35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
But I am still in doubt...

It is a great balance on a 6D.  You will find the AF faster than the 40mm, but isn't anywhere near as compact.  Still, if your two extremes are the 40mm and the S35, the 35IS is a nice balance between the two.

[Invertalon]

I sold my 35L due to lack of use and tried the 35 IS as a cheaper alternative. Only lasted about a week before I decided to sell that off as well.

I find the 35L a better lens overall. The f/1.4 IMO is better than the IS at f/2. IQ is better on the 35L in the center, edges probably similar or better on the f/2 IS stopped down.

Weight is nice on the f/2 IS, but the 35L is really not heavy by any means.

Both are great lenses, but if I got a 35mm again it would be the 35L for sure before the f/2 IS.

[SoullessPolack]

I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
But I am still in doubt...

Why is how heavy this lens is even that important?  It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier.  But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds.  That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes.  It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water.  C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.  Pick up a weight or two once in a while.  Lenses aren't heavy.

[Random Orbits]

Why is how heavy this lens is even that important?  It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier.  But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds.  That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes.  It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water.  C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.  Pick up a weight or two once in a while.  Lenses aren't heavy.

Try carrying 8 of them in a bag and the differences add up quickly, although I'm usually more concerned about the diameter.  The fast primes (35, 50 and 85) won't fit side by side in a many messenger bags while the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 40 will.

[Ruined]

I sold my 35L due to lack of use and tried the 35 IS as a cheaper alternative. Only lasted about a week before I decided to sell that off as well.

I find the 35L a better lens overall. The f/1.4 IMO is better than the IS at f/2. IQ is better on the 35L in the center, edges probably similar or better on the f/2 IS stopped down.

Weight is nice on the f/2 IS, but the 35L is really not heavy by any means.

Both are great lenses, but if I got a 35mm again it would be the 35L for sure before the f/2 IS.

While the 35L is amazing at 1.4, I don't like the angular boke balls when stopped down.  While you would not shoot stopped down all the time, it is definitely something I would want to be able to do and not have distracting boke.  The 35 f/2 IS as it is more modern does not have this problem, so it is my 35mm of choice currently.

What we really need is Canon to update the 35L with more modern curved blades.

[zlatko]

Why is how heavy this lens is even that important?  It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier.  But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds.  That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes.  It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water.  C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.  Pick up a weight or two once in a while.  Lenses aren't heavy.

Try carrying 8 of them in a bag and the differences add up quickly, although I'm usually more concerned about the diameter.  The fast primes (35, 50 and 85) won't fit side by side in a many messenger bags while the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 40 will.

Exactly!  When you carry multiple cameras, lenses, flashes, batteries, etc., the weight of each item has to be considered.  Also, consider carrying that stuff up & down stairs, into & out of vehicles, etc.  After a half day or a full day on your feet, the difference between a 10 pound bag of gear, a 20 pound bag of gear, or a 30 pound bag of gear can be very significant. And if the heavier bag results in a back or knee injury, it can be the difference between working and not working.  Also, as the weight adds up, it can be the difference between being quickly mobile with a shoulder bag, or being slow to move around with a wheeled roller bag.

Back in the early 1970's when Olympus designer Maitani was designing the original OM-1, he wanted to create a camera that would weigh 600 grams, along with a system of lighter lenses.  With a few lenses, a photographer could have a bag that weighed three kilograms or so — about half the weight of a typical bag of Nikon gear.  More at this link:  http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/lecture/lecture2/part9.html

Maitani described what this meant to one photographer:  "He [photographer Don McCullin] told us that he had been able to capture his amazing battlefield photographs in Vietnam and various other war zones because his camera was light. He wanted to thank us for that. My eyes filled with tears when he told us that the OM SLRs had lifted a weight from the shoulders of photographers everywhere. He really understood the significance of our efforts to create compact, lightweight cameras. That was a wonderful moment."

[candyman]

I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
But I am still in doubt...

It is a great balance on a 6D.  You will find the AF faster than the 40mm, but isn't anywhere near as compact.  Still, if your two extremes are the 40mm and the S35, the 35IS is a nice balance between the two.

Thanks.
I will find out today.

[candyman]

I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
But I am still in doubt...

Why is how heavy this lens is even that important?  It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier.  But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds.  That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes.  It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water.  C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about.  Pick up a weight or two once in a while.  Lenses aren't heavy.

Random Orbits and zlatko make the valid points here.
As you can see from my signature I own some heavier lenses than the sigma or canon 35mm. My 5D MKIII als comes with a grip and usually with the GP-E2. So, I am used to carry some weight and it is not an issue for a 6"2 person unless carrying it all day. BUT....I bought the 6D (using it without grip) also to be able to go somewhere light - indoors or street - with an aperture sensitive lens (more than 2.8 in focal length of 35mm (otherwise I could take my 16-35mm or 24-70) And, I do not want to use a large camera with a large lens to bump into peoples faces or scare them off. Point and shoot camera is not my choice.
But everyone has its own criteria

[candyman]

The Canon 35mm f/2 IS has some really nice colors too. I like the first impression of this lens

[privatebydesign]

It is digital, colours are irrelevant.

[candyman]

It is digital, colours are irrelevant.

yes, the less time on pp the better

[privatebydesign]

It is digital, colours are irrelevant.

yes, the less time on pp the better

Import preferences take ten minutes to set up one time, then you never have to try to get the colours and contrast that are so "distinctive". Software is so powerful now it is all automatic, lens colour and contrast characteristics are totally irrelevant in imaging nowadays.

[zlatko]

It is digital, colours are irrelevant.

yes, the less time on pp the better

Import preferences take ten minutes to set up one time, then you never have to try to get the colours and contrast that are so "distinctive". Software is so powerful now it is all automatic, lens colour and contrast characteristics are totally irrelevant in imaging nowadays.

Can you set import preferences for a specific lens?

[privatebydesign]

It depends on how you import.

You can make import presets specific to camera serial number and/or iso, but not just lens, unless you import images shot with that lens in a group, or you shot all the images with one camera.

If however you are like most people your images shot with different lenses are all jumbled up on a card then import them all, select metadata and then the lens, select all those images and then apply the preset to that selection, it takes 6 clicks of a mouse to select every image shot with that lens and apply the preset, about 5 seconds in a worst case scenario. Hardly onerous post processing!

It is the digital age, colour and contrast are not differentiating lens characteristics nowadays.

[wsmith96]

I apologize if this question was asked previously - I'm at work and don't have the time right now to read the entire thread, but has anyone tried this lens with a crop sensor camera?  If so, how did it perform?