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.
I'm glad to see someone mention coma and astigmatism. I'm interested in a fast 35mm lens and, as I would mainly be using it to take photos in low light outdoors, hand-held, in situations where there are often fairly small, bright points of light, coma is a dispositive issue for me. Most reviewers seem to ignore it, and lenstip, who don't, haven't gotten around to this lens yet. So far the only review I've seen which mentions coma is Rockwell's, where he says: "To my surprise, this aspheric Canon 35 IS does have some coma at f/2. It gets better at f/2.8, and is gone completely by f/4. This is only about as good as the previous 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 L at the same apertures." He provides no samples, but if it's really like other two Canon 35mm lenses, I won't be tempted. Per Lenstip, the Sigma is much better than those two in this regard (and, apparently, just about everything else - though if the samples in The Digital Picture's review of the f2 IS are typical, it wins among 35mms for bokeh, followed by the Sigma).
Anyway, has anyone seen any reviews which address coma in the 35mm f/2 IS? Better yet, does anyone have any first-hand experience of this?
Thanks in advance