Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review

[dswatson83]

New review of the Canon 35mm f/2.

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review

Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review	Small | Large

[BruinBear]

Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop

[Quasimodo]

New review of the Canon 35mm f/2.

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review

Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review

Thanks for the post. I just bought the Siggy 35, but still interesting to watch this. He makes a strong argument for the video shooters (of which I am not one of). Apart from the vignetting issue at F2.0,... Am I the only one that thought that the bokeh did not look particularly good on this lens?

[CharlieB]

Its a fluff review.  Technically flawed.. .. and too much price ranting

[JoeDavid]

Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop

Just because he can buy a lens doesn't make him a reviewer; it doesn't even make him a photographer 

[barracuda]

Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop

It sure does damage his credibility. The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.

[dswatson83]

The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.

Why would price not be a valid part of a review, especially for a non-L lens. The price is the first thing that happens when you buy a lens and open the box so that would obviously be the first thing you would talk about. If you are going to produce a lens 2-3 times that of the original 35mm f/2, it better be awesome. The review was also based on a bunch of tests later on and not just his random opinion so i'm not sure how biased it can be.

[Zv]

Hmmm .... Not the best review in the world. I think he mentioned the price about 15 times, we got it mate!!!  Though where I live the Canon 35 f/2 IS is about $100 cheaper than the Sigma. He also talked a lot about the vignetting, then went on to say it can easily fixed in post. So why mention it over and over? That is a known issue with all wide lenses.  Also I didn't like his bokeh test, what the heck was that? Surely this time of year there are Christmas lights all over the place??

 

[barracuda]

The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.

Why would price not be a valid part of a review, especially for a non-L lens. The price is the first thing that happens when you buy a lens and open the box so that would obviously be the first thing you would talk about. If you are going to produce a lens 2-3 times that of the original 35mm f/2, it better be awesome. The review was also based on a bunch of tests later on and not just his random opinion so i'm not sure how biased it can be.

Point well taken. Of course price should always be an integral part of any lens review, but I just felt that price had a disproportionate weighting in this case. I prefer reviews that concentrate on the merits of the lens, leaving cost and value to the discretion of the reader.

Also, keep in mind that the inclusion of IS will generally add a few hundred dollars to the cost of a lens, so we're not exactly comparing apples to apples.

[meli]

18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55

[dswatson83]

18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55

Good point. I think Canon made a good but safe lens for the price of something awesome. How do you not make a good f/2 prime lens. Even the 50mm f/1.8 looks good at f/2 and like you said, the IS added $30 to the price of the 18-55. The build too is on par with most $400 lenses. Felt just like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 cropped sensor lens to me.

[barracuda]

18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55

Rather than cherry picking one of Canon's least expensive lenses out there, average the cost of IS over its non-IS counterpart throughout Canon's lineup. Some of the 70-200mm lenses come to mind.

Btw, I'm not defending Canon nor this particular lens. I don't even have it. The lens is expensive, even if the street price were to come down a couple hundred dollars a few months after its introduction, as was the case with the new 24/28mm 2.8 IS lenses.  My comments were about the review, which I didn't find very credible, especially when the reviewer didn't appear to understand a fundamental concept like f-stops. If someone is going to publish a lens review, at least get that right...

[Sporgon]

Regarding the f stop - it is a review by Learning cameras after all ! 

[kubelik]

this guy has some real-world samples of the 35mm f/2 IS: http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm/h4ed589de#h4f0f869e

I do see the slight ringing effect in the bokeh but overall it looks good.  I'm also annoyed by the fact that the reviewer in this video can't get his stops right ... he even refers to the lens as an f/2.8 at one point.

need to see some head-to-heads between this lens and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 before we can determine which one has the better overall image quality.  I'm fairly sure that sharpness will favor the Sigma, but I'm not so sure about other things.  and I know it's a niche usage, but I really wish some of the reviewers would take a look and see how the coma and astigmatism on these lenses are.

[CharlieB]

I'm holding off....

Gotta see what Canon brings out soon.  Would I trade a little image quality for IS on the 35/2 ?  Probably.
Would I get a 50/1.4 IS before the 35/2 IS - hard choice.  I'm a real "35" type of shooter, but, I've got the 16-35 and the 24-105 that both cover that range - and the shooting I do with the 35 is mostly for social events, and I'm getting to appreciate the flexibility of the zooms.  Tough call.

I'm gonna hold out, see what they do... if there's no 50/1.4 IS coming soon... I'll probably do the 35/2.0IS.