p.3 #1 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
15Bit wrote:
Do you think its worth the money? It does seem expensive compared to both the outgoing 35mm f/2 and the f/1.4L
I think so, but that's me. The old f2 is a different animal, with no IS, no USM, and only 5 aperture blades, released in 1990. With the 35L you have f1.4, but no IS, much worse MFD, and questionable/lottery chance sharpness at f1.4, so again, very different
p.3 #2 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Eyvind Ness wrote:
I think so, but that's me. The old f2 is a different animal, with no IS, no USM, and only 5 aperture blades, released in 1990. With the 35L you have f1.4, but no IS, much worse MFD, and questionable/lottery chance sharpness at f1.4, so again, very different
Those are my exact same sentiments about the Canon 35 f/2 (great sharpness but lousy AF motors), 28 f/1.8 (horrible edge sharpness wide-open) and 35 f/1.4L (horrible edge sharpness wide-open).
The new 35 f/2 IS USM addresses all the above lens weaknesses. Unfortunately, it comes at a premium...
Dec 12, 2012 at 03:34 AM
Guest
Guest
p.3 #3 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
The sister thread indicates the Sigma 35/1.4 as an excellent alternative. The price looks similar as well... so welcome to the new incarnation of the "24-70 or 24-105?" debate.
p.3 #4 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Eyvind Ness wrote:
The difference between f1.4 and f2 is exactly one stop of light. While you gain up to 4 stops of light with IS engaged. For me, that gives the advantage to the 35mm f2 IS. For an ultra-shallow DOF lover it is f1.4 or nothing, apparently. I have no problem with that, and I can understand why people like the new Sigma 35mm f1.4, too
For some people $ is not #1 point of making decisions what to buy especially when difference is not as big. There are tons of alternatives to L quality but neither of them is anyhow better. Yes IS is making magic for many with shaky hands and one who can't or don't like to expose well. Useless to me and I would prefer to have non IS alternatives to any lens below 200mm focal.
p.3 #5 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
I think a big selling point of the IS that hasn't even come up in this thread is video.
Canon is pushing their video-packed DSLRs hard.
I personally think that this 35/2 is probably going to be worth it in the long haul. Canon has been lacking a sub-$1000 high quality prime with ring USM, premium image quality, and FL between 28 and 50mm... This one just happens to have IS!
There are so many things going FOR this lens, the only negative happens to be the price.
Considering the alternatives costing less give you so many tradeoffs (No AF, poor AF, less ap blades, bigger, heavier, etc etc), and the alternatives costing more might not give you what you want anyways...
p.3 #7 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
ISO1600 wrote:
I think a big selling point of the IS that hasn't even come up in this thread is video.
Canon is pushing their video-packed DSLRs hard.
Exactly!
When Canon released the 24 and 28 IS, they specifically said that they were aimed in large part at the video market.
I don't see how additional choices can be bad. And all of the newer Canon lenses have been pretty good quality. A lack of good quality wide angle primes was a large complaint that I heard about Canon a few years back. It seems like they have addressed that head on.. Good for them!
I'm glad to see feedback here from early adopters! Thanks!
p.3 #8 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
It would be nice if the 35 IS comes down to the sub-$700 price range of the 24/28 IS models. That would make it a no-brainer.
These 35mm threads encouraged me to pull out my EF 35/2 and take some shots in the overcast/drizzle today. I'm blown away by this lens, with only a few reservations or areas that could be improved: poor extreme corners, 5-blade aperture, slower non-USM AF (but accurate!), and no IS (obviously). IQ is great as far as I'm concerned, and it is light and small. So, if the new version takes care of those four areas (which it seems to) and the price is lower than the intro price, it will probably be a lens I'm interested in buying.
p.3 #9 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
I just finished running Imatest on the 35 f/2 IS and it was just about the same as the 35 L stopped down to f/2.0. The L had a little advantage, but not much.
For comparison the old 35 f/2 was nearly as good as the new one in the center, but once you moved away from center, the new one is much better.
p.3 #10 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
How is contrast on the new 35F2 IS. I have the old one, and while contrast was good, and resolution was good in the center, it was not nearly as sharp at F2 as F2.8.
p.3 #11 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Roger -- Thanks for that additional info comparing the old 35/2 and the new version. That's what I would expect for the old one -- nearly as good as the much more expensive "L" when stopped down. A little iffy on the edges, but very nice in the center. I'd be curious if you could tell us how the light fall-off and curvature of field, etc. compare between these two -- I'm hopeful the new one is a little better corrected, and will look pretty good wide open.
When I shot today, it was at f/4, so all the irregularities were minimized and the IQ looked pretty good. The old lens is really quite good at f/5.6-8.0.
p.3 #12 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Thanks for the post - I had the exactly same idea, but then held back for many reasons, including cost (first need to fork out money for the f2 before I can make sure I'm happy and sell the 35L) and of course IQ. Your images show stuff that is relevant for me and as far as I can tell it's a good performer.
p.3 #13 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Gunzorro, I'm no help there, it will have to wait on the in-depth reviewers.
We did test these on our optical bench too, and would have noticed severe field curvature there, for certain, but did not.
I did find distortion of about 0.9% with the IS, which is a bit better than the L or the old one, not that any of them are really significant.
One interesting finding (I think) was both the Canon L and the 35 f/2 IS have very little astigmatism, while the Sigma's was much more pronounced off center. I'm no expert on bokeh, but I wonder if this is contributing to what some people are complaining about with the Sigma's background blur.
The other interesting thing is the Sigma's astigmatism was apparent close up (10 feet) but much less apparent at infinity. Now, if my first thought is correct about astigmatism and bokeh (and it's probably not correct), then perhaps this is why some people have found the Sigma's poor and others think it's great.
I'm probably wrong about all that, just tired and thinking out loud.
p.3 #14 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Roger -- That's good news about lack of noticeable curvature of field. I always hate that, as in a couple retro-focus Nikon 35/2 AIS lenses (and their 28/2 AIS) -- otherwise beautiful imaging lenses. I prefer flat field for buildings, cityscapes and landscapes.
I see in some of Eyrvind's photos posted on another thread, that there seems to be very little barrel distortion, and pretty good edge sharpness in building shots at night, handheld with IS (presumably wide open).
Looking forward to any of your results or and especially your speculations (more informed "ramblings" than many so-called experts' opinions). Thanks for all your generous correspondence here.
p.3 #15 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Thanks for the write up. I know a lot of people said you should have kept the 35L, but obviously Canon made this lens for a reason and I'm glad you're happy with your choice. People should be happy we have so many options!
p.3 #17 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Eyvind,
Since you had the both lenses, the L1.4 and now the new f2, how does the focus speed compare on low light? Your first samples look like a fair test. That is my biggest problem with the old f2 version. If this lens focuses as well L lenses, or the 85 f1.8, it would be a winner for me.
p.3 #18 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Roger -- I've now read your comparison for the four 35mm lenses. Thanks so much for that info. Looking forward to your more extensive sample comparison!
The FM community has really lit up over these 35mm lenses, especially rallying behind the Sigma, which shows best in your tests.
Just wanting to know, based on things you've said in the past with regard to your testing and comparisons and how the chart standings relate to real world performance: all these lenses (35/2, 35/2 IS, 35L and Sigma 35) seem in nearly the same position, with exception being worse performance on edges for the original 35/2, and best overall for the new Sigma. But otherwise, is there really that much difference IYO on a critical scale when the central 2/3 area is the main area of interest?
I'm not trying to justify my ownership of the original (I like it,but am willing to shoot better), just wanting a little rational perspective for what is good enough for quality commercial purposes.
p.3 #19 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
johnkiv wrote:
Eyvind,
Since you had the both lenses, the L1.4 and now the new f2, how does the focus speed compare on low light? Your first samples look like a fair test. That is my biggest problem with the old f2 version. If this lens focuses as well L lenses, or the 85 f1.8, it would be a winner for me.
Thanks, John
Hi John, I haven't noticed any meaningful difference in AF speed, low light or not. I no longer own the L, so I can no longer offer to perform any direct comparison tests. However, as long as you don't need f1.4 - f2, I personally cannot see how you can possibly go wrong with the new 35mm f2 IS And if you *do* need f1.4, the new Sigma looks like a winner, too!
p.3 #20 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Gunzorro wrote:
Roger -- I've now read your comparison for the four 35mm lenses. Thanks so much for that info. Looking forward to your more extensive sample comparison!
The FM community has really lit up over these 35mm lenses, especially rallying behind the Sigma, which shows best in your tests.
Just wanting to know, based on things you've said in the past with regard to your testing and comparisons and how the chart standings relate to real world performance: all these lenses (35/2, 35/2 IS, 35L and Sigma 35) seem in nearly the same position, with exception being worse performance on edges for the original 35/2, and best overall for the new Sigma. But otherwise, is there really that much difference IYO on a critical scale when the central 2/3 area is the main area of interest?
I'm not trying to justify my ownership of the original (I like it,but am willing to shoot better), just wanting a little rational perspective for what is good enough for quality commercial purposes. ...Show more →
Hi Jim,
I am also interested in finding out whether or how much those differences in the chart translate directly into real life images. The incorporation of 4-stop IS in that Canon lens can be beneficial under low light circumstances if the usage of a tripod is not feasible for whatever reasons. The scale with slight advantage of the Sigma in terms resolution can easily tip over to the new Canon with its IS.
