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
I don't have the 35 IS but have researched it and seriously considered it but I already have the 40.
Sharpness at 2.8 is very similar. If you're going to go test charts the 40 is slightly ahead, more so in the corners despite being fully open. So when both are fully open the 40 is ahead.
The 40 has virtually zero distortion (0.6 barrel), the 35 IS 1%, which is actually really good for the focal length and better than the old 35/2.
Personally I think the bokeh of the 40 at 2.8 is very pleasing. With my limited time on the 35IS I can't comment.
The WOW effect ? Again I think the 40 has it.
With the 35 IS you're getting IS, better manual focus ring, F2, distance scale and less money left in your pocket. You are not getting better 'IQ'; the 40 is exceptional value for money in that respect.
However if I hadn't already got the 40 I think I'd go for the 35IS now it's come down in price.