Now that the days have gotten shorter and it is cold outside I would like to pick up a 35ish fast lens to shoot indoors with low light (that is pretty much what I have in my house) on my Canon 50D. I have gone back and forth on this decision and would love people's input. I would like to spend no more than something in the $500 range. Here are the lenses I have considered and my thoughts about each, but I would welcome people's experience with them and any other suggestions.

My first thought was a Leica 35mm f/2 (latest version with the built in hood). Seems like a very nice lens and I loved some of thrice's shots with it. I also really like my Leica 90mm f/2 (non-Asph). I also like the flare resistance. My issues were I would prefer something faster than f/2 and lately the prices I have seen put this beyond what I would like to spend.

My next thought was a Pentax 31mm f/1.8 FA limited. This looks like very nicely built and seems very highly regarded. Ergonomically I worry about manual focus with this being an autofocus lens and the built in hood looks completely ineffective especially with a crop camera. It also seems to go for much more than what I would like to pay. I have also thought about the various SMC 35mm f/2 lenses, but reports seems to be that these are less than sharp wide open and are only f/2 to start.

Lately I have been leaning toward a Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AiS. I have been very impressed by Andre's shots with this lens, but I know much of that is his talent. It obviously is faster than the others and seems like a good choice, but I worry about the wide open performance and even the performance at f/2.

I have also seriously considered the Voigtlander 40mm f/2. Which seems like a wonderful lens, but again is only f/2 and given that it is a bit longer I wonder if I will like it as well and I may need a bit higher shutter speed to combat camera shake--I do not have the steadiest hands.

I have also considered less carefully the Olympus 35mm f/2--but was scared off by some reports of poorer wide open performance and the Minolta 35mm f/1.8. I really love my Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 and I know I should consider the Minolta more seriously, but I am less sure I could find one. Not many around here seem to use this lens. Any info on it would be much appreciated. I would appreciate anyone's advice on any of these lenses or any others I should be considering. Thanks in advance.

Hi Steve, I have both the Nikkor 35/1.4 and the Minolta 35/1.8 (converted to EOS by Jim Buchanan). I love both but use the Nikkor more due to the fact that it doesn't hit the mirror on my 5D (the Minolta does near infinity). I have gotten some great shots with the Nikkor wide open and really love it's performance. The Minolta is great too (mine is very sharp wide open IMO) and has very nice colors and contrast. I just can't use it on my 5D all the time which makes it a no-go for me. I think I would actually prefer to keep the Minolta over the Nikkor if it worked all the time due to the fact that it is small and lighter and is minimally slower (aperture).

I also used to own (two copies) of the Olympus 35/2 and wasn't impressed by either wide open. Stopped down they looked great, but I tend to use my lenses wide open.

The Minolta is for sale, PM me if you're interested and I can get you photos and details!

Good luck and I hoped this helped at all!

Patrick

FD 35/2? I'm still loving mine.

Is there any reason you're not considering the Sigma 30/1.4? The build and MF feel are quite nice, the wide open performance is better than most of the alternatives listed, it's
fast, and the price is right. I loved that lens on my crop bodies, especially for portraits.

Here's a somewhat heavily processed (vignetting added, colors messed with) sample at F2.0
(click for big)

weezintrumpete wrote:
Hi Steve, I have both the Nikkor 35/1.4 and the Minolta 35/1.8 (converted to EOS by Jim Buchanan). I love both but use the Nikkor more due to the fact that it doesn't hit the mirror on my 5D (the Minolta does near infinity). I have gotten some great shots with the Nikkor wide open and really love it's performance. The Minolta is great too (mine is very sharp wide open IMO) and has very nice colors and contrast. I just can't use it on my 5D all the time which makes it a no-go for me. I think I would actually prefer to keep the Minolta over the Nikkor if it worked all the time due to the fact that it is small and lighter and is minimally slower (aperture).

I also used to own (two copies) of the Olympus 35/2 and wasn't impressed by either wide open. Stopped down they looked great, but I tend to use my lenses wide open.

The Minolta is for sale, PM me if you're interested and I can get you photos and details!

Good luck and I hoped this helped at all!

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your comments they are very helpful. I will definitely consider your Minolta and PM you about it. I probably should have mentioned that I do plan to get a 5D MKII, but not for at least a year, so I would prefer to have a lens that worked on that camera as well. I doubt I would use this lens much at infinity, however. So I think the Minolta is definitely worth considering. I am not worried about the weight or size of the Nikkor, however. It is a size and weight I like a lot.

Best wishes,

Steve

cogitech wrote:
FD 35/2? I'm still loving mine.



Hi Paul,

That is a very interesting idea, but I don't really have the time now to do the conversion and I won't until the winter is over. So unless I could find a converted one, I doubt I would go that route, but thanks for pointing it out nonetheless.

Best wishes,

Steve

Steve Spencer wrote:
weezintrumpete wrote:
Hi Steve, I have both the Nikkor 35/1.4 and the Minolta 35/1.8 (converted to EOS by Jim Buchanan). I love both but use the Nikkor more due to the fact that it doesn't hit the mirror on my 5D (the Minolta does near infinity). I have gotten some great shots with the Nikkor wide open and really love it's performance. The Minolta is great too (mine is very sharp wide open IMO) and has very nice colors and contrast. I just can't use it on my 5D all the time which makes it a no-go for me. I think I would actually prefer to keep the Minolta over the Nikkor if it worked all the time due to the fact that it is small and lighter and is minimally slower (aperture).

I also used to own (two copies) of the Olympus 35/2 and wasn't impressed by either wide open. Stopped down they looked great, but I tend to use my lenses wide open.

The Minolta is for sale, PM me if you're interested and I can get you photos and details!

Good luck and I hoped this helped at all!

Patrick

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for your comments they are very helpful. I will definitely consider your Minolta and PM you about it. I probably should have mentioned that I do plan to get a 5D MKII, but not for at least a year, so I would prefer to have a lens that worked on that camera as well. I doubt I would use this lens much at infinity, however. So I think the Minolta is definitely worth considering. I am not worried about the weight or size of the Nikkor, however. It is a size and weight I like a lot.

Best wishes,

Steve



Another member here, Ronan O'Keefe uses his Minolta 35/1.8 on his 5DII without a problem. In doing a test, I have determined that my mirror on the 5D only interferes with the rear element only VERY slightly. I am considering taking down the retaining ring on the back of the lens a tiny bit to allow focus at infinity. Doing stuff like that scares me though as I'd hate to make the lens into a paperweight!

But yeah, seems as if this lens will work on some cameras (all 5DII's maybe?) and not others. Who knows!

Sam N wrote:
Is there any reason you're not considering the Sigma 30/1.4? The build and MF feel are quite nice, the wide open performance is better than most of the alternatives listed, it's
fast, and the price is right. I loved that lens on my crop bodies, especially for portraits.

Here's a somewhat heavily processed (vignetting added, colors messed with) sample at F2.0
(click for big)

Yeah, I only got rid of my Sigma 30/1.4 after getting a 5D2... I really miss that lens. The 35L is great too, but so much heavier (and more expensive).

The Nikkor isn't super sharp (or so I hear) but frankly I think sharpness can be overrated, especially for portraits. I say go for it.

hi steve,
selling your current stuff now and buy a second hand or outlet 5D + samyang 85/1,4 is no option?

r

Since you will get a 5D mkII soon, thinking long-term i would get the Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2.
It's sharp, has great colour and very smooth bokeh. Great for both landscapes and portraits, and the price is attractive too.

If you have the money the Canon 35mm L is hard to beat in this FL.

If you don't mind to buy something now and sell it later the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the best choice. It's a fantastic lens, I used it on my 40D and miss it a lot.

+ 1 for the 35L.

I had the Summicron for the DRebel and liked it very much. I think it does a great job as a substitute for a 50 and very nice colors that may be good for portrait. It is not that fast, but I think your 50d is better at high ISO than my 300d was ( or the 1Ds is for that matter ).

Steve, you should consider adding to your list the newly-announced Zeiss 35mm f:2. Its brethren in Nikon mount are very highly regarded. Compare to other "alt" lenses, the availability of AF confirm can be a real help in dark shooting conditions. It will ship this month, so delivery time is not an issue.

rsrsrs wrote:
hi steve,
selling your current stuff now and buy a second hand or outlet 5D + samyang 85/1,4 is no option?

r

That sounds like a good idea. I wish I could do it, but I can't sell my 50D. Basically, I can get a camera every three years, but I can't sell it or buy it used. In a year or so I will be able to get a new camera and should be able to buy a 5D MKII then. When I do I will have the equivalent of this focal length covered very well with my Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. Thanks for the suggestion.

If you're considering 35mm lens with f2.0 maximum apertures, then you really should consider the Zeiss ZF 35/2.0. At least as good and probably better than anything listed here -- and exceptional at portrait distances. Do you have a budget in mind?

However for low-light you might be better off with an f1.4 lens. Some on this forum have had great success with the Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon in exactly the use you are contemplating (except on full frame). Has lots of Zeiss 3-D character, and floating elements for performance at portrait and short focus distances.

Sr.Cordeiro wrote:
Since you will get a 5D mkII soon, thinking long-term i would get the Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2.
It's sharp, has great colour and very smooth bokeh. Great for both landscapes and portraits, and the price is attractive too.

If you have the money the Canon 35mm L is hard to beat in this FL.

If you don't mind to buy something now and sell it later the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is the best choice. It's a fantastic lens, I used it on my 40D and miss it a lot.

Those are all interesting ideas. I have come to prefer manual focus for the kind of low light shooting I do, so I don't see autofocus as an advantage. The summicron is definitely an interesting lens, but the price seems to have gone up quite a bit recently. My theory is that with wider availability of the Leitax conversion that more Nikon shooters are buying them and that is driving up the price, but who knows. I could find them for $500 or less when I was looking 6 months to a year ago, but nothing in that price range now. The Sigma and the 35L are both sharp lenses, but as I said above I wouldn't want to sell the Sigma so quickly--I don't mind selling lenses, but I like to keep them or at least a couple of years before doing so--and the 35L is way out of my price range. Thanks for your thoughts though.

philber wrote:
Steve, you should consider adding to your list the newly-announced Zeiss 35mm f:2. Its brethren in Nikon mount are very highly regarded. Compare to other "alt" lenses, the availability of AF confirm can be a real help in dark shooting conditions. It will ship this month, so delivery time is not an issue.

Lotusm50 wrote:
If you're considering 35mm lens with f2.0 maximum apertures, then you really should consider the Zeiss ZF 35/2.0. At least as good and probably better than anything listed here -- and exceptional at portrait distances. Do you have a budget in mind?

However for low-light you might be better off with an f1.4 lens. Some on this forum have had great success with the Contax Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon in exactly the use you are contemplating (except on full frame). Has lots of Zeiss 3-D character, and floating elements for performance at portrait and short focus distances.



The Zeiss lenses are definitely intriguing. The ZF/ZE 35mm f/2 looks like a great lens, but I expect that it will be close to $900 when it comes out next month and if I could afford it I think for my application I would probably prefer the C/Y mount 35mm f/1.4. I wish I could afford either lens. I really can't spend much more than $500. Thanks for floating the idea, however.

I also have a Minolta 35/1.8 that I converted to EF mount and I do like it however, I have no 5D so I cannot tell you about mirror issues. The ZE 35/2 sounds great on paper. Zeiss is rumored to be working on a 35/1.4 as well. Samyang (Vivitar, etc.) has announced a 35/1.2 which might be very interesting. I am not a fan of the Nikon 35/1.4.

gasrocks wrote:
I also have a Minolta 35/1.8 that I converted to EF mount and I do like it however, I have no 5D so I cannot tell you about mirror issues. The ZE 35/2 sounds great on paper. Zeiss is rumored to be working on a 35/1.4 as well. Samyang (Vivitar, etc.) has announced a 35/1.2 which might be very interesting. I am not a fan of the Nikon 35/1.4.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate your comments a lot. May I ask what you don't like about the Nikon.

Thanks,

Steve