Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test

[Sporgon]

Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').

I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.

This just isn't true.

 I attach a picture that we took for Selby Abbey, taken on the 35 f2 - we could reproduce this 3 m across if we needed to. We do have the 35 f1.4, but once you get to f11 there is no difference.

I'm surprised that Lens Rentals achieved the same centre MTF at f2 against the 1.4 at f2. This wouldn't be our experience in practice.

[Zlatko]

Your point is very valid.  It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners.  In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great.  But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.

Agreed, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is turning in fantastic numbers.  That makes it a very compelling alternative to the Canon 35/1.4L, offering both better resolution and lower price.  Roger mentions that some people are finding the Sigma's bokeh less attractive, so I'd like to see a bokeh comparison of the two.  If the bokeh and autofocus performance are good, then it's even more compelling.

The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS, and because a few sample images online look very promising (but small); I'm eager to see some full-res samples.  It's not the winner on the resolution test, but it seems to have other good qualities, and certainly offers resolution numbers comparable to those of some highly regarded lenses.

[mrsfotografie]

Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').

I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.

This just isn't true.

 I attach a picture that we took for Selby Abbey, taken on the 35 f2 - we could reproduce this 3 m across if we needed to. We do have the 35 f1.4, but once you get to f11 there is no difference.

I'm surprised that Lens Rentals achieved the same centre MTF at f2 against the 1.4 at f2. This wouldn't be our experience in practice.

At F/11? I need such a prime to be useful (nearly) wide open. I can use a much slower lens if I bring a tripod!!

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I  would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11?  Never hurt to ask

No lens is sharpest wide open and typically all lenses produce their best IQ somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0

Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom

Most peak around f/4-f/5.6.
Some do much worse wide open compared to stopped down a bit and others not as much of a difference.
The 24-70 II is sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is actually by a pretty marginal difference in the center on the copies that do best wide open and by just f/3.2 it's basically there (on those best wide open copies), only super close careful peeping at 200% would ever tell any difference between 3.2 and 3.5 or 4. Same for most of the super-tele. The 135 2 does very well wide open.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That sigma does look pretty amazing. Wonder if they ever got their AF system working well yet? I'm sure it won't have the high-precision mode of the new 35 IS but it would be nice if it could at least AF as well as the 35L. I wonder though. But the resolution wow. Kinda shows up the Canons.

[Dylan777]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I  would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11?  Never hurt to ask

No lens is sharpest wide open and typically all lenses produce their best IQ somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0

Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom

what are you going on about? Even your precious 24-70 is best between f/5.6-8.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

I don't read reviews. Mime seems best at f2.8

I wish I can say that on my 16-35 II

[GDub]

...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...

Ditto!

[hmmm]

This is the first of the Art series from Sigma, and a great start.   But I'm more interested in something like a 24mm.

This being a rumor site, any idea what comes next in the Sigma Art series, and when?

[dilbert]

...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...

Ditto!

The original 35/f2 without IS is even smaller and lighter and still has almost equal IQ

[Zlatko]

...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...

Ditto!

The original 35/f2 without IS is even smaller and lighter and still has almost equal IQ

Yes, almost equal at center and on average, but not almost equal in corners.  Also not almost equal in quiet autofocus motor or image stabilization.  Doesn't make the original 35/2 a bad lens, just that the new one has something extra to offer, which may be of use to some photographers.

A comparison of weights may be of interest:
Canon 35/2 original = 210 grams
new Canon 35/2 IS = 335 grams
Canon 35/1.4L = 580 grams
new Sigma 35/1.4 = 665 grams

[Radiating]

A few months ago, comparing the old 35mm f/2 against the 35mm f/1.4L would have been considered an unfair comparison, given their wildly different prices.

Now we have an even better and much cheaper 35mm f/1.4 in the Sigma, and an improved but much more expensive replacement for Canon's 35mm f/2. And now, we consider comparison of these two lenses to be valid. I wonder if this would have been the case if the new Canon were priced at $500, and the Sigma at $1,100, or would we then have seen more clearly that these two lenses are, in reality, a league apart?

The Sigma 1.4 absolutely has harsher broken than the Canon 1.4, comparison tests have been misleading. The Sigma only shows harsher bokeh under particular and particularly contrasty backgrounds. Back to back comparisons have avoided the right set of circumstances to trigger harsh background blur but I'd you look at sample photos you can see a harsh background blur in about 20% of photos with a keen eye, but lenses like the 70-200mm Ii and 100mm macro IS also cause harsh background blur ocassionally. The sharpness is phenomenal though so its a trade off.

[MichaelHodges]

Interesting post, CR. so Canon managed to produce a slower and softer lens for the same price. Ouch.

In theory I like Sigma lenses (and own one), but had issues with customer service warranty work. Still, the results don't lie.

On the other hand, I'm a sucker for IS and primes. The 35 F2 would be a fun lens for low light shooting and video work...I could see it on the camera most of the time when indoors. I'd probably go with the Canon for the intangibles.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

[meli]

Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses?  I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron.  Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?

Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons;
how does it make sense comparing 35mm and 50mm res in the context of choosing a 35mm? And if it does, then how about comparing 35mm and 85mm or 35 and 24mm? What about 200mm, shall we compare them also?
If someone is on the market for a 35mm he will be interested on 35mm lenses only, not how they fare with some other random category.
Plus, Infared mentioned his sigma 50/1.4 to make a point about his experience with sigma's bokeh rendering unrelatedly to his opinion on 35/2IS

Your point is very valid.  It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners.  In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great.  But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.

The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.

[zim]

Does that mean if the Sigma didn't have IS it would have performed even higher or is that only for more complex zooms?

the sigma has no IS.

Oops me silly, where's the embaressed smiley when you need one 

[symmar22]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I  would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11?  Never hurt to ask

I'd be interested to see how it performs with smaller F-stops as well.The first report just shows a preview about the lens capacity at f2. Chroma aberration seem much better than the previous version, corner sharpness should improve a lot as well. The only thing I find a bit disappointing is the distortion, but it can be fixed in post. Let's wait for a full test.

The statement about not shooting fast primes at f4, f8 or f11 is a bit odd. It might be your style to shoot everything f1.4, but there is a difference between having 1.4 when you need it and being forced to shoot everything 1.4.

Here is a link that could show a different opinion (check the showcase and see what f-stops he used, especially on the 35mm f1.4).

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/david_noton_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do?utm_source=newsletter-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter