Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8
  
 
Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Digital cameras have a flat sensor. As such, they can resolve quite well, because the plane of lens design, is the same as the plane of the digital sensor. Film, even though it is held flat when exposed, has ferocious curvature, after being processed, dipped in wet chemicals, and then mounted in the slide frame.

I was referring to the difference, as I transitioned from analog film printing to digital camera printing. This distinction is probably over the heads of digital only people, who never processed film, and never did analog printing (which is the projection of curved slide film down below to the paper in an analog (projection slide) enlarger.



Aug 19, 2012 at 05:50 AM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Few lenses project a perfectly flat image field.

I have a functioning darkroom.



Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Monito wrote:
Some old examples of mine.

28mm at f/8, 5D:

http://monitophoto.com/Stock/Tsr/MP20070223-072128-h500-web.jpg




This must be great shots but how can anyone say this for these sizes?




Aug 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Daan B wrote:
I had the 35/2 and 35L for some time. The 35/2 is a really nice lens. Very much on par with the 35L for IQ at comparable apertures. Not so much on par for built quality and MF ring.


Good summary. IQ was the thing for me, and the smaller size and weight are virtues in regards to the way I use the lens. The MF business, while it could matter a bit to some, is essentially a non issue to me. The build quality is not L, but it is fine.

galenapass wrote:
For those of you that own this lens (35mm f/2), what are your thoughts on the bokeh? I am interested in a small compact lens at this focal length but bokeh seems to be very nervous from what I have seen. Aside from that, test results indicate that this lens is quite sharp in the center and very good on the edges when stopped down a little.


I'm not sure that I can offer much about the bokeh question, except to say that I haven't noticed it as a problem. (There are other lenses on which I do notice bokeh that is less than wonderful, but that hasn't happened here.)

Also, keep in mind that you can't judge bokeh just by looking at a shot from camera A (bokeh "busy") and another shot from camera B (bokeh good) - there are a bunch of things that go into producing what you might regard as good bokeh. People often think of it purely as a lens characteristic, but I find that things like the subject-to-camera and the subject-to-background distance and other factors actually have as much or more of an effect. As an example, I like my EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS a lot, but it does not produce lovely bokeh in most cases. However, if you use it with extension tubes for very close work it does produce beautiful bokeh - go figure!

Regarding "sharpness," my experience tells me that the lens can be very sharp. It is certainly no slouch in this area of performance at all. The resolution is generally great across the frame, but in some circumstances if you look very closely in the very furthest corners of a shot done on full frame, you can see the sharpness diminish just a bit. The drop off is a bit unusual - rather than declining gradually from a point closer to the center of the frame, the image is very good further out from the center, and the small decline starts further out. I mention this only since the topic came up, and not because I regard it as a problem. Overall, the lens is a great performer.

I own both L and non-L primes. When I cannot find what I need in a non-L version, I don't hesitate to purchase the L alternative, but I've also found that a number of the non-L lenses are truly excellent performers in optical terms. In addition to that, they have the virtues of lower cost and smaller size and weight. While I understand the macho appeal of attaching Really Big And Impressive Lenses to ones camera*, in practical photographic terms, a smaller and lighter lens that accomplishes the same thing is a Good Thing. The 35mm f/2 is in this category for me, along with other primes like the 85mm f/1.8, the 50mm f/1.4 and a few others I don't own but which have similar reputations. (I cannot offer an opinion on the 28mm lens.)

Monito wrote:
Just about any half decent full-frame lens is "sharp in the corners" on a crop camera. A crop camera crops the corners away; cuts them out; eliminates the corners that the full-frame sees. This basic stuff and important to know and apply.


Yes, but...

With virtually any lens and virtually any camera, the corners will be weaker than the center of the frame. However, it is important to think this one out a bit more carefully. This would be easier to explain with a diagram or two, but I'll try to do it verbally, apologizing in advance for possible confusion.

Let's compare two configurations. Configuration A is a cropped sensor camera using some lens. Configuration B is a full frame sensor camera using the same lens. Both will produce the same lp/mm resolution in the center of the frame and the same lp/mm resolution at an absolute distance from the center equal to that where the corners of the APS-C sensor are found. Beyond that point the lp/mm resolution of the lens on the full frame camera will continue to decline. This is the source of the "common knowledge" about "poorer corner performance" from lenses on full frame.

But step back a bit. In the center of the frame configuration B produces a higher system resolution than configuration B since it resolves more line pairs per picture width than the smaller configuration A. This is also true at the second point I described - the distance from the center of both at which the corners of the APS-C sensor would be found. In fact, the system resolution will still be better on configuration B some distance beyond this, and with good lenses it can be so all the way to the corner of the frame.

So, while it may be correct in some cases to point out that the performance of some particular lens suffers more in the corners on full frame than on crop, it is an incorrect generalization to think that corner image resolution is necessarily going to be lower on the larger sensor system. In fact, many outcomes are possible:

- the FF system could be better in the center and still better in the corners
- the FF system could be better in the center and roughly equal in the corners
- the FF system could be better in the center and less good in the corners

And, as I'm sure you would understand, it can be even more complex. For example, it might play out one way at small apertures and another at the largest apertures - making a lens excellent for, say, a FF landscape shooter and possible less excellent for, say, a FF street photography shooter...

Don Clary wrote:
I was referring to the difference, as I transitioned from analog film printing to digital camera printing. This distinction is probably over the heads of digital only people, who never processed film, and never did analog printing (which is the projection of curved slide film down below to the paper in an analog (projection slide) enlarger.


Thank God that I, too, started in the film era and did my own developing and printing. And thank God even more that I no longer have to do that! :-)

Monito wrote:
Few lenses project a perfectly flat image field.

I have a functioning darkroom.


True about the lenses. And also true about the issues of film flatness and so forth. (Though for fun, sometime read about the efforts that a few perfectionists have made to "perfect" the plane alignment of their high MP MF digital back sensor. Sheesh!

Monito, do you still use that film darkroom?

Dan

*For those who might occasionally feel intimidated by the Really Big Lens crowd, I can assure you that there is a certain satisfaction to knowing that you are quite possibly making as good or better a photograph as that person who spent a lot of money on Big Impressive Stuff. :-)



Aug 19, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


After having tried the new 28/2.8 IS, and sending it back, I decided to give the old model 28/2.8 a whirl and see how it looks at around f/11 (hedging bets heavily!). I returned to the same location as the start of this thread, with a different season: winter, instead of summer.

Here are a few shots I liked from today, shot on 1Ds3 at ISO 200.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/gunzorros%20new%20album%20July%202012/JIM_1033.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/gunzorros%20new%20album%20July%202012/JIM_1041.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/gunzorros%20new%20album%20July%202012/JIM_1058.jpg
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/gunzorros%20new%20album%20July%202012/JIM_1091.jpg



Feb 12, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Here's one other. I was getting serious compression artifacts in the blue sky around the branches/buds in Photobucket. I'll try FM's uploading. (Ah! Much cleaner!)









Feb 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Jim, bought two lenses from Michelle, 17-40L and 85 f1.8, late last year and they both are spot on fantastic. These new wide primes with IS seem promising, but the older glass still looks pretty damn good. I'm looking at getting the 28 f1.8 to fill a fast glass gap, perhaps it's a better buy then the newer 28 you sent back.
Thanks for starting this thread, posting your images, all helps with the decision making



Feb 13, 2013 at 12:05 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


I could've sworn I posted images in this thread.


Feb 13, 2013 at 02:01 AM
gocolts
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Everytime I see what my wife's humble T1i and 35mm f/2 can produce, I look over at my giant backpack of gear and wonder if I've properly utilized the law of diminishing returns....

Great shots, BTW.



Feb 13, 2013 at 03:31 AM
galenapass
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Gunzorro wrote:
I just received these two lenses, via the FM B&S board. Thanks to Michelle Rowe for the nice price and fast shipping. It seems Michelle bought the lenses from a couple other FM-ers, so I'm at least the third owner. I was mainly interested in the 35/2, having heard so many good things about it, and seen some good results with it compared to the 35/1/4, at least of the price!

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c80/gunzorro/gunzorros%20new%20album%20July%202012/IMG_2506.jpg

Needless to say, I'm very happy with these two lenses. They fill a hole in my focal range with small, light AF primes.


I have to smile at your courage every time see this shot. Personally, if I saw a portable toilet on wheels tipped over next to a box, I'd take one look and I wouldn't come back for a week. But you seem to have calmly gone over to shoot a picture.



Feb 13, 2013 at 04:11 AM
thedutt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Congrats on your purchase, the 35 f2 is one of my fav lenses, perfect little lens. A couple of shots with it:

1. @ F2.8 on 5D

2. @ f3.2 on 5D


Edited on Feb 14, 2013 at 02:31 AM · View previous versions



Feb 13, 2013 at 04:18 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


Nothing wrong these lenses - what matters is placing interesting subjects before them.


Feb 13, 2013 at 04:30 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


galenapass -- Ha-ha! Thanks!

It's actually worse than that.

I was doing comparison tests, so imagine me seriously lining up on this contraption with questionable storage device, shooting the shot here with the 35/2 on the 5D2, and a second later swinging the 1Ds2 with 28/2.8 to take a comparison shot at the spot. Some people, huh?

Apparently I drew enough attention to the oddity -- it didn't last 5 minutes before someone absconded with my "found art installation". Before disappearing, it certainly raised some intriguing questions in my mind as to how and why it got there.

Here's the 28mm version (as if you hadn't seen enough, imagined enough. . .).

Paul -- Yeah, I can't control myself when I get a camera or two strapped on. No accounting for quality.








Feb 13, 2013 at 03:07 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Humble EF 35/2 and 28/2.8


I'm a fan of the 35 f2, its my oldest still active lens. The new IS version better be good to be worth it!




  Canon EOS 5D Mark II    35mm    f/4.0    1/2000s    800 ISO    -0.3 EV  






  Canon EOS 5D Mark II    35mm    f/4.0    1/2500s    800 ISO    -0.3 EV  






  Canon EOS 5D Mark II    35mm    f/2.8    1/6400s    160 ISO    -0.3 EV  






  Canon EOS 5D    35mm    f/2.0    1/125s    800 ISO    -0.3 EV  




Feb 13, 2013 at 05:13 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password