So is the 24/28mm F/2.8 IS any better than the 35mm F/2? I have the 50mm L 1.2 and find myself shooting @ F/2 often; not because it's dramatically sharper stopped down; I just find the DOF too shallow most of the time.
Plus it's a tad long indoors for kid's shots. I like to do handheld video as well. I'm just trying to figure out since I already have the 24-105 if it's worth paying for 28 or 24mm IS lens just for 1 stop + lighter weight.
Dunno.
Gunzorro wrote:
I can't argue in favor of the lens, having not seen enough samples or used it myself. But I can be optimistic based on recent Canon offerings. I've got no reason to think this will be a weak lens like the 28/1.8. The 28/1.8 sells for $450 at B&H, and has no IS and terrible SA and other aberrations. An extra $250 doesn't sound like much to get a much better lens.
Good point. It's too early to tell. There aren't enough samples out there to draw firm conclusions, either positive or negative. But I don't get terribly disappointed if a wide angle shows some distortion and vignetting wide open, especially when it's $850 or $650 or whatever it's going to be. Getting near perfect perfection costs a lot more than that. Leica offers a great 35/2, but it's $3,200. I'm optimistic that this new lens will be better than the 28/1.8 which has cursed photographers for years (although some love it).
I'm waiting for the digital picture to test it so I can compare with what I already have. The old 35 f2 is so small and light and the 24-105 is so good at 35 - have to decide what this prime can do for me. I like the 35 mm FL so I've been looking at a good one for years. Is this the one?
But hey, I will not try to stop you from buying one ;-)
Picture 1 is taken with the new 24-70 f2.8, for comparison of distortion. Exif is intact, so you can look at "Max lens aperture" to verify :-)
Picture 2 and 3: I do not think you can conclude anything from these - they are shot in the dark, literally. A better test for vignetting would be the tiles or a studio set-up.
I have been doing some testing of my old 35F2, and the results make me think that I would like the new IS version.
When shooting at higher shutter speeds, the outcome is great. I looked through a number of photos where I was happy with portratis. Of course, stopping down helps as well. However, the lens is good wide open, with a clear increase in contrast and resolution at F2.2. Stopped down to F5.6, the lens is super across the frame.
I took a few shots of my daughter at F2, 2.2, and 2.5. The outcome was good at F2, but contrast and color improved at F2.2. The results tell me that the lens will do anything I want in terms of sharp images, as long as I have shutter speed that are high enough. I used bounce flash with M and 1/160 for the test shots on my 60D. I suspect that I just can't hold as steady as I could when I was younger.
Shield wrote:
So is the 24/28mm F/2.8 IS any better than the 35mm F/2?
I bought the 24 F/2.8 IS as a portable lens for landscapes - with the intention to pair it with a fast prime (or two) for portraits.
To me, the 24 F/2.8 IS fully meets its intended purpose.
I'm somewhat disappointed to see the performance of the new 35/2 IS, though.
Having to stop it down (for best results) defeats the purpose of using it as a portrait lens.
For me, at least.
jorkata wrote:
I'm somewhat disappointed to see the performance of the new 35/2 IS, though.
Having to stop it down (for best results) defeats the purpose of using it as a portrait lens.
For me, at least.
I think we must have different definitions of "very different". To me that's 85 vs 35mm. I compare them as they're all similarly priced, new IS models. Big difference being the 35mm is a stop brighter.
24 and 28mm are pretty close, and 28 to 35 isn't THAT far off. These would be used with a full frame 5D3.
ronno wrote:
You can get ridiculously good performance from cheap 50mm lenses at 2.0. And with just about zero barrel distortion. And even that new $150 40mm pancake lens has very little distortion or vignetting.
I owned the EF 50 1.4 USM and it suffered from terrible barrel distortion at 2 meters and nearer at all apertures. It improved as the subject got further away and barreling was nominal at infinity. So not a great lens for shooting doors (one of my fav subjects). Oddly my EF 50 1.8 was a notch better in this regard but also had obvious barreling at 2 meters or closer. The only Canon 50 I've owned with no visible barreling is the EF 50 2.5 CM.
The EF 24 1.8 IS USM is currently $630 at Amazon. By summer I'm sure the 35 2.0 IS USM will cost about the same.
Peter, I think you mean the EF 24 2.8 IS USM is currently $630 at Amazon.
Since the OP is intending on using this lens on a 5D3, do you think the new 35 will achieve higher focus accuracy with the 5D3 than the older 35 f2 (a Group A lens)? I've read that the 5D3 can take advantage of some of the newer lenses (like the 24-70 2.8 II) to achieve better results. One of the reasons this lens is attractive to me is for close focus, shallow DOF which will require accurate off center focus, the 5D3's forte. How well suited do you folks think these new IS primes will be for this?
Edit: I can't find which group the 35 IS will be assigned to, presumably Group A like its predecessor. The 24 and 28 ISs are Group B for the 1DX (and 5D3?) like their predecessors.
I still don't know what to do. I'm now really torn between the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and the Canon 35mm F/2 IS. I shoot about 50/50 video and stills, and almost always hand-held. I usually stop down any F/1.2 -F/1.4 lenses to about F/2 just to get some more depth. In fact I just sold my 50 L 1.2 as I never used it wide open - just too damn shallow for me on a full frame.
Which one would you get, based on the above? Canon 35 or Sigma?
Is this the one?