about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Gossamer266  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Gossamer266 to your Buddy List
Canon EF 35mm f/2

ef35mmf2_1_
Review Date: Mar 8, 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).



 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

ef50mmf_18_1_
Review Date: Mar 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $100.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Price, fast aperture, weight, good for portraits with 1.6x crop on 300D
Cons:
Build quality

I got this lens after reading many reviews and comments praising this lens (and most primes in general) for its sharpness. It was the first lens I got to compliment the 300D's kit lens as it was frequently recommended and cheap.

Perhaps I got a bad copy, but it is not much sharper than the kit lens or the 75-300 (at 75mm) I borrowed from my brother. Where it does clearly come in handy (and makes it clearly worth the purchase) is when I take photos inside without a flash at fast apertures. Under those circumstances it beats everything else I had at the time.

A little disappointed by the unconvincing "clear advantages of primes", I still convinced myself to get a Canon 35/2 to serve as a pseudo-normal lens on my Digital Rebel. Well, the first picture I took with the 35/2, which was wide-open and handheld blew the 50/1.8 out of the water. I was stunned. In this case, I can say hands down that the 35/2 is the sharpest lens I have (I have also added a 24-85/3.5-4.5 to my collection).

So perhaps I got lucky with the 35/2 and got a good copy and was unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.8, but to me the price difference between the two is justified by the extra sharpness of the 35/2.

In summary, the 50/1.8 is a very useful lens for indoor photography using available light, and for its price, is worth it for those who want to try primes and have a limited budget. As for its reputed sharpness, perhaps I was unlucky...