October 22, 2014, 03:04:35 AM

Author Topic: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott  (Read 18480 times)

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1978
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2014, 02:39:11 PM »
Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Just out of curiosity from which source(s) of information did you draw these conclusions ?

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the 40 vignettes quite badly at 2.8 whereas at 2.8 on the 35 IS the vignette is much less.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2014, 02:39:11 PM »

StudentOfLight

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 319
  • I'm on a life-long journey of self-discovery
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2014, 03:12:03 PM »
Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Just out of curiosity from which source(s) of information did you draw these conclusions ?

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the 40 vignettes quite badly at 2.8 whereas at 2.8 on the 35 IS the vignette is much less.
In terms of sharpness I normally refer to TDP crops:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

In terms of terms if vignetting: reviews on Photozone.de
The 35IS is mostly cleared up by f/2.8. At f/2.8 the 40mm's vignette is significant but not quite as bad as the 35IS is at f/2.

I briefly tested 35mm f/2 IS when I was considering the various options for 35mm. I'm struggling to find my sample images so it's much easier to just refer to crops and weblinks. Anyway, the 35IS was quite expensive on release and I managed to get a 35L at a good price so I rather opted for that instead. Now that the price has dropped (relatively) the 35IS  has become a must-consider option.
Fantasy Gear:
TS-E: 45mm f/2.8 L-II,  EF: 40mm f/0.8,  100mm f/1.4,  35-85mm f/1.8, 
EF with 1.4xInt: 100-300mm f/4 ,  500mm f/5.6 L

Gino

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2014, 05:25:05 PM »
Hi Dustin,

Great review as usual...keep up the great work!  Your portfolio of photographs is exceptional! 

Thanks,
Gino
Canon 1D X & 5D MK III | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 70-300L | 24-105 f/4L | 100 f/2.8L Macro IS | 50 f/1.4 | 40 f/2.8 STM Pancake | Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM | Speedlite 220EX | Speedlite 600EX-RT

JonAustin

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 223
  • Telecom / IT consultant and occasional pro photog
    • View Profile
    • Austin & Austin Professional Services
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2014, 07:08:08 PM »
Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off.

I've seen many comments in this review, these postings and others that Canon missed the mark with its premier pricing of this lens (and others), and quite frankly, I find it a little maddening.

I don't blame manufacturers for pricing any new product as high as they think they can get away with. As the old saying goes, "whatever the market will bear." They have their own price sensitivity models, and only they know how many they have to sell, at what price, and how quickly, to recover their R&D investments.

They can always drop the price later, as Canon has done with this product, once they've reaped the purchases of all the early adopters who are willing to pay the premium, whatever their rationale / justification.

This will probably be my next lens purchase. I wish I had picked one up during one of the recent sales; the ~ $50 discount would have paid for the lens hood.

Each new lens announcement (I'm looking forward to the 50/1.x-2.x IS and the 100-400 II) will take us on the high price ride all over again.
Photographic equipment

PVS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2014, 07:44:01 PM »
The WOW effect is in the eye of a photographer. Personally, I didn't find any of the wows in Dustin's link so it's always down to what works for you. Some lenses are awful at cettain distances, sonetimes distracting rendering of the OoF areas works better than silky smooth, really, there's no rule.
I wouldn't agree with S35/1.4A being clinical, it is indeed a quite modern lens design and it takes some time to get used to advantages coming from that design. Here's my post from other forum where I gave some examples from Sigma:
http://www.dizajnzona.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65927&view=findpost&p=1256406

See, when I bought the 24-70/2.8L mk2 lens I was a bit turned off by lens being almost perfect in so many ways especially because I got used to mk1 rendering quite a lot but after a while I got used to it and now I just love it. It's just about getting to know your tools and the trademarks they give and, like I've said - it always boils down to whatever works for you personally.

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1628
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2014, 02:00:46 AM »
Very nice review Dustin!

It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.

Thanks for the valuable feedback.  My goal was not to bash the Sigma, but rather to demonstrate my reasons for choosing the Canon.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1628
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2014, 02:03:14 AM »
Thanks to everyone for weighing in with your personal observations.  I'm actually just happy to see some dialogue about this lens; it doesn't seem to have gotten on many people's radar.  Too bad, as it is a deserving little lens.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2014, 02:03:14 AM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4520
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2014, 06:58:16 PM »
It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.
APS-H Fanboy

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1628
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2014, 10:28:06 AM »
It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.

And that is exactly why I do feel that Canon made a mistake with initial pricing.  There are those that argue that a high price for early adopters is the way to go and perfectly justifiable.  It may be justifiable, but it is also a mistake, IMO.  How many others like you would have purchased the Canon instead of the Sigma if the initial price had been $200-300 less for the Canon?  This excellent lens has had next to zero buzz because it was initially overpriced.  Contrast that with, say, the new Tamron 150-600mm, which has a waiting list of months everywhere in large part because it is a a good lens at an excellent price.  For that matter, look at the "shorty-forty".  It seems like it has ended up in just about everyone's bag (including my own).  Would that have been the case if it was even $100 more expensive?

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2014, 12:38:37 PM »
So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it.  I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post.  I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices.  The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive.  I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday.  The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.
My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1440
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2014, 12:55:44 PM »
So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it.  I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post.  I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices.  The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive.  I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday.  The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.
My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

The exact reason why, even after looking at the price tag so many times, I have refrained from buying it. I'll never use it.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2014, 01:41:44 PM »
Dustin,

Did you have a chance to use the S35 personally?  I would have guessed the S35 would have been a better match to your 24-70 f/2.8 VC because the difference in aperture is greater.

The size/price advantages of the recent Canon IS lenses compared to their L counterparts are large, but I often wonder what is the point of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is priced near 1k.  It seems to me that Canon didn't think someone would deliver a 24-70 f/2.8 VC when it decided to design the new 24 and 28 mm lenses.  If Sigma sells its new 50mm f/1.4 for about 1k, I can see a Canon 50 f/1.8 IS meeting the same fate as the 35 f/2 IS because I don't think Canon would sell it for 300 or less.  If the price is 500 or more, most people would prefer to upgrade/get a better zoom than for a single focal length.

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2014, 01:50:11 PM »
So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it.  I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post.  I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices.  The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive.  I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday.  The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.
My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

The exact reason why, even after looking at the price tag so many times, I have refrained from buying it. I'll never use it.

It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either.  I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer.  It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens.  It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2014, 01:50:11 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2014, 02:07:56 PM »
It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either.  I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer.  It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens.  It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.
I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it.  I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket.  For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though.  I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40.  I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable.  Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens :)  And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.

I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS.  I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit.  The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2014, 04:37:37 PM »
I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it.  I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket.  For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though.  I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40.  I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable.  Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens :)  And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.

I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS.  I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit.  The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).

I don't bother getting hoods for the non-L lenses.  The hoods decrease their size advantage, and if I'm trying to go as small and light as possible...  I didn't realize how much bigger the 35 f/2 IS is compared to the 24 f/2.8 IS.

I have never used the M and the DSLR at the same time, although I can see it being useful at times.  When the light is low indoors, I prefer using FF over the APS-C, which is probably why I rarely use the M's 18-55.  My wife uses it (she doesn't bother with the DSLR anymore), but I use the 22 f/2 more.  Perhaps that would change if the M's AF would be improved, but I find I like the DSLR ergonomics so much more even though the M's touchscreen is one of its best features.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2014, 04:37:37 PM »