you just won’t get to the right value. In general, I use it, the picture from it is very decent, I put a CROSS on 1.4-2.5. By the way, 50 by 1.4 is sharp…

Previously, there was a drawback - a huge price, I took for ~ $ 1700 ! (this is 55 when $ was 32 each), now you can get it relatively inexpensive used in excellent condition for ~ $ 700 (for the same 55 Xe . =D ) If you are thinking about what to buy, this BU, or the 35mm 2nd version, there is no question at all - it’s very stupid to overpay almost 3 prices for the 2nd version, when this first version is very good, I would even say a legend to some extent!)

In addition to 85 1,2, it solves all the problems that arise in terms of a set of required focal lengths on a full matrix for portrait shooting. The blur is very pleasant and not familiar (for the better) for such a focal one! Very carefully with single half-length portraits - you should not come closer, distortions begin to appear. Perfectly conveys the volume of the picture, especially when shooting children. When buying, I tested 2 lenses - both are inferior to 1.6 in sharpness by 1.4. I

I thought for a very long time whether to buy this lens or not. There were already 3 L-ki, zooms, each of which can shoot at 35: 24-105, 17-40 and 28-300. But it was worth taking a few pictures, then all doubts disappeared. The difference in the drawing is striking! The picture is just wonderful, like in 3D. I enjoy photographs. Compared with Sigma 35, the choice is definitely in the direction of Canon. Many write about problems with HA and sharpness in the open. I didn't find any such…

I shoot full frame portraits. I used almost the entire line of L-fixes, there is something to compare with. For shooting indoors and for shooting pairs of must-haves. When 50mm is narrow, and a 24mm barrel, 35mm is the most! Sometimes there is a small vignette - but it does not bother me. Autofocus is tenacious, but not perfect. At dusk on the sides sometimes misses.

The percentage of shots that I like is much higher, even than the 50mm 1.2. The scenes take care of themselves. If you want - wide - come closer and get a portrait. The main thing is to keep the right distance. Moreover, the drawing is completely different than at 24-70 at the same focal length. I put it on and I don't want to take it off. I would recommend it as a staff member with whom you can leave the house without taking additional optics with you. Naturally, he will not perform…

Fully reveals its capabilities on FF. I used it for a long time, for several years on the first penny. I bought for 40-45k (!), I don’t remember anymore. Because of its versatility, it stood almost constantly. Volume and color reproduction after 2.8 zooms is like turning on the light in your room. Been traveling - no problem. Unfortunately, when I bought a car, I needed money, I donated a camera and glasses. Before buying, they checked the glass, they did not find any dust or grains of sand…

To be honest, I did not expect such a set-up from canon. On the open soap, the most terrible, even on the old sigma 50mm by 1.4 there was no such soap, but it is worth considering that the latter is 6 times cheaper ! It’s not for nothing that Canon released the second version of this lens, they probably fixed something in it, but as for this particular lens, it’s a complete pass. Fortunately, now you can test everything by renting optics, thank God I didn’t buy this sanctuary before. I want…

With the introduction of the Mark II, the price of this lens has fallen dramatically in recent years. At $999, this lens is a lot more affordable for consumers (like me). This lens has always been my dream since I started photography four years ago. Now that I have it, I no longer need another lens with the same focal length. It is incredibly sharp and gives colors like in a dream. Bokeh divine. A small amount of CA is present in high contrast situations, but this can usually be corrected in…