 |
|
|
mudlake
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1524
|
|
Review Date: Mar 28, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $219.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fast, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
none.
|
|
|
I purchased this last week for a family shoot that I knew it would be perfect for. After shooting 200 frames with this lens, I can tell you that it will be on my 10D the vast majority of the time now. It is extremely sharp at f2.8 and smaller and very sharp at f2.
The close-focusing feature is just a bonus. Autofocus is fast enough for my purposes and the high-pitched whine of the motor isn't any problem (stuff like that doesn't bother me as long as a lens is sharp and colorful and focuses fast). Contrast is nice too and I like the colors. The focal lenght on a 10D is just perfect - not too long and not too short. Canon has a winner in this fine little lens.
|
|
 Mar 28, 2005
|
|
dhphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8780
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Small size, sharp, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
buzzy focusing, can't refocus in auto mode (need to switch to manual)
|
|
|
A good prime lens. Not spectacular but a useful length on a 1.6x crop (used mainly for social & general work). 'Buzzy' but accurate focusing and a shame one cannot refocus manually at all in auto mode but a good buy nonetheless and will be used a lot on my new 20D. Useful distance scale. Glad I bought it.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2005
|
|
Gossamer266
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, very very sharp. Also fast aperture at F2. Light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Rather noisy when focussing.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens after having purchased my Digital Rebel with the kit lens, as well as a 50/1.8, 24-85/3.5-4.5 and borrowing my brother's 75-300.
The 35/2 is the sharpest of the lot by quite a measure (beats the 50/1.8). It is light and is rapid to focus though the buzzing sound it makes may bother some.
I would say the only thing that makes me rate it a 9 rather than the 10, is though it is perfectly sharp and effective for using available light indoors, the saturation is slightly lower than on my 24-85. Obviously this can be improved in post-editing.
Oddly, though, ever since I have purchased it, I keep popping off the 24-85 and popping on the 35/2. Perhaps I am becoming a primes person (though the same didn't happen with the 50/1.8 of which my copy seems to not be too sharp).
|
|
|
Mar 9, 2005
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
small, lightweight, cost effective lens
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at f2...comes good between 2.8 and 4...after that it rocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2005
|
|
giantsuper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Jan 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $202.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
I may have a good copy, but this lens is super sharp stopped down and has acceptable sharpness even wide open. It compares favorably with my 24-70L. Definitely as sharp as the L at F2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focusing is loud and tinny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2005
|
|
jbd1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 440
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $190.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Perfect focal length on a 300D/10D/20D to replace a 50mm lens on a film camera. f/2 is good for low light. Nice sharp pictures. Lens is cheap, small.
|
|
Cons:
|
Noisy to focus compared to USM lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2005
|
|
shlomi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, small, light, cheap, perfect focal length, close focusing
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus hunt, very noisy, slightly washed out colors, hceap feel
|
|
|
I love this lens and use it whenever I can. When it manages to focus correctly the results are just great. The colors are not comparable to those of the 50/1.4 but I like them as they are. It is small and cheap feeling - but it makes the camera very light and comfortable to handle in comparison to my other lenses.
The one problem that bothers me with this lens is the focus hunt in low light. I don't take it anymore to low light situations because I know it will fail, which kind of voids the f/2 advantage. This makes me consider the 35/1.4 seriously as I am otherwise happy with this lens. BTW I'm sure the low light problem can be fixed with a flash or ST-E2 focus assit light.
There is also that irritating buzzing sound of the focus engine but I can live with that. In fact just the other day someone told me my camera must be top of the line if it makes such professional sounding noises :-)
It can focus very closely and can almost be called a macro despite the short focal length.
As a walkaround I find it is the best length for 1.6x crop. I always use it at f/2.8 and above to get a normal DOF and good sharpness, but when used at f/2 results are fine too.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2005
|
|
krisdoff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
Focussing not as quick and silent as ring USM but not a big issue
|
|
I needed a wider angle than my Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Canon 85mm f/1.8 for portrait photography. Very limited space in my small dining room which I use as a studio. This lens really does the trick. With 1.6 crop factor on EOS 10D, it's a "normal" lens. Now I can get more than just head and shoulder portraits.
I'm a big fan of primes and this lens does not disappoint.
Here's some samples:
http://www.pbase.com/krisdoff/vivienne_1
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2005
|
|
KJbruin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 695
|
|
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, speed, cost, compact size
|
|
Cons:
|
AF a bit noisy, not as contrasty as L
|
|
|
Love this lens. THe focal lenght is good for indoor shots. THe 50mm prime is a bit long. F2 gives me the speed I need for available light photography. Very sharp and chontrast is very good, just under L performance. AF is fast but a bit noisy at times, though it does not bother me. The f1.4 version is slightly sharper and a bit more contrasty but if you don't need f1.4 then this lens is a quality alternative.
|
|
|
Jan 7, 2005
|
|
amitai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2003
Location: Israel
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight, very sharp, good low light capabilities.Cheap. very small-doesn't intimidate subjects.Normal FOV on a digital x1.6 sensor
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare. flare. flare.
|
|
|
I like this lens a lot because of its size and its sharpness.
I do suffer from flare perhaps because of lack of a hood. I use it for clubbing photography and it's a little too narrow in crowded places, but it shined as my documentry project only lens.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2004
|
|
edwardkaraa
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Location: Thailand
Posts: 5615
|
|
Review Date: Dec 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, price, wide aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
non USM, build, contrast, bokeh.
|
|
|
very usable standard lens for APS DSLR. AF is ok, despite the lack of USM. contrast is so-so but can be fixed in post-processing.
|
|
|
Dec 12, 2004
|
|
neilgundel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrast and resolution is on par with other Canon standard/wide angles, which is to say very good.
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Snap on lens hood
Vignetting wide open
Bad bokeh for a Canon Prime
|
|
|
This lens is capable of taking outstanding pictures - the sharpness is very good out to the corners even wide open, and the contrast is excellent.
There are only a couple things that I don't like about this lens. It doesn't bother me much that it's not a USM - it still focuses very quickly. It is not silent, but neither are my camera bodies.
I am annoyed by the lens hood mounting arrangements. All the L's and some of the non-L's have a hood with stiff bayonet mount, so you can carry the hood reversed on the lens when you aren't using it. To mount the lens, I grasp it by the hood and twist the lens in the mount until it locks into place. After I mount the lens, I reverse the hood & I am good to go.
If I try to do this with the 35/2 (and the 85/1.8 is the same in this respect) I can't mount the lens without sneaking my fingers behind the hood, because the hood has no grip on the lens. This is kind of a whiney nit-pick I know - especially for someone who doesn't change lenses often. But it costs me probably 5 seconds each time I mount this lens vs. the other system & I DO change lenses frequently. With the EOS 3, I almost always carry 2 bodies, but when I go digital that won't be an option, so it will be an even bigger dean then. ($8,000 x 2???)
Another thing is that my old 35/2 FD lens did not vignette significantly wide open, but this one does - on a full frame film camera at any rate. On the positive side, I now know how to fix even very noticeable vignetting in Photoshop so it is virtually undetectable. You can create a curves/levels adjustment layer with a layer mask filled with a radial gradient - you can even fine-tune it by applying levels/curves to the mask. Email me at my web site if you want a better explanation. You have to balance this against the fact that this lens is much sharper than that old FD lens.
Bad bokeh for a Canon prime. This is the only Canon EF prime lens I have used with less-than-stellar bokeh. All the other primes (plus the 70-200) have nearly perfect uniform filled circles on out-of-focus point sources, which gives a nice background blur. This one has a bright ring around each circle, which is not as nice. It is nowhere near as bad as some images I have seen published, but not quite up to Canon standards.
Would I buy it again? Probably - it is a sensible choice if 35mm is not the most important focal length in your bag, and it is made to a higher standard than the 50/1.8, so the price is probably justified. But I am disappointed in the vignetting/bokeh issues that Canon could have avoided at this price point or close to it - these are undoubtedly the result of the compact design, which would not be my priority.
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2004
|
|
choochoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 483
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $210.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super lightweight, sharp wide open, short minimum focus distance, fast AF. Decent bokeh. Super cheap when compared to it's 35mm f1.4 L brother.
|
|
Cons:
|
no silent USM AF, AF motor a little buzzy, bokeh not as smooth as a circular bladed shutter, but not that bad. no internal focus.
|
|
|
My new favorite lens! This lens is so small, compact, and light that you can walk around with it all day. On the 1.6X crop cameras, it's field of view is close to a normal lens. You can get really close to your subject because of its short minimum focusing distance. Great low light lens. You can hold it steady because it's sooooo light. Great picture quality. Sharp and smooth bokeh. Inexpensive. Awesome little lens.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2004
|
|
mclaren20
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 398
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
My personal favorite focal length for film. Fast f/2.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not much. Id say not as sharp as it could be wide open, but I only paid $230, so Im not complaining. I guess im not spoiled with USM yet either, so the AF doesnt at all bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2004
|
|
corgiwcn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fine optical performance and close focusing; useful focal length in a 1.6x-crop DSLR.
|
|
Cons:
|
Loud AF. Manual focus ring is a joke.
|
|
|
I bought the lens to fill the gap between my 24mm and 50mm. On a 1.6x sensor, it practically becomes a substitute for 50mm on a full-frame camera with a slightly larger DOF. This makes it very useful for me to shoot photos about street people, a task that 24mm seems too wide while 50mm too long.
This lens has a dual personality: (1) optically, it is similar to the 50mm f/1.8 II I own, and (2) the AF is similar to the 24mm f/2.8 I also own.
Like the 50mm, it is soft wide open but still useful. The improvement from f/2.0 to f/2.2 is dramatic (at least for my copy). It becomes good when reaching f/2.8 and very good on the mark of f/4.0. Colorwise, it is truthful but uninspiring. The contrast is OK but not "3D-like." Overall, the optical design seems to make it a decent street-photography lens in which accomodating all the subjects/non-subjects is primary while making colorful presentation like landscapes is not. Because it records all the details faithfully, people who are used to L-lenses like 24-70 f/2.8 may need to photoshop the resulting images.
The build is ok, like the 24mm f/2.8 but much better than the toyish 50mm f/1.8. Since this lens has a very useful focal length that makes it versatile, I really wish that it had a good USM motor that doesn't bother people in a quiet setting. The autofocus on the 300D (and possibly 10D) is not entirely satisfactory. Moreover, if you are up to the manual focus, don't bother with this lens -- it's even worse than the "dog toy" 50mm f/1.8 Mk2.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2004
|
|
Tommy Lee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 354
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
On a 1.6X 6MP digital body, it has excellent Optical Quality, From F2 to F11. High Res, Low flare, High Contrast, Low distortion, Color is good.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, What else could one ask for less than $200.
|
|
|
This 35/f2 and the 50/1.8 is a must have. It is a bargain and a steal. Someone at Canon forgot to put a USM motor and a red ring around the top.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
130
|
341924
|
Apr 2, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$402.53
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.55
|
9.10
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
