35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott
- Thread starter JumboShrimp
- Start date
candyman said:
No problems with my EW-72, feels solid. You might have received a defective hood.
Upvote
0
Have now taken around 10,000 shots with the 35mm F2 IS and left somewhat bemused at its stellar performance especially when compared to my L lenses.
It has completely replaced my 24-70 2.8L mk1 for wedding photography , much sharper across the frame from F2 , similar if not slightly better AF especially in low light and a damn sight lighter to boot.
The lens feels right, performs without flaw or hesitation and is so so sharp. The bokeh from F2 gives a lovely seperation for full length portraits and candid photography. For stills photography i just cannot knock it at all and at the price its know at is a definite competitor for the 35 1.4L , sigma 35 Art and for some people will be preferable to 50s too.
As far as video goes although not been heavily used yet i have noticed a distinct difference in the IS system from the 24-105L IS to the 35 F2 IS for some reason the 24-105 is smoother.
On the back of this i also bought the 24 2.8 IS to pair it with and for the odd wider shot that does great too and beats out the old 24-70 , now paired with an 85mm and with a 135 on the way its prime time baby oh yeah
Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York
It has completely replaced my 24-70 2.8L mk1 for wedding photography , much sharper across the frame from F2 , similar if not slightly better AF especially in low light and a damn sight lighter to boot.
The lens feels right, performs without flaw or hesitation and is so so sharp. The bokeh from F2 gives a lovely seperation for full length portraits and candid photography. For stills photography i just cannot knock it at all and at the price its know at is a definite competitor for the 35 1.4L , sigma 35 Art and for some people will be preferable to 50s too.
As far as video goes although not been heavily used yet i have noticed a distinct difference in the IS system from the 24-105L IS to the 35 F2 IS for some reason the 24-105 is smoother.
On the back of this i also bought the 24 2.8 IS to pair it with and for the odd wider shot that does great too and beats out the old 24-70 , now paired with an 85mm and with a 135 on the way its prime time baby oh yeah
Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York
Upvote
0
Andrew Davies Photography said:
i wish they would do a 20mm f2.8 IS in a similar vain I prefer 20mm to 24 for wide angle currently i use the voigtlander f3.5 which is MF only still a nice lens
Upvote
0
Or... a 20mm f/2 IS - would that be possible in terms of technology, atractive pricing and ranking in the current lens line up?wickidwombat said:
Upvote
0
Oh yeah that would be super awesome! if it had low coma sky chasers would be all over it at f2 it would be an L and not cheap but yeah sign me up for a 20mm f2candyman said:
Upvote
0
Badger said:
Been enjoying pretending this lens is a macro lens. Using live view and a tripod more than I ever have!
That reminds me of my recent trip to Japan, the cherry blossoms really are as spectacularly beautiful as they say
Upvote
0
wickidwombat said:
I love my Voigt 20mm f3.5 pancake as well; makes a great lens for interiors & wide street scenes. The current Canon 20mm f/2.8 is pretty big & heavy compared to the new IS wide primes; not sure how much smaller they could make an IS version.
The current "ultrawide prime" for my 6D is actually the "crop" Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 that I used as a wide zoom on my 40D. It's a normal EF mount, & just leaving it at 16mm keeps the vignetting under control (this is one of the reasons I bought it in the first place; I tested it out on my EOS 1n as soon as I got it & it worked just fine @16mm). The extreme corners can be a little soft & vignetted by a stop or two, but at $450 for a pretty decent 16mm f/2.8 FF AF prime no one is complaining. Also the GF can still use it as an ultrawide zoom on her crop camera
.
Upvote
0
I've owned the Sigma 35, 2 copies of the 35/2 IS, and 2 copies of the 35L.
I would take exception with this article stating the 35/2 IS is "sharper" than the 35L. Wide open, yes. But the 35L is much sharper @ F/2 especially in the center and vignettes much less.
As far as 'clinical" sharpness, yep, the Sigma has that, along with a brownish tint that makes up the character of the lens. The 35L IMO just has the best bokeh, color, contrast and rendering. If I took 100 shots with the 35L and the 35/2 IS, the latter might result in 100 really good photos, but the former might have 8-10 amazing shots. The 35L is still the king of the 35's.
Sigma = sharpest
Canon 35/2 IS= light, IS, better AF accuracy than the Sigma, plenty sharp enough.
Canon 35L = best build, fastest and most accurate AF of the three, best color/contrast/bokeh. Really sharp around F/2 and beyond, and F/1.4 is usable.
I would take exception with this article stating the 35/2 IS is "sharper" than the 35L. Wide open, yes. But the 35L is much sharper @ F/2 especially in the center and vignettes much less.
As far as 'clinical" sharpness, yep, the Sigma has that, along with a brownish tint that makes up the character of the lens. The 35L IMO just has the best bokeh, color, contrast and rendering. If I took 100 shots with the 35L and the 35/2 IS, the latter might result in 100 really good photos, but the former might have 8-10 amazing shots. The 35L is still the king of the 35's.
Sigma = sharpest
Canon 35/2 IS= light, IS, better AF accuracy than the Sigma, plenty sharp enough.
Canon 35L = best build, fastest and most accurate AF of the three, best color/contrast/bokeh. Really sharp around F/2 and beyond, and F/1.4 is usable.
Upvote
0
LOLID said:
I have both the 35 f/2 IS and the pancake 40mm. I use the 35 quite a bit, and love it!
I hardly ever use the 40. It's not quite wide enough, and the aperture is not quite large enough. I'm not a fan of the focus by wire, which produces a lot of noise in video, and is frustrating for quick manual focus, and you can't retract the focus unless the camera is on.
The 35 is small and light enough to satisfy my desire for light weight walk around, but the 40 fits easily into almost any bag, and the camera is really easy to take out of a bag when the 40 is on it. Some people use the 40 as a camera body cap.
If I was only going to get one, I'd get the 35 f/2 IS. I've taken handheld video interviews at night on the street using this lens that look like they are on a tripod! And the focal length is perfect for street video interviews because you can get up close to the subject which vastly improves the on-camera audio quality (using a Rode VideoMic Pro).
Then again, I bought the 40 2.8 for $150 ... at that price it's a no brainer for me, so wait for a sale and get both!
Upvote
0
Shield said:
I have to disagree, my 35mm F2 IS walks all over the L lenses i have owned including the 50mm 1.2L it has brilliant bokeh and is sharp and contrasty to boot , it can also take an amazing close up ....
It may be that i have an extra good copy granted but it certainly is good. I would not swap it for a 35L
example shot : 5Dmk3 35mm F2 IS, F2 iso500
Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York
Upvote
0
Andrew Davies Photography said:Shield said:
I have to disagree, my 35mm F2 IS walks all over the L lenses i have owned including the 50mm 1.2L it has brilliant bokeh and is sharp and contrasty to boot , it can also take an amazing close up ....
It may be that i have an extra good copy granted but it certainly is good. I would not swap it for a 35L
example shot : 5Dmk3 35mm F2 IS, F2 iso500
Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York
I agree regarding the bokeh from the 35 IS. Great shot, by the way. It is very useful as a pseudo macro in the field, particularly when you want to include a bit more environment.
Upvote
0
Here's another example - this one mounted on a crop (EOS M):
A New Heart by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
A New Heart by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
Upvote
0
Here's another mounted on a 6D. I stopped down to f/2.5 as the DOF is pretty thin at minimum focus wide open.
Ground Level by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
Ground Level by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
Upvote
0
I own both. The 40, which I bought on sale for $150, was a splurge purchase. I bought it for the fun factor and justified the purchase because it is an incredibly sharp lens. I use it mainly as a grab shot, travel light lens and as a backup to my 70-200. On many occasions I'll shoot indoor sports and only expect to use the longer zoom. But, just in case I get in tight situation, I throw the 40 in a pocket and it has come in handy.LOLID said:
The 35 IS is my low light speed demon. Very sharp, great close up, fast focus, very bright, and very fast. With less glass, I think it lets in about a third stop more light at 2.8 than my 70-200 does at 2.8.
I have the 24-70 2.8 II, which covers most of my short focal length needs. But, if low light is a concern (such as a wedding reception) I grab the 35. What I have yet to do is explore the thin DOF more...definately on my todo list.
For what it's worth, I'm waiting for a new EF 50 IS at 2.0 or faster and plan to add it as a complement to the 35 for better low light coverage.
I got the 40 before the 35 was introduced. If I had neither, the 35 IS would be my first purchase.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
