B&H Photo just received a limited stock of the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS for $849 shipped.

• 10 elements in 8 groups, glass-molded aspherical lens
  
• 8-blade circular aperture
  
• 4-stop Image Stabilization
  
• AF motor ring USM, full-time manual focus
  
• 67mm filter size
  
• 335g weight, 62.6mm length, 77.9mm in diameter

Hmm, had no idea they made a new 35 f2.

I might bite when the price hits $350.

Geoff D F wrote:
I might bite when the price hits $350.
You will die of starvation.

Geoff D F wrote:
I might bite when the price hits $350.

Maybe $625 in six months or so. Maybe $350 for a hot one off CL.

I think Geoff was saying, if you don't mind the paraphrase, "No thanks, the price is a wee bit high."

I don't think he was being serious about thinking it'll ever hit 350 as long as the EF mount is alive.

What's the point of this lens? At $850, it's no bargain, and do we really need IS on a 35mm focal length? I'd rather spend a bit more and get the 35 F1.4 myself.

Seems like this upgrade would make a nice 'standard' lens for crop cameras. Maybe not the brightest, but many features nonetheless...I figure that is the point.

BSell wrote:
Seems like this upgrade would make a nice 'standard' lens for crop cameras. Maybe not the brightest, but many features nonetheless...I figure that is the point.
I've got a feeling that's the idea as well. They sure are proud of it though!

I think I rather just put up the extra money for the new Sigma 35mm f1.4 for a slightly higher price.

Yea man, if a lens isn't f1.4 it's a piece of crap!

Edit: I'm being facetious here, I find narrow DOF can be creative but is often overused. I like the 35 mm perspective and use it often but the f4 minimum of my 24-105 is usually sufficient. My old 35 f2 is a nice lens because its small and light and focuses close so its a nice supplement to use at f2.8 and MFD to do things with flowers the zoom can't.

The new f2 with IS is attractive for the same purpose and if the edges are better than the old f2 at f2 then it might be worth the extra 1/4 lb of weight. I'd still wait until the cost comes down (perhaps with rebates) to the $600 range. And I'll wait and see how the new lens compares with the 24-105 and the Zeiss f2 on the Digital Picture's comparator tool first. The f1.4 35s look pretty bad at f1.4 and are only comparable at f2.8 - awfully big and expensive for a 1 stop advantage and their MFDs are not that great either. So I just don't get the obsession with f1.4. Even the Zeiss f2 which looked better at f2 has been too big and expensive to justify.

I do understand the "all prime" obsession, but it is an obsession.

Well, I've been shooting the 35L for years now, and it has been by far my most used lens. I recently sold it and got the 35mm f2 IS instead. To me f1.4 is of marginal use, even in low light, due to the ultra-shallow DOF. It is much more useful to me, to have 4 stops of IS at my disposal, than f1.4, f1.6, and f1.8. Besides, I enjoy the much better minimum focusing distance, and the lighter and more compact lens body. YMMV, of course.

Test shots here:

http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm

Note that I used the 24-70 f2.8 mkII for two of the tile shots, to compare distortion and vignetting at MFD. Here you also see the vast difference it makes, to have good MFD (35mm f2 IS) and not so good (the zoom, the zoom has max mag at 70mm, too, not 35mm).

Lloyd Chambers diglloyd have posted his test of the lens. He compare it against the 35/1,4 L and the 24-70/2,8 L II lenses. It outperforms both of those lenses.

""Conclusions
This is a revealing comparison!

In spite of its focus shift causing a subtle loss of central sharpness in the ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/4 range, the 35mm f/2 IS stomps other two lenses, outperforming both over most areas of the frames, and not far behind elsewhere. To be sure there are small exceptions: the 35/1.4L does pull off a little better results here and there, and the 24-70 offers the best macro contrast (coarse structures) as well as superb correction for color errors.

How much of this 35/2 IS performance is optical design, and how much is related to field curvature differences (field flatness for the 35/2)? This is hard to say, but the results do suggest that the 35/2 IS is by far the best lens of the three for any kind of planar or semi-planar subject matter.""

That's a pretty glowing commendation Lars. Thanks for posting.

I also notice that you posted next year compared to me Happy New Year!

Happy New Year Jeff. It's already 2013 here in Bangkok. So I'm ready for sleeping after a lot of beer drinking

My beer is still in the fridge

Lars -- Happy New Year!

Thanks for posting Lloyd's remarks. This is along what I had hoped and sort of expected when Canon engineered this lens. If the price comes down, I'll likely get this lens and sell my EF 35/2 and Samyang 35/1.4.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Lloyd Chambers diglloyd have posted his test of the lens. He compare it against the 35/1,4 L and the 24-70/2,8 L II lenses. It outperforms both of those lenses.

That is awesome news. This sounds exactly like the 35/2 that I hoped Canon would build.

jonrock wrote:
I think I rather just put up the extra money for the new Sigma 35mm f1.4 for a slightly higher price.
Actually the Sigma is almost the same price, within 50 bucks.
I really do not understand the point of this lens at that price.
You can almost get a used Canon 35, 1.4 on this forum for that price.

Gunzorro wrote:
Lars -- Happy New Year!

Thanks for posting Lloyd's remarks. This is along what I had hoped and sort of expected when Canon engineered this lens. If the price comes down, I'll likely get this lens and sell my EF 35/2 and Samyang 35/1.4.

Jim, Happy New Year. And good luck if you decide to buy it