Don't get me wrong - it's a good lens, and very sharp over the APS-C frame, but edges are quite poor, and corners are bad. It really does have quite a rapid fall-off in quality outside APS-C, and it's not just a problem for landscapers, because rapid descent into corner sludge is an ugly look in all kinds of photography. If you wanted to use it creatively you might think of it as a Victorian effect. Not recommended on 5D/5D2.
Since the OP asked about the 28/1.8 compared to the 35/2, it should be noted that 28/1.8 is even softer at the edges. I never considered the 35/2 to be "sludge"... but I never printed crops from my edges blown up to poster sized prints either... also, FF for me means film and you can't so easily pixel peep you images in the same way that digital invites... so on real *prints* I've never seen anything that looks even noticeable...
I hasten to add that in my experience the 28 f1.8 is generally worse than the 35 f2. Both of these lenses are easily outperformed by alternatives from Olympus and Contax if you are prepared to use an adaptor.
While I initially thought Richard was being too critical of the 35/2 (he's been saying this for a while now) I have to admit that the 35/2 let me down on a Christmas family portrait shoot recently (on 5D). I had to use f8 to get only barely usable sharp faces outside the centre of the frame, and I'm not talking extreme edge. On top of that, I found the colour to be very bland/flat. Luckily, they want B&W 5x7s.
In hindsight, I would have been much better off with my $50 Olympus Zuiko 28/3.5 at f5.6 (but I somehow forgot to bring it).
Wow, brainiac, I think my example of the 35 was much better than the lens you had. I'd agree that is sludge. Are these 100% crops from a tripod mounted camera? My edge resolution on FF at f8 is sharper than your center resolution picture.
I hasten to add that in my experience the 28 f1.8 is generally worse than the 35 f2. Both of these lenses are easily outperformed by alternatives from Olympus and Contax if you are prepared to use an adaptor.
That's why I use my Zeiss lenses and my Olympus 21 f3.5, on 3 custom ground adapters. Each adapter is tuned for only that lens.
if you are getting "barely usable sharp faces outside the centre of the frame" there is something seriously seriously wrong with something... even a kit lens will give damn good images at f8 if you know what you are doing.
mh2000 wrote:
if you are getting "barely usable sharp faces outside the centre of the frame" there is something seriously seriously wrong with something... even a kit lens will give damn good images at f8 if you know what you are doing.
I guess I'm picky, and I am used to getting much more from a lens than I did with the 35/2 that day. As I said, they are usable (barely) but far from ideal. I should mention that it was very close quarters, so focusing distance was only about 8 feet. At landscape distances, I have not noticed this problem.
But as you say, maybe I have no idea what I am doing...
Regardless, I will not be using this lens in these situations again. In fact, I have plans to replace it (probably with a Nikkor 35/1.4 AiS or Rokkor 35/1.8) or relegate it to 20D use only (it is great on 1.6x, IMO).
mh2000 wrote:
I didn't say *you* "have no idea of what you are doing," I said that the lens should be able to deliver good results, so something is *wrong*.
It has always performed very well on my 20D and at longer distances on my 5D. This is simply the first and last time I will use it to shoot group portraiture at close distances on FF. Maybe the thing "wrong" with it is that it has no CRC. I dunno, but the faces looked like Richards crop (or worse) at anything under f8. At f8, they are merely "usable". I might be able to get a decent 8x10 out of them, with some sharpening and LCE.
Also remember that we are using different pixel pitches. One man's meat is another man's poison. The samples I showed were at f2 or f2.8 (can't remember) on a 1Ds3. It does improve when you stop it down, but the corners never get especially good. Like the 28 f2.8 and 24 f2.8 it gives good results on APS-C, but not on full frame. That Canon's older wideangles aren't great on full-frame has been known about for a long time, so I don't see why it's controversial. It's the reason for the existence of the alt lens adaptor industry.
cogitech wrote:
It has always performed very well on my 20D and at longer distances on my 5D. This is simply the first and last time I will use it to shoot group portraiture at close distances on FF. Maybe the thing "wrong" with it is that it has no CRC. I dunno, but the faces looked like Richards crop (or worse) at anything under f8. At f8, they are merely "usable". I might be able to get a decent 8x10 out of them, with some sharpening and LCE.
Rather than deciding to not use it after one bad experience, I'd do a bit of checking under similar circumstances to see if this is a consistent thing or if there perhaps is some other explanation.
well... even your 20D extends beyond the "center of the frame" so if it performed "very well" on your 20D, but so terribly on your 5D... makes you wonder what really went wrong... maybe it got damaged somehow since you last used it on your 20D? I dunno...
cogitech wrote:
It has always performed very well on my 20D and at longer distances on my 5D. This is simply the first and last time I will use it to shoot group portraiture at close distances on FF. Maybe the thing "wrong" with it is that it has no CRC. I dunno, but the faces looked like Richards crop (or worse) at anything under f8. At f8, they are merely "usable". I might be able to get a decent 8x10 out of them, with some sharpening and LCE.
Don't get me wrong - it's a good lens, and very sharp over the APS-C frame, but edges are quite poor, and corners are bad. It really does have quite a rapid fall-off in quality outside APS-C, and it's not just a problem for landscapers, because rapid descent into corner sludge is an ugly look in all kinds of photography. If you wanted to use it creatively you might think of it as a Victorian effect. Not recommended on 5D/5D2.
um this shot to me looks horrid I know this lens is sharper than this cmon,I feel some are so much in love with alt lenses they show a bias in their examples I for one wouldnt shoot these at f2 more like f8...I wouldve shot maybe a portrait at f2 or 2.8..also is there any sharpening in post at all? you shoot RAW you still may need to up it a click or 2
heres a link with better examples http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_35_2
digitalbug30d wrote:
um this shot to me looks horrid I know this lens is sharper than this cmon,I feel some are so much in love with alt lenses they show a bias in their examples I for one wouldnt shoot these at f2 more like f8...I wouldve shot maybe a portrait at f2 or 2.8..also is there any sharpening in post at all? you shoot RAW you still may need to up it a click or 2
heres a link with better examples http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_35_2
Your link shows a series of pictures shot on APS-C cameras. Nobody is disputing that the 35 f2 is a great lens on APS-C. There is only one image at your link which is full frame, and that appears to be taken on high iso film, and is sludge everywhere, not just in the corners. Your link sheds no light whatsoever on 35 f2 performance at the edges of Canon full frame digital captures.
As regards the aperture used on my example above, this is a test of the lens. Of course f8 would be somewhat better, but an f8 shot would tell you nothing about performance at wider apertures. At f2 or f2.8 full frame edges are quite smeary. Thanks for the shooting/processing tips ;-)
If I am going to take my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and compare its 28mm vs the canon 28mm f2.8---- will the canon be sharper? [ by the way my tamron's copy is extremely sharp ]
Get the 35 f/2 IS. It's an amazing lens for the price. I had one living on my 5D3's and 5D4's for years. Just sold mine today but if you are looking for a compact 35 it's a great value and performs well.
