Canon 35mm f/2 IS

about | support

One may think it is a bit expensive.

I had first bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4 because many people said it was so great and not much more expensive, but that lens front-focused and was not well centered (looked like some kind of field curvature), and Sigma did not want to fix or replace it (blamed my camera which focuses perfectly well with my 10 other lenses). So I got a refund and then bought the canon, and was amazed by how good it is.

Not only is it sharp at 2.0, but esp. the contrast (which is often more important) was very impressive wide open. It is sharper than then Sigma at 2.0 (see link at bottom if you don't believe me). Mechanically, the lens is great too. And the IS is just fantastic. Within weeks it became my favorite lens.

A note: having a 1.4 is attractive because of the coolness (status symbol) aspect, but I have found that I do not need it. Of course 1.4 stops more subject motion, but with the shallow DOF at 1.4 a moving subject is very hard to get in focus. And if I need shallow DOF I just use a 85mm or longer prime. I don't really like shallow DOF on wide angle pictures that much.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

relatively large, price

I've tried this lens for a few days and I really like it.
It is well built. It delivered excellent IQ: it is sharp across the frame, CA a barely noticable, it has nice bokeh. Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.0 ZE is superior optically, but the difference is not big...
Af is very accurate and Image Stabilizations works fine. Very attractive lens.
here is my experience with this lens and sample images:
http://alexsukonkin.com/reviews/Canon-EF35-f20-IS-USM_en.shtml

No lens hood. Strong coma aberration giving trouble with strong lights during night time photography.

I have mixed feelings with this lens. In short it was a pleasant surprise during daytime photography but not a very good performer in night photography.

During daytime, everything comes out sharp. Even the corners of the 5D MkII frame are sharp and without significant chromatic aberration.

Vignetting at f/2 is strong and up to now there is no profile for EOS Utility/DPP/Adobe Raw Converter to upload into the camera to correct this.

Sharpness is exceptional. During daytime at f/4 - f/8 it easily outperforms both the 17-40 and the 24-105. The 24-105 output seems heavily blurred compared to this lens. I really love all photos (even flower "macro" photos) I take with this lens during daytime.

During night time, you can go easily down to 1/8 seconds and still get stable photos. The IS is working fine helping you a lot. However do not put any strong lights far from the center of the image. The closer to the edge a strong light is, the more it resembles a gull-wing, typical coma pattern. This also affects dark areas close to much lighter areas, spreading a "halo" around the lighter areas. To see this you have to have some clipped values (flashing areas) inside the lights/light areas. As a result it is a great indoor lens for night-time photography but a mediocre-at-best landscape night-time photography. During the twilight even the moon in the corner of the full-frame gets gull-wing shaped.

The coma shapes are fairly symmetrical around the center so I do not believe that any element is knocked out of alignment.

It is totally useless for wide-area astrophotography (Milky way, Orion belt etc...), as its distortions and mainly the coma destroy the shape of the stars.

I had no problems with flaring with this lens, even if I cannot still find the hood here in Greece.

Finally the Image Stabilizer of this lens is clearly audible inside any video I recorded. Similar to the noise I get from the IS of the 24-105.

pricey, no hood included, not weathersealed

I ordered that lens after having tested the new Sigma 35 mm f/1,4 DG HSM. The Sigma can be a very good lens, if you get a good copy. Mine was very soft on one side of the frame and had a front focus issue, so I returned it. Also, it was quite heavy. The new Canon 35 2 IS is lighter. It feels solid, although not as solid as most L lenses. A quick test on a resolution chart proved that it is very sharp wide open, not worse than the Sigma @ f=1.4. Distortion is low, although more noticeable than on the Sigma. It lacks the 1 stop advantage of the Sigma but offers images stabilization instead. I doubt that it is as good as 4 stops, the IS on my 70-300L seems to be better, but maybe it is the weight of the latter that adds to the image stabilization. I find it disgraceful that Canon doesn't include a lens hood with this lens, especially at this price point. However, I don't know why, I like this lens more than the Sigma. I have the old EF 35 mm f2 and the 16-35L II, and the image quality of both (@35 mm) is the pits compared to this lens, so even at this price, I think I will keep the lens.