I've had my eye on getting a nice Canon 35mm 1.4L II prime lens for about a year. This would be a great landscape, full-body portrait, and astro-photography lens. All of which I dabble in.

I already rented one from Canon Professional Services so I know it'll work for me.

Finally, it's a great dog portrait lens, because the lack of magnification means you can stay close to your subject (dogs tend to lose interest if you back too far away, 50mm on a full frame can work, forget 85mm or higher: you could be a mile away for all they care).

A few months ago, Canon had at least one on their refurb sale site for about $300 less than retail. For those unaware, Canon refurbs are quality lenses, factory inspected, and most of the time they're returned because the boxes are damages in shipping (nothing to do with the quality of the lens). Did I buy it?

No.

Because I've got a couple months before taking off on my once-in-a-lifetime Europe trip (Plitvice/Amalfi), and surely they will have more before then. They didn't.

But LDD, sometimes life has pity on you and gives you a second chance! Sure it does.

Last month, Adorama had one in D condition for $200 less than retail. D condition is "little or no signs of wear," basically, if it was any newer, it would full retail. Oh, did mention that I have free 2 day shipping from Adorama because I'm a VIP or whatever member? So no hidden shipping costs for me. But did I buy it?

No.

Because I was waiting till the start of the new month to have a safety buffer on my funds.

Sometimes you just have to look in the mirror, point and laugh.

Check with B&H.

Linky

Linky

There may be more.

I already have a 50mm 1.2 L.

What I am looking for is this lens:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c...m_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html

Neither B&H nor Adorama have it for anything other than new.

I may just bite the bullet and order it new from Adorama since I have a shipping deal with them.

Ahhh...35mm. Sorry.

I would suggest that you look into a 35mm f2 instead. Based on my experience with Nikon Lenses going back to the 60's their much less expensive f lenses are typically a bit better in terms of sharpness and image quality.

Yeah, I know, modern science has pretty much eliminated the compromise between larger apertures and image quality but even so it simply means that your 35mm f1.4 Canon lens will match the image quality of the much less expensive 35mm f2 lens. As for any "need" for that f1.4 aperture, in real terms you'll probably find you will only actually need that aperture about 5 or 10 times in 20 years of shooting. Truth is I do most of my shooting at f8 or smaller because I like to have as much as good detail as possible in my images. However I do still shoot some 4x5 from time to time and do have the typical large format shooter bias to F64 and be there. Basically in my mind images have a Subject and the Context surrounding/explaining the Subject and the best way to convey that is to have both as sharp as circumstance allows.

PS; my current lens lust is a 75mm f5.6 Super Angulon. Good coverage for 4 x 5 with shifts but they aren't cheap, easy to find, and the field correction filters tend to run around 1400 bucks and higher. Worse news is that none of this hardware is made anymore, so it can be a real treasure hunt at times. So I really do understand your dilemma.

I've had a few things I wanted get away like that. Probably all of us have.

Scooter, thanks. I actually just picked up one from Adorama, pre-owned, but "D" demo condition.

So I learned my lesson...and I only had to get kicked by this mule 3x to get it.

As for f1.4, I'd agree with you that for most cases, I prefer having some context rather than a complete bokeh blast of the background. However, I intend to use this lens for astro-photography too. I may be wrong, but this should allow me to shoot at lower ISO as compared to my 16-35 f4.

I've shot with this lens at F1.4 and it did its job if I did mine, so a big part of the reason for its selection is that it's a known quantity to me.

Well I can see were that aperture would be a benefit for Astrophotography. Living in hte Metro Detroit area means that I don't do any stargazing, way too much light pollution in this area. IF I happened to live in a low population area such as Utah's painted hills I'd have the best telescope I could afford.

LDD, email sent.