Canon EF 35mm f/2

T

tianxiaozhang

Guest
4883828677_f26e0ba076_z.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianxiaozhang/4883828677#

3957295635_2799a5d004_z.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tianxiaozhang/3957295635#
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
I know there was a thread on images from this humble little lens in 2011, but it appears to have been held in such contempt there were zero replies !!

With all the excitement around the arrival of the new 35 f2 IS and the Sigma f1.4, how about posting your best shots taken with the old 35 f2 ?

At Building Panoramics we now have an EF 35 f1.4, and guess what - at the apertures that we use this little lens is just as good. ( The same cannot be said for the manual focus however.................)

Here are a few of our images taken with this lens. For those that are interested Selby Abbey was the first Benedictine Monastery founded in the North of England after the Norman conquest in 1066.
 

Attachments

  • Selby Abbey Final 2SFC.jpg
    Selby Abbey Final 2SFC.jpg
    116.1 KB · Views: 3,876
  • Selby Abbey Interior Final 2SFC.jpg
    Selby Abbey Interior Final 2SFC.jpg
    171.7 KB · Views: 3,249
  • Poles at SunsetSFC.jpg
    Poles at SunsetSFC.jpg
    250.7 KB · Views: 2,824
Upvote 0
Re: Pictures taken with the humble 35 f2

The church looks like its a rendering, really cool :D im also thinking about getting the 35mm f2 from canon since the other options are too expensive for me and sometimes im just too lazy to use my m42 35mm lens and manual focus with my tiny "keyhole" viewfinder. liveview is not handy for me.

i heard the 35mm f2 is just average but the photos on pixel-peeper dont look bad to me...confused :(
 
Upvote 0
Re: Pictures taken with the humble 35 f2

I love this little lens. Not the sharpest tool in the shed. But nice and small and light. Perfect on a crop.
 

Attachments

  • 2012 Cows-8076.jpg
    2012 Cows-8076.jpg
    506.1 KB · Views: 2,672
  • 2012 Stella-8981.jpg
    2012 Stella-8981.jpg
    498.3 KB · Views: 2,668
  • 2012 Spain-7877.jpg
    2012 Spain-7877.jpg
    310.3 KB · Views: 2,540
  • 2012 Spain-7953.jpg
    2012 Spain-7953.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 2,670
Upvote 0
Re: Pictures taken with the humble 35 f2

I've had my 35/2 for close to 15 years. I've also got the "L" from when I got into a phase of pixel peeping whenI graduated to digital. I use and like them both for different purposes. I'm also thinking about getting the new 35/2 IS as that would be the perfect travel lens for me with handheld interior architecture being a large part of that.

Anyway, I tend to use the old 35/2 for street as it is less intimidating than the 35L:

jxoOb.jpg

80g2W.jpg

gKFYQ.jpg


Is it tack sharp all the way to the corners? No. Do the colors pop like the 35L? No, not really. But it's still a great little lens.
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
Our latest picture, shot for Beverley Minster in Yorkshire, England, using the 35mm f2. We intended to use the 40mm f2.8 for this but it didn't arrive in time.

Despite using f11 the 100% crops show what the lens is capable of matched with the 5D. We could enlarge this real big.

Rock on 13Mp !

Bring on the 40Mp monster ....... Not ! ;D
 

Attachments

  • Beverley Interior SF.png
    Beverley Interior SF.png
    883.3 KB · Views: 1,767
  • Beverley West End 100%.jpg
    Beverley West End 100%.jpg
    121.3 KB · Views: 1,784
  • Beverley South Transept 100%.jpg
    Beverley South Transept 100%.jpg
    68.9 KB · Views: 1,870
Upvote 0
I've had a real soft spot for this lens. I initially had it when I only had a crop body, and didn't think much of it then because of the terrible CA (which has become easier to fix in LR4 compared to earlier versions).

When I switched to FF, I thought I would give it another shot and found it to be surprisingly competent on a FF body. It was my favorite light walkaround prime until the 40mm f/2.8. I found it a great little lens to slip into a pocket to complement a long prime or telephoto zoom. I only got rid of it once I had both the 40mm and the Tamron 24-70 VC. Here are some faves with it:


Lazy River by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Man and Wife by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Visual Echoes - Explored August 21st, 2012 by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Window to the Soul by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


I Am so Small by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Ride On by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Autumn's Fence Friday by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Forest for the Trees (Explored October 9th, 2012) by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


The Avenue [Explored December 11th, 2012] by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Fortissimo by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Mother and Daughter by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


Maple Bokeh Delight by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
 
Upvote 0
Sporgon said:
I know there was a thread on images from this humble little lens in 2011, but it appears to have been held in such contempt there were zero replies !!

With all the excitement around the arrival of the new 35 f2 IS and the Sigma f1.4, how about posting your best shots taken with the old 35 f2 ?

At Building Panoramics we now have an EF 35 f1.4, and guess what - at the apertures that we use this little lens is just as good. ( The same cannot be said for the manual focus however.................)

Here are a few of our images taken with this lens. For those that are interested Selby Abbey was the first Benedictine Monastery founded in the North of England after the Norman conquest in 1066.

Some beautiful images here. Stopped down the little 35mm f/2 is actually remarkably sharp. It is quite the versatile little tool
 
Upvote 0
P.S. - One final note on this lens. I am strongly considering getting the new Sigma, but the one thing that holds me back is the size. I loved the compact size on the 35mm f/2. The Sigma will be as big as my Tamron 24-70VC, a lens that is far more versatile. That is the primary reason I haven't gotten one yet. I may also consider the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, but I think it needs to drop in price by a few hundred dollars before I would strongly consider it.
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I've had a real soft spot for this lens. I initially had it when I only had a crop body, and didn't think much of it then because of the terrible CA (which has become easier to fix in LR4 compared to earlier versions).




Maple Bokeh Delight by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


This image makes me smile because it is the sort of shot that could be from the promotion of a very expensive, or 'exotic' lens such as the Sigma f1.4. Just goes to show........................... ::)
 
Upvote 0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
The Sigma will be as big as my Tamron 24-70VC, a lens that is far more versatile.

Great photos! The Sigma is not as big as the Tamron. I own both.

Canon says their lens is 3.1" in diameter and 2.5" long with a weight of 335g. (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm#Specifications)

Sigma says their lens is 3" in diameter and 3.7" long with a weight of 665g. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/35mm-f14-dg-hsm-a)

Tamron says their 24-70 VC is 3.5" in diameter and 4.6" with a weight of 825g. long (http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a007/specifications/index.html)

So, in terms of size the Sigma is a little over an inch longer than the lens you have though it weighs nearly double. The Tamron is a much bigger and feels that way when mounted on the camera.
 
Upvote 0
Sporgon said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I've had a real soft spot for this lens. I initially had it when I only had a crop body, and didn't think much of it then because of the terrible CA (which has become easier to fix in LR4 compared to earlier versions).




Maple Bokeh Delight by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


This image makes me smile because it is the sort of shot that could be from the promotion of a very expensive, or 'exotic' lens such as the Sigma f1.4. Just goes to show........................... ::)

It's true. As much as we jabber on about equipment on this site, the truth of the matter is that someone who knows what they are doing can make just about any piece of equipment look good (not trying to boast here). Except my phone (old Nokia E63); it has the lousiest camera. It is beyond my ability to make that thing look good. I do have to say, however, that stopped down, the 35mm f/2 is as good for landscapes as anything I have used. It resolves very, very well!
 
Upvote 0
bchernicoff said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
The Sigma will be as big as my Tamron 24-70VC, a lens that is far more versatile.

Great photos! The Sigma is not as big as the Tamron. I own both.

Canon says their lens is 3.1" in diameter and 2.5" long with a weight of 335g. (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm#Specifications)

Sigma says their lens is 3" in diameter and 3.7" long with a weight of 665g. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/35mm-f14-dg-hsm-a)

Tamron says their 24-70 VC is 3.5" in diameter and 4.6" with a weight of 825g. long (http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/lineup/a007/specifications/index.html)

So, in terms of size the Sigma is a little over an inch longer than the lens you have though it weighs nearly double. The Tamron is a much bigger and feels that way when mounted on the camera.

Thanks for that info. It is actually helpful to me. I really want to see pictures of the Sigma used right. I've been following the Flickr group, and, to be honest, I've been underwhelmed. I suspect that in the right hands, though, the results might be more compelling. I would love to see some work done by a pro. What is your thoughts on the bokeh? It seems to lack that creamy quality of the 35L in a lot of pictures I have seen. One exception is this shot by a friend of mine:


ROY_4703 by Roy Lee B., on Flickr
 
Upvote 0