I am seriously considering purchasing a Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens. I tried it in a store for a few minutes, but I really do not think it was enough time. I was hoping to rent a copy here in Zurich, but I wasn't successful in finding someone to rent it from. I know there are a lot of photographers here on english forum, so I thought I would see if anyone has a Canon 35mm 1.4L lens that they would be willing to loan out to me for a day or two. I have a few other Canon lenses that I could swap as collateral, i.e. 100-400mm L, 24-105 f/4L, 10-22mm EF-S, 50mm f/1.4

Forgive me if this post is not in the right category!

Cheers!

Jonathan

http://www.profot.ch

Thanks! I will check it out!

Or Light&Byte

Can't really help you further as I'm a Nikon man myself.

Or www.rentalens.ch

I've used them a couple times and will use them again.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I got ahold of someone at profot.ch and they have a 35mm for me to rent. I think I am going to swing by and pick it up tonight or tomorrow.

Going to check the other suggestions quickly first, though. Thanks again!

Cheers!

Jonathan

it's a nice lens, but too big and too heavy. i wish they made something in between that and the 35mm f/2 - which is a bit crappy.

Phil, you think the 35mm 1.4L is too big and heavy? haha After trying it out on my camera I thought "oh how small and light." It weighs less than the 24-105 that is almost standard for me. Of course I commonly have a 70-200 on my camera as well. Need some strong arms to hold that up for long periods of time! But, to each, their own!

Yes, the f/2 version looks very crappy, that was never a consideration. I love my 50mm 1.4 very much - image quality is spectacular, boca is beautiful, and it is so light/small its almost not there. Only complaint is auto-focus is spotty in darker situations, and it's not that fast. Oh, and it's too long on a crop body like my camera, hence the desire for the 35mm.

Jonathan

why compare it to a large zoom lens? you might as well compare it to a feather or a tank! it's eminently possible to design a good quality 35mm lens that is lighter and smaller.

the point is that in designing the lens, the size weight is always traded off against various factors (such as speed). canon always seems to go a bit too far in the trade-off for the L versions witness the 50mm f/1.0.

For what it's worth, I was until last year a professional wedding photojournalist and I used both the Canon 35/1.4L and the 24/1.4L MkII regularly.

It is an awesome lens with a full-frame camera, but not much use with a 1DMk4 or other crop sensor. It is sharp to the edges wide open, but I always felt that it did not focus quite as fast as the 24.

Certainly compared to the MkII version of the 24, the 35 (mkI) was slightly lacking in contrast, but the difference was only really noticeable when comparing the files side by side.

It is certainly pretty much bulletproof!

HTH!

i prefer the sigma 24 on a crop body than the 35 f/2 on a FF body. though admittedly, the sigma lens is not a small/light one.

Wow, why compare it to a zoom lens? I was merely comparing the weight to what I am used to carrying. You do not feel its a worthwhile exercise or a valid comparison? Well I most certainly find the comparison useful. Saying that something is "heavy" is subjective. I do not feel that it is a heavy lens on my camera body, especially compared to the total weight of my camera with a zoom lens (which I am used to carrying). How is it incorrect for me to compare one total weight to another? So what body do you use? By your logic, if you are not using a 5xx series body, your camera body must be "heavy." Is the 35mm lens heavier than other 35mm lenses? Absolutely, it has more glass and is built (perhaps overly so) very well. But is it heavy in absolute terms? I do not believe so. You can be of a different opinion and are entitled to it, but why is my opinion any less warranted or valid? I do not appreciate your comment of regarding comparing a lens to a tank or a feather - really? Comparing a prime lens on a body to a zoom lens on the same body, is like comparing the weight of holding a feather or a tank? REALLY? At this point I feel like you are more trolling than anything else.

I still hold that my comparison is both valid and useful: I am comparing what weight my hands have to hold: whether I am walking around or the weight is in my bag. In your original post, you did not say you were comparing the weights to something else. You stated an absolute "it is heavy and big." Ok. Well I am saying it is not big nor is it heavy. Is it any more right or wrong?

As to it being "eminently possible" to design a 35mm lens that is smaller/lighter - yes, I am sure they can, and judging by recent rumors, perhaps they will soon be releasing an update to the venerable 35mm 1.4L. But as a matter of fact this lens has not changed since its inception - it first came to market in what... 1998? That is a few years ago - I am sure that materials have changed slightly since then. Even so, glass is glass - it is heavy. Lens designs have not changed dramatically over time. Just new coatings, focusing systems, image stabilization, etc. But I digress...

no! that would be your logic! i would compare like with like e.g. xxx series with other crop sensor xxx series.

ok. i admit i might be slightly trolling

but i don't think it is a valid comparison. when i say it is heavy, it is heavy for a 35mm prime lens. it's might not be heavy compared to a 50-500mm zoom lens, or a car, but then again, it isn't a zoom lens, nor is it a car. in fact, it could well be the heaviest 35mm lens currently made by canon.

back to the original topic, can you buy it from somewhere with a 30 day guarantee. that way, if you find it too heavy you can return it.