Is the 35L worth the money?
- Thread starter Electrin
- Start date
- Status
I dun tink the 35mm L or 85 L are worth it.
Of cos, story is different if u r in for the craze of just owning L lenses, have $ but dunno where else to spend, got the need to shoot often in low light or always talk abt nothing else but bokeh...
If u shoot at f/2.8 and above often, heck, who's gonna tell which one comes from the f/1.4L or f/2? U r not gonna present yr pictures, on prints or images on screen always cropped 100% anyway. the price diff u pay for these two lenses are miles apart but difference in quality wise may not be that much for the photographer.
The weight and bulk of the L is simply ridiculous for me considering it's only a fixed 35mm prime (not as versatile as a zoom). I should tink photojournalist will have more use for such a lens, and of cos, like I said, those who got $ to make themselves happy with large aperture L lenses.
Of cos, story is different if u r in for the craze of just owning L lenses, have $ but dunno where else to spend, got the need to shoot often in low light or always talk abt nothing else but bokeh...
If u shoot at f/2.8 and above often, heck, who's gonna tell which one comes from the f/1.4L or f/2? U r not gonna present yr pictures, on prints or images on screen always cropped 100% anyway. the price diff u pay for these two lenses are miles apart but difference in quality wise may not be that much for the photographer.
The weight and bulk of the L is simply ridiculous for me considering it's only a fixed 35mm prime (not as versatile as a zoom). I should tink photojournalist will have more use for such a lens, and of cos, like I said, those who got $ to make themselves happy with large aperture L lenses.
slacker123
Senior Member
David said:
It depends, I own the 24L, 35L, 85L and 135L and for a good reason too...
most of my work is shot in really really dark places - something like iso 3200, 1/20s at f/2.8. So that two stops really do help quite a bit in raising the shutter speed.
with the 85, I can usually come back up to about iso 1600, 1/80s at f/1.2 in those lighting conditions
The 35L is wonderful, it balances well on the 1-series body. The 85L balances well too on a 1 series. I've used it for so many assignments and it really does make a difference. Its weight grants good stability. I've shot sharp pictures at 1/6s at iso 3200 and at f/1.2 thanks to this lens. Its sharp wide open and while its slow focusing and heavy - it is stable in its own right.
sometimes, indoors, in bad light, the lens with the bigger aperture is the lens that is more flexible. You are generalising when you say that people with $ buy large aperture L lenses to make themselves happy.
Its quite simple actually - you either can get the shot. Or you simply just can't get the shot. Not because of the lack of ability, rather, due to the fact that there just isn't enough light around - besides, you can go around strobing concerts either - especially with paying audiences at a more formal event... =D
Its not always about who can tell the difference between an f/2 and f/2.8. That really doesn't matter. What people can tell is whether or not your picture is sharp. Whether or not you got the shot. Not everyone crops their images. The use of "always" once again glosses over the knowledge that some people just cannot crop because they want to do large prints out of their pictures.
The image quality is not the ultimate goal. Showing off your deep pockets is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is very simple. "Can you get a good sharp picture in that kind of lighting conditions". That is when large aperture primes come in very handy. In Singapore we have the opportunity to go out and take pictures and its nice and warm with great sunshine. However here in Boston, it is really really cold for half the year and everyone huddles indoors for events ranging from madrigals, dance, performances and formals - most under poor artificial and controlled light. You'd might be surprised to know that almost everyone I know here shoots solely with prime lenses.
I can't even use my 70-200 for most events here. It is simply *too slow* for an acceptable shutter speed. Prime lenses fit their niche very well and more than showing off - sometimes, there really are occassions when that f/1.4, f/1.2 or even f/1.0 come in really really handy. Its probably not worth it for the person who takes pictures once in a while, or once a week at brightly light places. They are, however, very useful for the guy that goes around shooting 4-5 days a week in dungeon like arenas.
David said:
I just don't understand why people like to use bulky DSLR when a small digicam like the
LX 1 can serve u well as a walkaround camera.
Try duplicating this picture with a digicam or even a f2.8 lens.
The big aperter has its purpose. It is not always that i want to render the scene as what I see with my eyes. The narrow depth of field and the bokeh are something that is the desired artistic effect I may want to achieve. It gives me a tool to interprete the scene differently. U just can't do it on a f2.8 lens, not to mention those digicam.
In fact, sharpness is secondary to me. U reduce the size and apply USM and the u get sharp pictures. But the bokeh can be a very important element in a picture and one will immediately notice it, be it full size or reduced size.
This 35mm L is extraordinary. It has almost everything - sharpness, bokeh, contrast etc..., and is one of the best 35mm around, comparing very well against the leica and zeiss. And looking at the price, it isn't that expensive after all.
And u wanna talk about 85L and 135L? The 85L at f1.2 has its bokeh signature that no f2.8 can ever smell.
Of cos every lens has its + and - points. For those who want to use big aperture primes cos they need to shoot in very low light conditions then it makes sense. If bokeh takes a high priority for u, then f/1.4 is probably much preferred over the f/2.
But with digital, bokeh is no longer my priority. In the days of films (yes, films have died for me!), large aperture was pretty important to me to get that nice background/foreground blur. But now with digital, there are so many tricks u cud do to replicate that blurred part with PS. Of cos, this point opens up more arguments.. Can u get a natural bokeh, it takes time to post process, etc etc. I'm not going into that area... The point is, u can do it if u know how.
Just as weekh mentioned sharpness is not impt to him cos u can use PS to enhance it. That's a valid point. As valid as I tink u can easily blur pics from PS too. In fact with the advancement of digital tech, I sometimes lament that it's indeed hard to tell which pic was taken with which lens. At times, even an above average prosumer cam can equal the image taken with the more expensive DSLR's with a good lens.
But seriously, nothing is ever enuff. We always want more and more. U think f/1.4 is enough for a 35mm lens? What if I tell u there is an f/1.0 for tt? Yes, there isn't in reality, but u can never draw the line where such arguments end.
It really depends on yr needs. Get what u need and it'll make u happy with the final results. For me, I'm happy to shoot with my inconspicuous 35mm f/2. It's super light, super compact I can just hide it somewhere in my cam bag and people aren't intimated by my gear, and I save so much more $ than the f/1.4L. And it's a sharp, nifty little lens. Moreover, I hardly shoot low light. And if I do, the large f/2 aperture is enough for me. Image quality wise, most can't tell the diff between a f/2 and f/1.4 without cropping. Even if they could, by how much is the diff?
To me for close to $2k, getting a fixed focal length prime is just too ex and it doesn't have that flexibility. But for others, who want the large aperture, and don't mind paying more for the L one, then by all means... Go for it!
But with digital, bokeh is no longer my priority. In the days of films (yes, films have died for me!), large aperture was pretty important to me to get that nice background/foreground blur. But now with digital, there are so many tricks u cud do to replicate that blurred part with PS. Of cos, this point opens up more arguments.. Can u get a natural bokeh, it takes time to post process, etc etc. I'm not going into that area... The point is, u can do it if u know how.
Just as weekh mentioned sharpness is not impt to him cos u can use PS to enhance it. That's a valid point. As valid as I tink u can easily blur pics from PS too. In fact with the advancement of digital tech, I sometimes lament that it's indeed hard to tell which pic was taken with which lens. At times, even an above average prosumer cam can equal the image taken with the more expensive DSLR's with a good lens.
But seriously, nothing is ever enuff. We always want more and more. U think f/1.4 is enough for a 35mm lens? What if I tell u there is an f/1.0 for tt? Yes, there isn't in reality, but u can never draw the line where such arguments end.
It really depends on yr needs. Get what u need and it'll make u happy with the final results. For me, I'm happy to shoot with my inconspicuous 35mm f/2. It's super light, super compact I can just hide it somewhere in my cam bag and people aren't intimated by my gear, and I save so much more $ than the f/1.4L. And it's a sharp, nifty little lens. Moreover, I hardly shoot low light. And if I do, the large f/2 aperture is enough for me. Image quality wise, most can't tell the diff between a f/2 and f/1.4 without cropping. Even if they could, by how much is the diff?
To me for close to $2k, getting a fixed focal length prime is just too ex and it doesn't have that flexibility. But for others, who want the large aperture, and don't mind paying more for the L one, then by all means... Go for it!
Keltzar said:Question: Is the 35/1.4 L worth it vis-a-vis the 35/2 ?
Answer: Well, if you need to shoot at f1.4 ... the f2 version can't shoot at f1.4 ...
So is it worth it??? Can't quite tell from the answer...
Of cos the more u pay, the more an electronic gadget can do for u. Who dare says a 1Ds MkII is not better than a 1D MkII? :bsmilie:
But it has to justify yr use. Yes, if u need f/1.4, no way the f/2 will work. But how about increasing the ISO on the cam? Or use a tripod. Wat? Too troublesome? What if u need a 35mm f/1.0? Where's the limit?
[Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be against the 35mm f/1.4L. I'd get it myself if I need it. It's a fine lens except for the purple fringing at f/1.4. But I just wish to present the other side of the argument so that those who read this post can make an objective decision.]
mpenza said:
Good point.. that's what I want to point out.. Better according to whom? If u are happy with your gear that suits yr need, then stick with it.
But definitely the 1DsMkII is worth much more than your 20D cos it has many other features that the 20D don't. And bcos of these features, people would generally term it as a better cam.
And those who can afford the 1Ds will probably be able to afford all sorts of lenses they need, from super wide to telephoto. They dun need the 1.6x which could be a hinderance.
- Status
Similar threads
