35 1.4 II v/s 35 f2 IS

[sanj]

I have checked TDP comparison of the two lenses. 35mm 1.4 II is highly rated.

I have the 35 f2 IS. I like the fact that it has IS and is a life saver when I am without my tripod and want to shoot a cityscape or natural landscape in low light.

The II tempts me. I have money to buy it but do not want to spend unless really worth it.

Do you suppose the results of II will way surpass the IS lens in real world photography?

OOF background between 1.4 and 2 is minimal to me and would not be a factor.

Thanks so much!

 

[NancyP]

The only reason to buy an f/1.4 lens is to shoot at f/1.4. Do you find yourself shooting low light action? Yes, go for f/1.4. That's twice the light, half the shutter speed at a given ISO. Do you object to using very high ISO? Yes, get f/1.4. No, f/2.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have checked TDP comparison of the two lenses. 35mm 1.4 II is highly rated.

I have the 35 f2 IS. I like the fact that it has IS and is a life saver when I am without my tripod and want to shoot a cityscape or natural landscape in low light.

The II tempts me. I have money to buy it but do not want to spend unless really worth it.

Do you suppose the results of II will way surpass the IS lens in real world photography?

OOF background between 1.4 and 2 is minimal to me and would not be a factor.

Thanks so much!

No. Absolutely they will not.

I got the f2 IS as a stop gap before the L MkII but after using it I have no intention of going to the L. Now I am not an anti L anti progress bore, I got the 100 L Macro over the non L because for me the IS was worth it. But from what I have seen, wonderful though the 35 L MkII is (and it is better than the MkI), it does not "way surpass the IS lens in real world photography?"

 

[Random Orbits]

I find that the autofocus results with 5DIV better with the 35L II when using outer points in AI servo in lower light (1/100-1/200s at ISO 3200). A couple nights ago, I was trying to focus on a person about 10-15 ft away and the 35 f/2 IS would not lock on. I used the 35L II a lot more often than the 35 f/2 IS but in this case I was trying to use a more discrete setup.

 

[sanj]

Thank you friends for your replies.

 

[Larsskv]

The sharpness, color, contrast, bokeh and overall rendering of the 35LII is significantly better on the 35LII, and yes, you will definitely see it in real world use.

I sold my 35 f2 IS because it's pictures were anonymous, in lack of a better word. The results I get from the 35LII are anything but anonymous. They look very good, and have a nice pop to them.

One thing though, I find the 35LII's strength to be with subjects closer to you than 3meters. For a city scape, I wouldn't expect it to be very different compared to the 35f2 IS.

Edit: Dustin Abbot made a good review on the 35LII: https://dustinabbott.net/2015/12/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-review/

 

[Arty]

I have checked TDP comparison of the two lenses. 35mm 1.4 II is highly rated.

I have the 35 f2 IS. I like the fact that it has IS and is a life saver when I am without my tripod and want to shoot a cityscape or natural landscape in low light.

The II tempts me. I have money to buy it but do not want to spend unless really worth it.

Do you suppose the results of II will way surpass the IS lens in real world photography?

OOF background between 1.4 and 2 is minimal to me and would not be a factor.
I have the 35F2 IS and use it more than my other lenses. It has the advantages of size, light weight, IS, and great flare resistance. The reason for getting the F1.4 lens would be if you want to be able to shoot at F1.4 to F1.8, rather than the limitation of F2. The F2 lens is certainly sharp enough for my needs, and IS is very useful in very low light with still subjects. There have been times when I would have wanted to be able to shoot at F1.4. These involved very low light photos of people where I would have been limited by using F2, e.g. A Zombie walk outside at night. I am more likely to benefit from the IS than F2. What camera are you using?
Also, your personal needs may not conform to that of others. I generally prefer smaller lighter and cheaper lenses. If I were a wedding photographer, I might want the F1.4 lens, but it is more likely the case that F2 is fast enough for me.

Thanks so much!

 

[ahsanford]

Classic tradeoff sort of question.

The 35L II is a higher quality tool optically: it is sharper (esp. in the f/2 - f/4 neighborhood), it can generate smaller DOF for environmental portraiture and street, the BR gunk is great for fighting fringing. The 35L II is also weather sealed. Finally, one would imagine L glass retains its resale value better than a non-L lens.

But the 35mm f/2 IS USM has IS, is wonderfully small and discreet and is no slouch optically at all. It's not as sharp as the 35 Art or 35L II, but it's pretty damn sharp in its own right. Though it may not be sealed, it has an excellent build quality reminiscent of the 100L, IMHO: it's solid, has no play in the focusing ring, and it's got that higher quality engineering plastic barrel we see on the L lenses these days. It has terrific ring focusing USM, a distance scale and (critically, for me) it internally focuses.

As far as I'm concerned: if you adore the 35mm FL and shoot it a lot, if you live at f/1.4 with your other primes, if you are perfectionist / resolution nut / pixel peeper / own a 5DS or if you are a working professional, I'd give the 35L II a hard look.

Otherwise, the 35 f/2 IS USM is a stellar value and will 100% impress you on what a modern mid-grade EF prime can do. This lens (as well as the 24/28 IS primes) is why people are screaming for a non-L 50mm f/1.4 USM update -- it's a wonderful instrument and people want more lenses like it in the EF lineup.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

Classic tradeoff sort of question.

The 35L II is a higher quality tool optically: it is sharper (esp. in the f/2 - f/4 neighborhood), it can generate smaller DOF for environmental portraiture and street, the BR gunk is great for fighting fringing. The 35L II is also weather sealed. Finally, one would imagine L glass retains its resale value better than a non-L lens.

But the 35mm f/2 IS USM has IS, is wonderfully small and discreet and is no slouch optically at all. It's not as sharp as the 35 Art or 35L II, but it's pretty damn sharp in its own right. Though it may not be sealed, it has an excellent build quality reminiscent of the 100L, IMHO: it's solid, has no play in the focusing ring, and it's got that higher quality engineering plastic barrel we see on the L lenses these days. It has terrific ring focusing USM, a distance scale and (critically, for me) it internally focuses.

As far as I'm concerned: if you adore the 35mm FL and shoot it a lot, if you live at f/1.4 with your other primes, if you are perfectionist / resolution nut / pixel peeper / own a 5DS or if you are a working professional, I'd give the 35L II a hard look.

Otherwise, the 35 f/2 IS USM is a stellar value and will 100% impress you on what a modern mid-grade EF prime can do. This lens (as well as the 24/28 IS primes) is why people are screaming for a non-L 50mm f/1.4 USM update -- it's a wonderful instrument and people want more lenses like it in the EF lineup.

- A

Well said!

 

[ahsanford]

Well said!

In no uncertain terms: you are not hurting for options here. Other mounts dream of this just-right combination of two great tools. Both lenses are wonderful. In fact, if you are a higher-end crop shooter (say on a 7D2 or 80D), you have three great options: the new macro would be an additional budget option.

If only such a great mid-level option was available in the 50mm FL... :

- A

 

[sanj]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

 

[ahsanford]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

Then rent a Sigma 35 Art and imagine that the autofocus works. That's pretty close to a 35L II. ;D

- A

 

[sanj]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

Then rent a Sigma 35 Art and imagine that the autofocus works. That's pretty close to a 35L II. ;D

- A

This tells a different story. Are you pulling my leg?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[ahsanford]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

Then rent a Sigma 35 Art and imagine that the autofocus works. That's pretty close to a 35L II. ;D

- A

This tells a different story. Are you pulling my leg?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

That's just one copy. I believe most would peg the sharpness of the two lenses as being very close. I've often called the 35L II simply 'a 35 Art but with first reliable party AF'.

- A

 

[sanj]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

Then rent a Sigma 35 Art and imagine that the autofocus works. That's pretty close to a 35L II. ;D

- A

This tells a different story. Are you pulling my leg?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

That's just one copy. I believe most would peg the sharpness of the two lenses as being very close. I've often called the 35L II simply 'a 35 Art but with first reliable party AF'.

- A

Ok thanks!

 

[StudentOfLight]

If I am not hurting for optics, I feel good.

I tried hard to find - I know most photographers - but could not find a single 35mm II for testing in Mumbai.

Then rent a Sigma 35 Art and imagine that the autofocus works. That's pretty close to a 35L II. ;D

- A

This tells a different story. Are you pulling my leg?
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

That's just one copy. I believe most would peg the sharpness of the two lenses as being very close. I've often called the 35L II simply 'a 35 Art but with first reliable party AF'.

- A

Side note: The 35L-II controls longitudinal CA better than the 35Art, and therefore renders Bokeh smoother:

bokeh on Flickr

Here is focus falloff using f/1.4 at about 6m focus distance:

Not Shallow DoF by Omesh Singh, on Flickr

 

[StudentOfLight]

Here is DPReview's DXO measurement data for the 35Art and 35L-II...
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/lens-compare-fullscreen?compare=true&lensId=sigma_35_1p4&cameraId=canon_eos5dsr&version=0&fl=35&av=1.4&view=mtf-ca&lensId2=canon_ef_35_1p4_usm_ii&cameraId2=canon_eos5dsr&version2=0&fl2=35&av2=1.4