This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.
I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my
question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?
I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
- sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect
Thanks in advance.
I own both. The 40, which I bought on sale for $150, was a splurge purchase. I bought it for the fun factor and justified the purchase because it is an incredibly sharp lens. I use it mainly as a grab shot, travel light lens and as a backup to my 70-200. On many occasions I'll shoot indoor sports and only expect to use the longer zoom. But, just in case I get in tight situation, I throw the 40 in a pocket and it has come in handy.
The 35 IS is my low light speed demon. Very sharp, great close up, fast focus, very bright, and very fast. With less glass, I think it lets in about a third stop more light at 2.8 than my 70-200 does at 2.8.
I have the 24-70 2.8 II, which covers most of my short focal length needs. But, if low light is a concern (such as a wedding reception) I grab the 35. What I have yet to do is explore the thin DOF more...definately on my todo list.
For what it's worth, I'm waiting for a new EF 50 IS at 2.0 or faster and plan to add it as a complement to the 35 for better low light coverage.
I got the 40 before the 35 was introduced. If I had neither, the 35 IS would be my first purchase.