2 sames lenses, different price...
 

Hi guys and gals, was just searching around for a special lens I wanted to buy and saw this lens on Amazon. The Lens I want is the

Wide Angle EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Autofocus Lens

Now this lens goes for about $1300 on B&H and saw this lens on Amazon for cheaper:


Other than the F/2.0 is this the same lens? Thanks

No it is not the same lens, one is el cheapo and the other is Canon L class, their top of the line and 1 full stop brighter.

I have the f/2. Works fine for video. I'm not sure I'd want to go much shallower than F2 anyways. At F2 it is already ridiculously shallow. Can't manually focus when in automatic, not an issue for me to just flip the switch. Plenty sharp for video work. Stills look pretty good too IMHO. It's my low light indoor lens for now.

Just go out & buy a $1,000 can of red paint & add the thin red line of ego yourself. Same difference right? (kidding, of course)

I'm sure the L series is going to be a sharper lens, but w/ the smaller chip of a 7D you're already cropping the edges where you'd most likely see the most image degradation.

It comes down to how much is that extra sharpness worth to you? For many people it is worth more than $1,000, for others it isn't worth $10. Find the tool that works for you.

One thing that may sound strange is that a really good (like expensive Canon L glass) are often loved because of their out of focus qualities. They have round apertures at any f-stop. The highlights of the out of focus parts are not donuts they are even and look beautiful, not busy harsh and distracting. And the build quality is really good and they have a solid feel. They also tolerate getting wet better.

They also tend to have better contrast, and of course sharpness.

They control chromatic aberration and lens flare really well. They have less color banding around sharp edges and tolerate strong lights hitting the elements without washing out.

They also distort images less. They tend to be evenly sharp across the entire frame and stay that way at any f-stop.

So there are many things that set expensive lenses apart.

That is not to say you should not use cheaper alternatives, just understand what you are buying.

Here is a link to a really good site that explains this in depth and has lots of lens comparisons:
Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com

The f/1.4 is far superior in every way. That's not to say the f/2 may not be "good enough" for your needs.

Generally the cheaper lenses will be fairly sharp in their mid ranges and often pick up some softness and/or distortion when working at the extremes. In other words, at f2 with the cheapie there probably will be some softer areas at certain focus distances. Plus, there's more to a lens than whether it's sharp. The amount of throw of the focus ring, ie., how far it turns from close to infinity. The longer the throw the better it is for critical focusing when shooting video. And there's the build quality itself. Also, I've noticed that some of the cheaper lenses can vary--ie., you may get a nice sharp one, or you may get one that's not so good. So buy from a reputable place like B&H or Adorama so you can send it back for an exchange or a refund if it sucks. I've also seen manufacturing issues with some Canon expensive L lenses too, so always buy from a good place with good return policies.

For video purposes, especially since you have to focus manually, the EF 35/2 has the advantage of having hard stops whereas you can spin the MF ring on the 35/1.4L indefinitely.

If you need the f1.4, I would suggest the Sigma 30/1.4 instead.