Question on Canon 35 1.4 and normalcy

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

Hello, Would anyone be so kind as to comment on the Canon 35 1.4 lens if you have used it. I an considering the 50 1.4 and 100 2.8 as my only two lenses for now. I have been thinking that a 35mm might be a better choice with this combination instead of the 50. How would the 35 be as a standard all around lens. I will be taking pictures of people but would like a low light lens for taking interiors of churches. Thanks

-- Artur Ciesielski (aciesi8872@aol.com), May 12, 2001

Answers

I don't use Canon, but I do use both Nikon and Leica cameras, and as much as I like the 50mm lens, the 35mm lens is my "core" lens. I have the 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor which is a manual focus lens built in the old tradition... solid metal and glass, it feels as if it were carved out of a single piece of material. My other most used Nikkor lens is a 105mm f/2.5, and together they make a good minimalist outfit. For the leica M6, it is a 35mm and 90mm lens combination.

The 35mm lens has a couple of benefits over the 50mm lens. For interior shots, the couple of degrees of extra coverage can make it easier, especially when you are backed into the wall. While you can also do this with any wider lens, you can keep a more natural look with the closer to normal 35mm lens, not suffering the obvious wide angle distortion when it would not be appropriate. Another advantage is that if we adhere to the standard formula of handholding a lens at the reciprocal of the focal length as the lowest speed, then the 35mm lens will effectively give you one stop worth of handholdability, 1/30th of a second rather than the 1/60th for the 50mm. With the 35mm f/1.4, this equates to the handholdability of a 50mm f/1.0, but with more depth of field. I do use my lens wide open quite often for selective focus, but with a normal perspective... this effect can't be accomplished with a slower zoom at the 35mm setting. This makes for some great window light environmental portraits, and once you master the natural look of side angled window light, flash is hard to tolerate as a main light source.

Specific to your question regarding the Canon, I am not a "Nikon Snob", and have looked at this lens. While everything I stated above is true for any 35mm f/1.4 lens, the size difference is quite hard for me to swallow for the Canon lens. My Nikon is the size of any normal lens, like my 50mm f/1.4, with a small 52mm filter size. The Canon lens is huge, and has a filter size of 72mm. One of the pleasures of my Nikon lens, and a benefit of not going the zoom route is that the size and weight are easy to endure. If I had to carry the bigger Canon lens around, I am not sure if my attitude would be the same. When I am out and about with my Nikon and the 35mm f/1.4 lens, it is like I am driving a sports car... everything is fast and easy. For me, the huge Canon lens would be like driving a big truck, and I am sure it would cause me to not enjoy the process as much as now. Be aware, this is only my opinion about the size being burdensome. It might not be a problem for you, but you should try the lens in person to see if it meets your size / weight expectations.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 12, 2001.


Hi. Did you bother to read this website's creator's advice on building a system? I've used everything from fisheye to 800 mm. If you're starting out, you won't, in my opinion, find better advice than Philip's. So I'll reiterate it. For a three lens system, get an 85 or 105 mm lens, a 28 or 35 mm, and a 50 mm lens. I use all five, myself. But generally, you probably won't want to carry more thn three lenses with a flash, body and accessories. The 105 is my "headshot" lens. Face shots. Everyone likes to look at a picture of their face. The 85 is for a head and shoulders shot of one person, or one or two people in vertical mode (longside of photo is vertical) or up to three people in horizontal. Both of these lenses are great for scenics, also. The 28 or 35 are good indoors, for groups, tight shots, and scenics with an interesting foreground subject(could even be a person or animal). And the 50. Much maligned. Very useful for scenics and people shots. Good luck. If you were going with a four lens system, I'd say drop the 28 or 35. But you will find each individual photographer has their preferences (50 vs. 35 vs. 85 vs. 105) and talents. Most of the great photographers that I've followed had perhaps two lenses that they so excelled with that they were "ALL-World" in terms of stunning photos. Their money lenses, that separated them from other professionals. And they were still maybe "professional", but not stunning, with other, less frequently used lenses.. The trick is to find what is your "style" and preference without buying ten lenses, which you wouldn't enjoy carrying around anyway. That's why I say stick with the advice I and Philip give you in the fourth sentence of this response. Best wishes.

-- DJ Soroka (DJSoroka@hotmail.com), May 12, 2001.

I meant fifth sentence of the response.

-- DJ Soroka (DJSoroka@hotmail.com), May 12, 2001.

Your question is welcome here, Artur, whether or not you have read all the photo.net material. Though there is no single correct answer to your question. To help guide you towards *your* answer, here are some comments on "three lens system".

A while back (sometime in the late 60s) Victor Blackman from the London "Daily Express" wrote an article in "Amateur Photographer" in which he argued that far and away the most suitable three-lens system for an amateur was a 28mm, a 50mm, and a 135mm. Now, tastes have widened since then -- photography has become more up-front and in-your-face -- a change which Blackman could see happening, and of which he didn't wholly approve.

But a system of three prime lenses is still a good way of carrying a reasonable spread of focal lengths for a modest weight. My observation is that the most common choice now would be

35mm is no longer really regarded as being a wide angle, and I think 24mm is probably now the most popular wide angle choice. It has to be learnt, but it offers the scope for picures of great depth, without having quite the frightening perspective of a 20mm.

Tradition argues that the "normal" lens should be 43mm (quite why is another story) and that both 35mm and 50mm are normal lenses. For a normal lens I use a 50mm, and Al argues passionately for a 35mm. Unfortunately, each of us is right only for himself, and we cannot tell which you will prefer. Would you be able to borrow a point-and-shoot with a 35mm lens, and run off a roll of film in some local churches?

For a telephoto, the 135mm is now rare, and seems to be mainly the preserve of portrait photographers who want a tight face shot ... or of course of people who bought their kit back in the days when Victor Blackman was working at the "Express". :-)

So, your suggestion of beginning with a 50mm f/1.4 and a 100mm f/2.8 is a thoroughly sensible one. If you do that you will probably later need a 28mm f/2.8 and a tripod for your church photography.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), May 13, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ