jke
Well-known
Zoom or no zoom, I wanted a good lens. For my use, the amount of distortion produced by the 17-40mm lens on a full-frame sensor (I would expect that it would make an excellent crop-sensor lens though) made it very dissatisfying. But I never said that no one should use this lens. I am simply suggesting that there is a sizable element of subjectivity in the answers to questions about whether a lens is good or bad. Most lenses of the L class qualify as good lenses. But the variable is whether they fit the look or use of the individual photographer.
I actually like the 50mm ZE lens, but I agree that its look is not necessarily perfect. However, I like its imperfections better than those in the Canon 50mm f1.4. The 50mm Makro Planar's imperfections are even better, and that will likely be the next lens I get.
I am just advocating (especially since none of these lenses are free) trying before buying so that the subjective element can be resolved as per the individual users preferences. Then you know that not only is the lens good, it is good for what you want to do with it and satisfies your own requirements for image quality.
majid
Fazal Majid
I used the 35mm f/1.4L on my old Rebel XT and sold it recently, and use the 50mm f/1.2L on my 5DmkII. I primarily used a 35mm Summilux ASPH with my M8 and a 50mm Summilux ASPH on my M9.
The Canon lenses are both decent optics, but not in the same class as the Leica ones. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is not far behind either in quality, if at all (but much slower, obviously). The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is also equivalent in quality to the 50mm f/1.2L, although it has more distortion and micro-USM (i.e. not real USM).
The new 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor is superior to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L (the older 50mm AF-D was a dog). There's a reason why many Canon and Nikon shooters have been grabbing stock of the 35 and 50mm Leica R lenses, the Contax C/Y 28mm and 35mm primes and the Zeiss ZF/ZF.2 primes.
That said, the Canon and Nikon bodies are far superior in high-ISO sensitivity. If you need to shoot in available darkness, long the Leica's forte, a D700 with a 50mm f/1.4G AF-S or a 5DmkII with a 50mm f/1.2Lis a killer combo that cannot be matched by anything in Leica's stable.
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in your shots will be technique, not the optical quality of the lenses.
The Canon lenses are both decent optics, but not in the same class as the Leica ones. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is not far behind either in quality, if at all (but much slower, obviously). The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is also equivalent in quality to the 50mm f/1.2L, although it has more distortion and micro-USM (i.e. not real USM).
The new 50mm f/1.4G AF-S Nikkor is superior to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L (the older 50mm AF-D was a dog). There's a reason why many Canon and Nikon shooters have been grabbing stock of the 35 and 50mm Leica R lenses, the Contax C/Y 28mm and 35mm primes and the Zeiss ZF/ZF.2 primes.
That said, the Canon and Nikon bodies are far superior in high-ISO sensitivity. If you need to shoot in available darkness, long the Leica's forte, a D700 with a 50mm f/1.4G AF-S or a 5DmkII with a 50mm f/1.2Lis a killer combo that cannot be matched by anything in Leica's stable.
Keep in mind that the limiting factor in your shots will be technique, not the optical quality of the lenses.
filmfan
Well-known
Looks like I will be saving a bit for a 35L... The 35mm f/2 is only around $150 (used), so it will have to do for now...
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I seem to remember that most reviews of the 50mm f1.2L tend to talk about how soft it is from 1.2-1.8 range.
I only own 2xL-series lenses, but both are zoom range (20-35m 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8IS)
I do own a number of non-L primes from Canon (EOS) and all of them fantastic and I wouldn't sell any of em (28mm, 35mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 135 2.8 soft and 100mm 2.8 macro).
The big comparison between these and the Canon LTM's I own (35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4) is that they have far better coatings and are probably sharper too.
I only own 2xL-series lenses, but both are zoom range (20-35m 2.8L and the 70-200 2.8IS)
I do own a number of non-L primes from Canon (EOS) and all of them fantastic and I wouldn't sell any of em (28mm, 35mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 135 2.8 soft and 100mm 2.8 macro).
The big comparison between these and the Canon LTM's I own (35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4) is that they have far better coatings and are probably sharper too.
Last edited:
cmedin
Well-known
First, congrats on the camera.
Second, the 85/1.8 is almost a no-brainer for most shooters. Faster autofocus than the 1.2, superbly sharp even wide open, with beautiful drawing. The CA is terrible but in 99% of real world shots you won't notice it; I tried using it for astrophotography and it was a no go though, even at f/4! The 100/2 is very close to the 85/1.8 and also should be considered.
The 35/2 is another lens worth looking at. Low distortion and sharp, classic looks.
Stray outside the brand, and you need to look at the Zeiss ZE primes (if you don't mind manual focus), and the Sigma 50/1.4 (if you don't mind trying a few out to find one that focuses properly). Go all manual and the sky's the limit; an OM adapter can be had for cheap and you get access to some wonderful glass.
Last edited:
cmedin
Well-known
thx for info about distortion, have to Google more about it. but with prices coming down, would probably make the jump anywayit seems very useful combo of both wide and tele & moderate aperture.
It is. Whenever I travel or carry my camera for "unknown" purposes the 24-105 is on it. The combination of high image quality and image stabilization is just unbeatable and it covers a rather wide range. I think the 24-105 combined with a faster 35mm or 50mm prime is just about the ideal travel kit.
gavinlg
Veteran
Sorry but nooo way. I've had both the 50mm 1.2L and the 1.4, and I've used a nikkor 50 1.4 AFS on a d700 body.
The nikkor is probably better than the canon 1.4 (being a newer lens) and I personally don't like the f1.4 canon at all. However the 50mm 1.2L is significantly better than both those lenses. Internet lore pours on about this and that, but I can promise you there's a big difference in the way they both work. I would buy another 50L in a heartbeat over the f1.4.
pachuco
El ****
I use almost all of them...
[SIZE=-2]1v-HS/1d Mk IIn w/E-1 & Op/Tech straps
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L, 300mm f/2.8L IS
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II[/SIZE]
Wow!
I need a cold shower now. That is a great collection!andredossantos
Well-known
I can't speak on the Nikkor but I have to agree about the 1.4 vs the 1.2L. Granted, I never did any tests or anything but I had both for a time and consistently found the 1.2 superior at large apetures.
I read people on the web bashing the 1.2 and scratch my head. I absolutely love it.
chrispiper
Established
>>
A great trio of zooms; the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200... All f/2.8 and weathersealed. Toss in a pro body and your bases are covered under most situations. Sadly it's quite a heavy bit of kit!
Since I picked up the Ikon and M8 and some ZM/VC glass, I don't use the Canon kit anymore for travel... In fact, I use the Canon gear less and less. But I'd never part with it.
<<
That's about where I'm at exactly. I keep the 1D Mk II with the L zooms but use them more for paid gigs than for personal stuff. Since I got into M bodies I shoot them almost exclusively for everything else. For travel there's no question the RF setup wins hands down.
Chris
A great trio of zooms; the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200... All f/2.8 and weathersealed. Toss in a pro body and your bases are covered under most situations. Sadly it's quite a heavy bit of kit!
Since I picked up the Ikon and M8 and some ZM/VC glass, I don't use the Canon kit anymore for travel... In fact, I use the Canon gear less and less. But I'd never part with it.
<<
That's about where I'm at exactly. I keep the 1D Mk II with the L zooms but use them more for paid gigs than for personal stuff. Since I got into M bodies I shoot them almost exclusively for everything else. For travel there's no question the RF setup wins hands down.
Chris
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I'm surprised by talk that the Nikon 50g is better than any Canon 50mm. Nikkor 50mm AF lenses have bad bokeh. Period. I really don't care much if (IF) a lens is 2% sharper than another if all the background bits are doubled and nervous.
I've had the Canon 50/1.4 for a long time. It's really good. If you get a good copy, it's sharp from 1.7 and smaller. I once had a Summicron-R 50mm and thought the Canon was as good or better from F2 through 4 or 5.6 (as far as i tested), but the Canon has a 'bonus' 1.4 and 1.7. It's not even bad at 1.4. It just has a bit of halation if you have white/bright areas in the image. Even then, it's not always bad. Bokeh is very good, although not as good as the newer 50L and Sigma 50/1.4.
I had the Sigma 50/1.4 for a little while. I liked it. Build quality is very nice. Focus is quick (enough for me). Bokeh is phenomenal. But, it seems to require a digital body with an AF micro-adjustment feature. Worked nicely on my 5DMkII. Didn't work (three samples) with the original 5D. I tried a Nikon-mounted version on a film camera (Nikon F6) and got horrible results, despite Sigma's claim that the 'focus calibration issue' is only an issue with digital sensors. Maybe i just had a bad sample again?
I had a Canon 50L, again for a short while - after the Sigma. Again, build is very nice. Both the Sigma and Canon are large, solid, heavy lenses. Again, though, i don't recommend the 50L unless you have a dSLR with focus calibration. Not sure how it would have fared on a film body. I have an EOS3 but never used it on that camera before i had to sell it. I'll probably buy another soon. I do think the Sigma's bokeh was better, though. Sharpness-wise, my Canon 50/1.4 was better than both the Sigma and 50L. The Sigma and 50L probably were tied for second.
I've had a 35L for about five years. I, embarrassingly, don't use it much at all. But, every time i pick it up and shoot it at home, i'm impressed. And, whenever i get a new lens, i compare it to the 35L. It's just a great lens. Sharp from 1.4 and with great bokeh.
I have the 85L. It's just the best 85 i've ever used, including the Summilux-R 80 and Contax-N 85/1.4. It's not quick-focusing, but it's quick enough to shoot what i shoot - people.
I would have switched to Nikon long ago if Nikon had such fantastic primes. I love Nikon camera body design, and also the fact that even the old SOLID film camera bodies use the same lens mount as the current digitals. I have an FE2 and F6, and once had F100s, an F80, and an F4. But, i only have an old manual focus 50mm Series-E lens to use on the F6.... I only shoot primes at the moment, and none of the (currently produced) Nikkors are better than the Canons. Sad, and odd, since the old manual 50s and 35s give such lovely results.
Get the Canon lenses. Don't bother comparing them to RF lenses. They're good enough to stand on their own merits. And with AF, and the ability to shoot wide open without worrying about missing focus because you've recomposed after using the center RF patch, plus better high ISO performance, cinematic video potential.....
I've had the Canon 50/1.4 for a long time. It's really good. If you get a good copy, it's sharp from 1.7 and smaller. I once had a Summicron-R 50mm and thought the Canon was as good or better from F2 through 4 or 5.6 (as far as i tested), but the Canon has a 'bonus' 1.4 and 1.7. It's not even bad at 1.4. It just has a bit of halation if you have white/bright areas in the image. Even then, it's not always bad. Bokeh is very good, although not as good as the newer 50L and Sigma 50/1.4.
I had the Sigma 50/1.4 for a little while. I liked it. Build quality is very nice. Focus is quick (enough for me). Bokeh is phenomenal. But, it seems to require a digital body with an AF micro-adjustment feature. Worked nicely on my 5DMkII. Didn't work (three samples) with the original 5D. I tried a Nikon-mounted version on a film camera (Nikon F6) and got horrible results, despite Sigma's claim that the 'focus calibration issue' is only an issue with digital sensors. Maybe i just had a bad sample again?
I had a Canon 50L, again for a short while - after the Sigma. Again, build is very nice. Both the Sigma and Canon are large, solid, heavy lenses. Again, though, i don't recommend the 50L unless you have a dSLR with focus calibration. Not sure how it would have fared on a film body. I have an EOS3 but never used it on that camera before i had to sell it. I'll probably buy another soon. I do think the Sigma's bokeh was better, though. Sharpness-wise, my Canon 50/1.4 was better than both the Sigma and 50L. The Sigma and 50L probably were tied for second.
I've had a 35L for about five years. I, embarrassingly, don't use it much at all. But, every time i pick it up and shoot it at home, i'm impressed. And, whenever i get a new lens, i compare it to the 35L. It's just a great lens. Sharp from 1.4 and with great bokeh.
I have the 85L. It's just the best 85 i've ever used, including the Summilux-R 80 and Contax-N 85/1.4. It's not quick-focusing, but it's quick enough to shoot what i shoot - people.
I would have switched to Nikon long ago if Nikon had such fantastic primes. I love Nikon camera body design, and also the fact that even the old SOLID film camera bodies use the same lens mount as the current digitals. I have an FE2 and F6, and once had F100s, an F80, and an F4. But, i only have an old manual focus 50mm Series-E lens to use on the F6.... I only shoot primes at the moment, and none of the (currently produced) Nikkors are better than the Canons. Sad, and odd, since the old manual 50s and 35s give such lovely results.
Get the Canon lenses. Don't bother comparing them to RF lenses. They're good enough to stand on their own merits. And with AF, and the ability to shoot wide open without worrying about missing focus because you've recomposed after using the center RF patch, plus better high ISO performance, cinematic video potential.....
filmfan
Well-known
I would love to see more photos, specifically from the 35L (wide open or close to it)...
squinza
Established
I have the 50L, IMHO is a wonderful lens, though has its own character. If I grab my 5DII the 50 the one I always reach for. Got a 135/2 and a TS-E 24L too.
ederek
Well-known
Same here, except no 70-200, rather the 70-300 DO as a more compact lens for travel and was willing to sacrifice the speed, compensated some by IS.
Moving to primes, the zooms collected more dust. Started with 85/1.8 and 50/1.4, then to 85/1.2 and 50/1.2. The 35/1.4 and 135/2 would be the next lens purchases (if any) for "that" platform.
Here are two galleries, one shot w/ 85mm and the other w/ 50. They're from a little while ago, don't use the SLR much these days..
Boston Children's Museum - http://bit.ly/9zIwfX
Images have exif info avail, all with 85/1.2 on a 5D (except B&W shot w/ M4 and 35/2 Biogon)
![479907302_3r9NZ-L.jpg]](http://ederek.smugmug.com/photos/479907302_3r9NZ-L.jpg])
85 @ 1.2
Here's one at Drink in Boston (Sportello as well), all with the 50/1.2 on a 5D: http://bit.ly/9IRyfp
Here's another w/ the 85 shot at f1.4, showing a friend shooting my M4 in Chinatown (Biogon mounted here).
jke
Well-known
Try Fred Miranda forums. You'll find plenty of examples of all or any of the lenses mentioned here.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I have two "L" lenses: the 50mm/f1.2, which is almost perfectly matched with my "classic" 5D :
and a 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6IS:
(who says a rangefinder is needed to capture a decisive moment?)
I also have an EF-S 17-55mm/f2.8IS which isn't officially an "L" lens (no crop-only lens is) but which produces good results:
RFs have their own advantages - including in lens quality. But don't fool yourself: Canon (and others) make some very good SLR lenses.
...Mike
and a 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6IS:
(who says a rangefinder is needed to capture a decisive moment?)
I also have an EF-S 17-55mm/f2.8IS which isn't officially an "L" lens (no crop-only lens is) but which produces good results:
RFs have their own advantages - including in lens quality. But don't fool yourself: Canon (and others) make some very good SLR lenses.
...Mike
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
35/1.4
f1.4
f1.4
f2
f1.4
f1.4
f2
bmasonoh
Established
I use the holy trinity 35L, 85L and 135L for my wedding work. Made the switch from zooms and haven't looked back. They're all spectacular lenses with the 35L and 85L being my go to lenses. The 85L is extremely slow to focus (especially in low light) but the results are unique and worth the trouble. Having said that, I only use them with my 5DmkII. Never even occurred to me to try them with film. DOH!
Olsen
Well-known
I have a range for Canon L lenses that I have used on only FF Canon cameras. From EOS3, 1Ds, 1Ds II and now 1Ds III. The last one is the most demanding camera to find good lenses for.
To my taste, the following are the best:
35 mm 1,4L. Possibly the best lens made for any SLR camera. Sharp, with high contrast, fast and still draws straight lines.
200 mm 2,8L II Canon's cheapest tele to price. I take it everywhere. Very good.
300 mm 2,8L A heavy monster that has not been more than a thousand meters from my car. But a hefty performer.
24 mm 1,4L II Good, but not quite up to it. Light fall off and unsharp corners when used on a FF DSLR. You can just as well use one of the zooms.
50 mm 1,0L Like Leica's Noctilux 50 mm 1,0 - which I also have, it is 'just awful', but a nice curiosity to have on the shelf.
85 mm 1,2L - Excellent, but I have the old version with slow AF and which is somewhat prone to flare. Which is easily cured with the good sunshade.
16 - 35 mm 2,8L II - not sharp enough compared to Leica's WATE and my M8.
24 - 28 mm 2,8L - possibly one of the best zoom lenses made for SLR cameras. This excellent combination of sharpness and contrast and good colors.
I think it is fair to say, generally, that Canon has better cameras and Leica has better optics. That said, Canon's lens philosophy is close to that of Leica with emphasis on aspherical designs. Compared to Carl Zeiss's more conservative approach. The tests I have read (Reid) of the Z glass for Canon has been disappointing.
To my taste, the following are the best:
35 mm 1,4L. Possibly the best lens made for any SLR camera. Sharp, with high contrast, fast and still draws straight lines.
200 mm 2,8L II Canon's cheapest tele to price. I take it everywhere. Very good.
300 mm 2,8L A heavy monster that has not been more than a thousand meters from my car. But a hefty performer.
24 mm 1,4L II Good, but not quite up to it. Light fall off and unsharp corners when used on a FF DSLR. You can just as well use one of the zooms.
50 mm 1,0L Like Leica's Noctilux 50 mm 1,0 - which I also have, it is 'just awful', but a nice curiosity to have on the shelf.
85 mm 1,2L - Excellent, but I have the old version with slow AF and which is somewhat prone to flare. Which is easily cured with the good sunshade.
16 - 35 mm 2,8L II - not sharp enough compared to Leica's WATE and my M8.
24 - 28 mm 2,8L - possibly one of the best zoom lenses made for SLR cameras. This excellent combination of sharpness and contrast and good colors.
I think it is fair to say, generally, that Canon has better cameras and Leica has better optics. That said, Canon's lens philosophy is close to that of Leica with emphasis on aspherical designs. Compared to Carl Zeiss's more conservative approach. The tests I have read (Reid) of the Z glass for Canon has been disappointing.
jke
Well-known
Is that the 24-70mm you mean?
I am not familiar with those reviews, but my experience has been that at least the Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE lens has the "look" I expect from the best quality lenses. But beyond that subjective appraisal, I am not qualified to make any definitive technical statements.