Anyone have any experience with this lens, I got a chance to pick one up for a decent price, I have heard mixed reviews, but mainly that it is a bit of a forgotten lens in the canon WA primes who seem to only get attention when some poor soul buys one and is offended at the quality.
Any help? Also an website review might be nice.
I have one and like it a lot. It is pretty sharp wide open and quite sharp stopped down. It does not have ring USM, so some find the focussing motor noisy (it doesn't bother me) and autofocus may not be quite as accurate as some lenses, but overall I like it a lot. For the price I think it is a very nice little lens. Here are some reviews:
Great lens! Bokeh is kind of harsh. Focusing is very accurate IMO, but it might hunt a bit more than some lenses (probably you are mostly just aware of it because you can hear the little motor working)... for reference, it's been my experience that the 35/2 focuses faster, does less hunting and is more accurate than the 50/1.4 FWIW. People in this forum place a lot of emphasis on cosmetics and having the "most" ... the 35/2 doesn't fit into this catagory... though the 35/2 is a fine little lens. I use one as my normal lens for cropped cameras. I do prefer the "look" from the 50/1.8 on FF though. The close focusing on the 35/2 is very fun as well.
I used it exclusively for like a year, and yes read the reviews here mine is one of them. A terrific and discreet little lens. Good colors and focus, and sharp. Very good wide open. squeaky.
I got this lens again a year ago (I sold my first copy after I had got 17-40 f/4.0 L and later Zeiss 28 f/2.8) and it is currently my sharpest lens for longer focusing distances. It is sharper than any of my other primes and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS zoom. I mean, it is that good for distant objects. It is surprisingly contrasty and color is good too (better than 50 f/1.4 for sure). I was already surprised when first testing this copy and I am constantly very happy with it although I tend to use it stopped down to at least f/2.8. I had 17-55 f/2.8 and although it was a very good lens, I prefer my 35 f/2.0
My experience with it is mixed. It has good performance throughout
the field of view on my 1.6 crop body. It is sharp, but suffers from
lower contrast than the Sigma 30/1.4 which it is inevitably compared to
for crop body usage. The Sigma's center sharpness is better at f/1.4
than the Canon's at f/2.
The focus is accurate with either lens, but some have reported copy
variation with respect to Sigma autofocus performance.
My copy of the Sigma focuses great, but it is softer on the right side
of the image than the left, and the Sigma is known from asymmetrical
sharpness issues from copy to copy. Still, the Sigma has certain
look that I really like, and when you nail the focus on your subject
at f/1.4 it really has an incredibly pleasing look. Some complain of
the Sigma's bokeh, which is admittedly unusual. It's fine to me, though.
The Canon is a solid performer, but I feel it is an old design in need
of an update, and that it performs well but not great in any single area.
Stop it down a little, and it is more than adequate in sharpness. The
color and contrast performance has never been exciting to me, but
that's partly because I keep comparing it to the Sigma, which despite its
significant issues and limitations, has a certain Pop to the image that
the Canon never gives me.
personally, I think it helps Canon to keep a few dirt cheap "solid performer" lenses in the lineup... not everyone enters photography with the deep pockets that many of the pro/hobbyists around here do... (cost isn't a huge driver for me, weight sometimes is, but it's always satisfying when you are proud of shots taken with less than L lenses)
>>The Canon is a solid performer, but I feel it is an old design in need
of an update, and that it performs well but not great in any single area.
