p.4 #1 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
AGeoJO wrote:
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.
My thoughts too. I'd like to see additional comparisons.
p.4 #2 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Joshua -- Yes, I agree completely. Also, "size matters" in that I prefer a smaller lens. I like the original 35/2 over my Samyang 1.4 mainly because the Canon is so convenient in size and lightweight. It needs less care to keep from getting banged up, and that's important to me not to have to baby my gear but still keep it in great shape. If I can be assured of good edges at f/8, that's about all I need with convincing center sharpness at all apertures.
I had the Zeiss ZE 35/2, and got rid of it due to the size, weight and babying issues, coupled with severe vignetting. I prefer the Canon original to the Zeiss for these reasons, plus low price and AF.
For my use, IS would be an important issue. I frequently use a "gonzo" photography approach, and will wedge myself into crannies, or balance the camera on an available railing or post, to take a low light and lowest ISO exposure at 1/4 to 1/50 sec. I doubt the Sigma would be acceptably sharp in these conditions, regardless of graphs or innate sharpness. But four stops of IS would be a huge advantage.
The new Canon is larger than the original, but substantially smaller than the Sigma or Samyang. If it has better/quieter AF (I'm sure it will, being USM) coupled with IS, it will be a winner in my book provided the price goes down a bit from its $850 introduction.
p.4 #3 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Eyvind Ness wrote:
I recently sold my good old work-horse lens, the 35L, and jumped on the new 35mm f2 IS as soon as I saw it in stock here in Norway. I found myself shooting mostly between f2 and f2.8 most of the time, anyway, to get a practical/useful DOF for people shooting (my kids), and the new lens offers a much more useful feature: 4 stops of IS, over the old L-version. Besides, it has a much better MFD, and the weight is about half of the weight of the L (and new Sigma f1.4!).
I've only owned the 35mm f2 IS for 3 days, so I do not have extensive experience with it, yet. Anyways,here are a collection of snap shots from the recent days:
I've included some comparison shots with the new 24-70 f2.8 mk2 as well, to illustrate any differences at f2.8. I found very few: The 35mm f2 IS is better for MFD, has less distortion, and less vignetting. Sharpness is about the same, as far as I can tell by eyeballing it on my screen at 100%. Bokeh looks OK to me, too :-)
p.4 #4 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
The original 35mm f/2 is a gem and the IS looks nice but its price is absolutely obscene. Canikon leaving IS out of bodies is the profit gift that keeps on giving.
p.4 #5 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Remember that due to substantial vinetting most F1.4 lenses are just F1.4 at the center (some are two stops down at the edges). You really need a big chunk of glass for even a single stop vignette @ F1.4 woth a WA retro focus lens.
Canon has recently introduced medium fast IS WA lenses (F4 16-35 zoom, etc.). I am guessing that it is easier and cheaper for them to do IS on their WA lenses than the medium and tele FLs-which is where I, and others, want/need it.
In the film days ASA 800 was a big deal. Now we have digital noise/grain equivalence at ISO 12,800 (four stops faster). We had no option to get any exposure except for super speed lenses. I still have my Nikkon 35 F1.4 non AI from another century but the OC is really NSG around F1.4.
This and the narrower DOF is why, given a choice with today's Hi ISO low noise sensors, the utility of a WA F1.4 lens is limited to special circumstances. Still not so sure about the utility of IS on the 35mm FL.
p.4 #6 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
I wouldn't underestimate the value of having a stabilized 35mm over one that's a stop faster. I switched from Canon to Sony so now all my chipped lenses are stabilized, and while my preference is still to use a mono or tripod, there are times when they simply aren't practical or allowed. I have a 35/1.4, but, unfortunately, 1.4 doesn't always allow the DoF I want for every shot, so being able to stop down and still potentially hand-hold is fantastic. So if you want to have your cake and eat it too, go Sony.
Otherwise, this lens looks like a great option to me. It looks like it's a couple of steps behind the L in fine contrast that give the L images a bit more presence, but otherwise it looks like it keeps up well enough. I don't think the price, in the US, anyway, is so far out of line. It's fairly unique in the marketplace right now, so I'm surprised it's going for less than a grand. And in the broader perspective, it's nice to see Canon taking a step towards recognizing that wider stabilized lenses designed for FF cameras are of interest to shooters.
p.4 #7 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
SoundHound wrote:
Remember that due to substantial vinetting most F1.4 lenses are just F1.4 at the center...
That is one of the more bizarre logical constructs I've seen in these forums - "just f/1.4 in the center!"
You could simply say, with accuracy, that when a lens is used at f/1.4 it vignettes more than when it is used at, say, f/2. But f/1.4 is still f/1.4. (Yes, I know about t-stops, but let's not go there, OK?)
p.4 #9 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Thanks for posting this. Looks like the vignetting is pretty much gone by f2.8. The 24-105, which is good at 35 mm, is sharper from mid range out comparing f4 to f2.8 but the prime is sharper across the field head to head from f4 on. The 35L is better up to f2.8 but the new lens looks better from f4 on. Sharper corners than the two wider IS primes by f2.8. To my eyes . Nice looking lens.
p.4 #10 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Eyvind -- Thanks for that link! The results comparing to the original (which I have and love) show the new lens to blow it out of the water. Even at f/11, the new lens is sharper in the corners. By f/4 this new lens looks amazing all over.
I seem to be the perfect prospective customer. I need to wait for the price to come down a bit. . . although it is tempting right away!
p.4 #11 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
thw2 wrote:
Very nice photos.
Generally, some folks have a strong tendency to cling their old lenses, believing nothing can ever replace them. Sentimental perhaps, but this can be far from reality. Nikon 35 f/1.4 and Sigma 35 f/1.4 both smoke the Canon 35 f/1.4L.
The Nikon is less sharp in the center of the frame until f/2.8. It has better corners, but saying that lens smokes the Canon is an overreach. I'd prefer the 35L over the Nikon....by a lot.
Haven't used the Siggy. Won't ever use the Siggy......
The corners are crazy impressive, even wide open. It even beats the Sigma corners @f2! Center sharpness is close by 2.8-4 too. It's getting harder for me to resist getting this with edge sharpness, IS, smallish size, lowest-in-class MFD... Even CA seemed decent in TDP charts. The question is do I need 1.4...
p.4 #14 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
I own a 35mm 1.4L and its heavy and big and there have been plenty of times I need to shoot at F/4 or higher in dim lit areas that require a tripod but bringing one in is difficult, where IS would do the trick.
I cannot see how anyone thinks IS on the 35 is a bad idea. I think its a great idea myself, it opens up new opportunities to take photographs.
Anything that does that is a win. And its smaller and lighter than the 35mm 1.4L
p.4 #15 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
subjectochange wrote:
The corners are crazy impressive, even wide open. It even beats the Sigma corners @f2! Center sharpness is close by 2.8-4 too. It's getting harder for me to resist getting this with edge sharpness, IS, smallish size, lowest-in-class MFD... Even CA seemed decent in TDP charts. The question is do I need 1.4...
Those corners are ok at f/2 IMO, certainly not crazy impressive. If it were an UWA zoom, then I'd be impressed. Not sure where you get that the Canon beats the Sigma corners @ f/2?
p.4 #16 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Looks like the Canon 35 f/2 IS destroys the old 35 f/2 and 28 f/1.8 lenses. It is also sharper than Nikon 28 f/1.8 wide-open particularly at the center.
Now, Canon need only introduce an uber-sharp 14-24 f/2.8 and a decent replacement for the 17-40 and they'll have arguably the most comprehensive range of lenses for everyone.
p.4 #17 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
I think the price comparison make sense-now. But just wait until the 35L MkII is released (and the Mk I is discontinued) for $2000++ to discover just how great a lens the classic 35L is (even used).
p.4 #18 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
My only problem with the new 35mm F/2 IS is how bad it vignettes wide open. I tried a copy with my 5d3 in a local camera store. Not that bad to correct for stills, but more of a pain with video.
p.4 #19 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Shield wrote:
My only problem with the new 35mm F/2 IS is how bad it vignettes wide open. I tried a copy with my 5d3 in a local camera store. Not that bad to correct for stills, but more of a pain with video.
But to be fair, both Canon 35 f/1.4L and Sigma 35 f/1.4 vignette similarly when shot wide open.
p.4 #20 · Sold the 35L for the new 35mm f2 IS: First impressions and a couple of snapshots
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Those corners are ok at f/2 IMO, certainly not crazy impressive. If it were an UWA zoom, then I'd be impressed. Not sure where you get that the Canon beats the Sigma corners @ f/2?
You don't see the sharpness in the TDP corner charts? Vignetting aside, the Canon has visibly clearer definition of the converging lines near the black square @f2. (And I don't personally mind easily corrected vignetting.) Stopped down to just 2.8, the vignetting is practically gone, and 4-5.6 has about the best corners I've seen in a 35mm focal length on TDP. Prime or not, how is that not impressive in a sub-$1000 non-L lens?
If you know of a zoom with f2 and IS, I'm listening.
in that I prefer a smaller lens. I like the original 35/2 over my Samyang 1.4 mainly because the Canon is so convenient in size and lightweight. It needs less care to keep from getting banged up, and that's important to me not to have to baby my gear but still keep it in great shape. If I can be assured of good edges at f/8, that's about all I need with convincing center sharpness at all apertures.