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      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?
  
 
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


I just did a few tests with the 24-105 @ 24, 28 and 35mm.

I'm going to get both the 24mm IS 2.8 and the 35 2.0 IS.

Hell with it it's Christmas!



Dec 23, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #2 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Shield wrote:
I just did a few tests with the 24-105 @ 24, 28 and 35mm.

I'm going to get both the 24mm IS 2.8 and the 35 2.0 IS.

Hell with it it's Christmas!


That's the spirit!

Eyvind's image above shows you can get plenty narrow DOF even at f3.2 and nice bokeh. The images from his gallery show pretty good edge sharpness at f2.8. This lens is showing a lot of promise. I'm already an IS fan - when the 24-105 IS joined my lens collection back in '06 my keeper rate improved dramatically.



Dec 23, 2012 at 02:54 PM
zlatko
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Shield wrote:
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?


It sounds like the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS was made for you.



Dec 23, 2012 at 05:37 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


I was just messing around with the "new" 40 STM lens on the 1Ds3. This was the first time I'd done anything with it, other than dialing it in for MA (+1).

I'm very happy with this lens, even wide open with its light fall-off. Color and sharpness is very nice, as is edge roll-off for contrast.

My point is that if this is the direction Canon is going (and all evidence points that way), I'm likely to be very happy with the 35 IS performance, being a little wider angle with IS, and a stop faster, I think this 35 will be a winner, provided the price could come down toward $650 in a while.

The little 40 is amazing, and I paid $200 for it, and don't regret it at all.

A few of this morning's shots. The first two at f/5.0, the second two at f/2.8. Slight corrections in LR4.
























Dec 23, 2012 at 07:42 PM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Went to the local camera store to try out their 35 F/2 IS. It's a nice lens; small, light and focuses quickly. I took some sample video and it seemed to vignette quite a bit @ F/2.
I will say it seemed to focus much closer than the 9.48" spec I read about. Here's a couple of test shots (Keep in mind these are unprocessed; just resized to 40% and saved as 90% jpg with Faststone).

I think I might just get the Sigma 35 F/1.4 after all.

















Dec 24, 2012 at 04:20 PM
D. Diggler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Shield wrote:
it seemed to vignette quite a bit @ F/2


Can't say for sure but the couple stills shots I've seen from this lens seem to show heavy vignetting at 2.0.



Dec 24, 2012 at 06:45 PM
ulmer
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Yes, it vignettes pretty heavily at f2. It's similar to the 24-70mm II at f2.8 in this regard. It seems like these newer lens designs trade worse vignetting for improvents elsewhere. I don't mind it, it's easy to correct in Lightroom.

I've been very happy with my 35mm IS. Focus is very fast and spot on. Has worked great for indoor low light people shots.



Dec 24, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Shield
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #8 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


It's easy to correct for stills, but the only reason I'd consider this lens is the IS helping out in video mode. Vignetting is a pain to correct in movies. Seems like the new Sigma also has this problem wide open, but mostly goes completely away @ F/2.

I just ordered the Sigma instead.



Dec 24, 2012 at 07:06 PM
D. Diggler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


ulmer wrote:
I've been very happy with my 35mm IS.


How's the sharpness of the lens outside the center when shot wide open at 2.0?



Dec 24, 2012 at 08:04 PM
ulmer
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


The edges are still pretty decent at f2. The corners get fairly soft. Everything sharpens noticeably at f2.8 but the corners are still a bit soft. I'm sure the Sigma is sharper but I prefer the lighter lens and IS. I also trust Canon autofocus after mixed results with Sigma. That new Sigma 35mm looks great though.


Dec 24, 2012 at 08:27 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



zlatko
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


ulmer wrote:
Yes, it vignettes pretty heavily at f2. It's similar to the 24-70mm II at f2.8 in this regard. It seems like these newer lens designs trade worse vignetting for improvents elsewhere. I don't mind it, it's easy to correct in Lightroom.

I've been very happy with my 35mm IS. Focus is very fast and spot on. Has worked great for indoor low light people shots.


I think the trade is worse vignetting for smaller size. I don't think the vignetting is any worse than on the predecessor lenses. It's just that to have less vignetting the lens would have to be bigger (to draw a bigger image circle) and heavier. The 40/2.8 pancake vignettes a lot at f/2.8, but it's wonderfully small and light. The new Sigma 35/1.4 probably vignettes very little at f/2, but it's significantly bigger and heavier than the new Canon 35/2 IS.

I will probably buy the 35/2 IS because I like the size and weight and the IS.



Dec 24, 2012 at 08:40 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


meh, this seems like a $499 lens to me rather than a $849 one.


Dec 24, 2012 at 08:40 PM
zlatko
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


snapsy wrote:
meh, this seems like a $499 lens to me rather than a $849 one.


Why, have you found a better 35/2 lens with image stabilization for $849?

Or have you found a 35/2 lens for $499 that offers these features?:
compact & lightweight build
4-stop image stabilization that automatically detects normal shooting & panning
excellent image quality (many excellent lenses vignette and have softer corners wide open)
aspherical element
near focus system
ring-type USM
full-time manual focus
quiet autofocus
circular aperture diaphragm for soft backgrounds

If these features don't matter to you, then it is a $0.99 lens. If these features matter to you, and you find them for $499, please let me know.

By the way, that $849 introductory price will probably go down, as it did on the new 24 & 28 IS primes.



Dec 24, 2012 at 08:54 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


zlatko wrote:
Why, have you found a better 35/2 lens with image stabilization for $849?

Or have you found a 35/2 lens for $499 that offers these features?:
compact & lightweight build
4-stop image stabilization that automatically detects normal shooting & panning
excellent image quality (many excellent lenses vignette and have softer corners wide open)
aspherical element
near focus system
ring-type USM
full-time manual focus
quiet autofocus
circular aperture diaphragm for soft backgrounds

If these features don't matter to you, then it is a $0.99 lens. If these features matter to you, and you find them for $499, please let me know.

By the way, that $849 introductory price will probably go down,
...Show more

Yep - the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on an OM-D w/IBIS. $499



Dec 24, 2012 at 08:59 PM
zlatko
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


snapsy wrote:
Yep - the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 on an OM-D w/IBIS. $499


Nope. 17mm does not equal 35mm. It is "equivalent" only in a loose sense -- if you're willing to give up the advantages and image characteristics of full-frame. That's a much smaller format (1/4 the size of full frame?) and draws a much smaller circle. Everything in that format is smaller and cheaper. So not comparable. Not the $499 lens I asked about. And apparently not yet available.



Dec 24, 2012 at 09:08 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


zlatko wrote:
Nope. 17mm does not equal 35mm. It is "equivalent" only in a loose sense -- if you're willing to give up the advantages and image characteristics of full-frame. That's a much smaller format (1/4 the size of full frame?) and draws a much smaller circle. Everything in that format is smaller and cheaper. So not comparable. Not the $499 lens I asked about. And apparently not yet available.


Can you describe the practical differences of a 35mm-equivalent lens vs a native 35mm lens in terms of FOV or perspective? MFT lenses are indeed smaller but they have much higher per-area resolving power vs their FF equivalents. It's one thing for Canikon to release expensive bodies for customers who are captive to the system due to lenses already owned - it's another to release expensive new lenses when there are much better system alternatives.



Dec 24, 2012 at 09:20 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #17 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Snapsy -- If you are trying to turn this into a cheering section for M43, I don't think that is going to work.

The closest price/feature equivalent is the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8, but that has no IS and is a very poor optical design for about $500 asking price. I agree $850 is a bit too high, but that's how intro pricing goes on everything. Hopefully it will get down under $700 in a while.

This new Canon 35 is really in a class by itself, just like the 24 and 28 IS models. It may not be a class with attraction to some, but for those looking for a fast IS prime WA, it is great choice.



Dec 24, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


So many 35s, so little money. I'm glad we have so many choices. And aside from the fact that my choices are the best everyone has the right to theirs. Merry Christmas!


Dec 24, 2012 at 09:59 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


Gunzorro wrote:
Snapsy -- If you are trying to turn this into a cheering section for M43, I don't think that is going to work.

The closest price/feature equivalent is the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8, but that has no IS and is a very poor optical design for about $500 asking price. I agree $850 is a bit too high, but that's how intro pricing goes on everything. Hopefully it will get down under $700 in a while.

This new Canon 35 is really in a class by itself, just like the 24 and 28 IS models. It may not be a class
...Show more

I'm cheerleading for reasonable lens pricing. This is the first time I can recall complaining about the price of a lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 II and 24-70 II are reasonably price IMO based on their performance - the 35mm f/2 IS is not. It takes an already good lens, makes it only marginally better from what I've seen so far, and tacks on IS for an enormous price bump. And I actually value stabilization higher than most. But just because a feature has value doesn't mean there's unlimited bounds to what is reasonable for a price on that value.

My point about the MFT comparison is that the 35 f/2 IS really isn't in a class by itself when other systems are considered.



Dec 24, 2012 at 10:38 PM
zlatko
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS - any examples?


snapsy wrote:
Can you describe the practical differences of a 35mm-equivalent lens vs a native 35mm lens in terms of FOV or perspective? MFT lenses are indeed smaller but they have much higher per-area resolving power vs their FF equivalents. It's one thing for Canikon to release expensive bodies for customers who are captive to the system due to lenses already owned - it's another to release expensive new lenses when there are much better system alternatives.


You're narrowing this discussion to a few parameters, FOV or perspective or resolving power, with the aim of proving a point about pricing -- a point that then depends on the discussion of the merits of two complete and different systems. I'm just not interested in a discussion about the merits of two systems, which goes far beyond your parameters. It would take far too much time and would take this thread far off topic.

The price of the lens is what it is. It's more than some lenses, less than others. I'm no expert on lens pricing and don't wish to become an economist in order to prove what a lens "should" cost or what is a "reasonable" profit. Nearly every photographer on Earth wishes that every item of photographic equipment were cheaper, and can always find some cheaper alternative.



Dec 24, 2012 at 10:54 PM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password