zlatko wrote:
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....Show more →
You're right, the discussion really distills down to price. My comparison with the MTF alternative was to provide some basis for a reasonable price, without which we'd have no reference point at all to work with. The other point was the 35 f/2 IS as a system is not as unique as it would first seem, again supporting the reference point. Ultimately the market will decide what the appropriate price for this lens will be and I'm still thinking it's somewhere around $499 on a volume basis.
I don't think the Canon price will go that low. I had the Zeiss ZE 35/2 -- no AF and certainly no IS. I paid over $900 used, and later sold it for around $850 in excellent condition. This Canon lens might not be exactly the optical equal of the Zeiss, but it is close enough and has other features I desire and aren't offered by any other Canon lens (or even aftermarket). So if it goes for less than $750, it is of interest to me. Perhaps in a few years the 35/2 IS will go for under $500 used. The Sigma is the AF anomaly that everyone now wants prices to shift towards, but I don't think that will be completely fulfilled. We'll see in a few more months or a year.
Lensrentals compared the 35F2 IS to older 35F2, the L and the Sigma. It looks like the new 35F2IS is sharper in the corners on full frame than the older lens, and close to the 35L in many ways at F2. I shoot crop, so I will be content for awhile with my older 35F2. For full-frame, the better corner performance would make the improvement in the far corners worthwhile.
I expect that full reviews will be coming up soon, and over time, the price may drop a little.
ulmer wrote:
Mine just arrived today! I really have nothing worth showing but I've taken a few test pictures indoors and the lens is looking pretty nice.
It's decently sharp in the center at f2 and the corners are somewhat soft but not horrible by any means. I already sold my old 35mm f2 so it's hard to compare. I'd like to say it's a bit better, but not a huge difference. At f2.8 the center gets noticeably sharper still and the corners improve a bit.
It vignettes a lot at f2. Improving noticeably at f2.8..
ulmer wrote:
The IS on the 24mm and 35mm are both completely silent. No clicks, no whirring. Quiet enough that you won't even be sure it's working. I assume the 28mm is the same.
Good luck with the choice! They're all quite nice.
The 100 f2.8L is a noisy beast when shooting video.
The new 24mm f2.8 IS seems to have a little less vignetting at 2.8, but it's still a little over a stop worth, as tested by slrgear.com. It seems if you need no vignetting in a modern prime at 2.8, you do have to buy the big heavy ~1.4 version.
Oh and I just realized that you were probably asking for a comparison of 24mm at 2.8 with 35mm at 2.8. I was thinking of the 35 at wide open.
The 35 at 2.8 seems to have less vignetting than the 24, but it's still noticeable on stills. I have no idea how to measure it. I'll try to post a pic in a moment.
Ok, here you go. This is not scientific and I don't guarantee my results!
This scene, the back of a door, wasn't perfectly lit but it was fairly even. It looks like the lighting was a little darker on the left side.
You'll notice that the ISO on the 24mm shot is 1/3 stop faster. I think the exposure in the center came out pretty close, and closer than if I reduced exposure by 1/3 of a stop in Lightroom, so I left it.
These are all from RAW, exported from Lightroom with no changes.
Sounds good. Would love to see a "non" lightroomed shot from the 24 just too see how bad the vignetting is. Again it's a pain to grade and correct for video files.
Thanks Ulmer. I think I'm going to avoid these new 24/28/35 Canon's. At the end of the day I have the 24-105 for IS video work, and F/4 is shallow enough. If I want super shallow video I'll just use a monopod / tripod with one of the faster lenses.
You have helped me save money my friend; I appreciate it. Also don't think I'm bad mouthing your lenses either; for stills they are great and vignetting is easy to correct with the slider in LR. Of course I don't know if ALL of it can be corrected with the 35 @ F/2...
Shield wrote:
Thanks Ulmer. I think I'm going to avoid these new 24/28/35 Canon's. At the end of the day I have the 24-105 for IS video work, and F/4 is shallow enough. If I want super shallow video I'll just use a monopod / tripod with one of the faster lenses.
You have helped me save money my friend; I appreciate it. Also don't think I'm bad mouthing your lenses either; for stills they are great and vignetting is easy to correct with the slider in LR. Of course I don't know if ALL of it can be corrected with the 35 @ F/2......Show more →
No worries. Glad I could help!
I'm on the fence about the 24mm but like that it's nice and small when I don't want to tote around my 24-70. I'm really loving the 35mm. It did fantastic for holiday indoor pics, mostly shot at 2.8 or so. Even the f2 vignetting isn't horrible to correct in Lightroom and I'm shooting 99% stills.
I assume the 28mm is the same.
