35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott

[JumboShrimp]

You can see his review here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/03/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-review/

 

[drjlo]

A nice read for those deciding among the 35 mm options out there. I especially concur with this point:

"But one of the things I do besides reading reviews when I am doing research before purchasing is to look at pictures taken WITH the lens. I realize that there will always be a very wide disparity in the quality of photos because of the skill level of the photographer. But after a while you start to get a sense of how the lens performs in a variety of situations.

Lenses are more than the sum of their parts or even review scores, and I find that particularly true with fast prime lenses. The 35L, for example, produces images with a frequently beautiful “feel” to them that goes beyond technical merit. The images frequently look “pro” or “magic” (and that’s a good thing!) I kept waiting for the WOW images from the Sigma…but I rarely saw them. The Sigma just seems more clinical."

 

[privatebydesign]

The IS is not Hybrid IS, it is just OIS, it does not allow for shift like the HIS in the 100 L Macro.

The IS does not switch off one axis when you pan, it still runs both but doesn't try to counteract the steady motion of the pan, this means you can pan at any angle and still get the full benefits of the IS.

But nice insight into the lens and, as always, some nice illustrative images to go along with it.

 

[RavePixel]

I used this lens to take one of my best pictures (see below). It is a spectacular lens for the price, and IMO as a whole superior to the aging 35L - the 35 IS is slightly sharper, has better bokeh stopped down, it is smaller, lighter, more economical, and as a bonus has IS. Whenever I go to NYC this is the lens I take.

On the flipside, I would like to see a more modern 35L II design.

 

[KKCFamilyman]

Nice review. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[zlatko]

Great review! I agree with every point. It is one of my favorite lenses.

 

[Eldar]

Very nice review Dustin!

It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.

 

[LOLID]

This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.

I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my

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 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect

Thanks in advance.
O.

 

[Sporgon]

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 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect
O.

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.

 

[StudentOfLight]

This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.

I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my

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 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect

Thanks in advance.
O.

Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Distortion: (For me this is a non-issue with these lenses)
The 40mm pancake is slightly better, neither of them is bad.

Bokeh:
The 35mm blurs the background better and has a better rendering.

I can't comment on Dustin's WOW factor...

I think more significant factor in your purchasing decision is build-quality. The 35IS is a more solidly built tool whereas the pancake needs to be carefully looked after. The 35IS has USM which focuses faster, the 40mm has STM which allows smoother focus transitions for video on STM-compatible bodies?

Do you intend shooting video? Is your camera body STM compatible?

 

[LOLID]

Thanks Sporgon and Studentoflight for your prompt and helpful responses.

It looks like in terms of IQ (all factors combined) the 35 /2 IS and 40 /2.8 are quite similar.

I do not intend to shoot video (yet). I have a 5D3 and I believe firmware updates (since 1.1.3) made it compatible. Please let me know if it is not the case.

Unless I get comments leaning strongly towards the 35 IS with compelling arguments, I am going to purchase the 40mm. Even though the f/2 and IS would be a clear advantage in low light situations (let apart the build quality as I take great care of my equipment) it cannot justify a $400 (or 300%) difference in price.

Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off. But even at $599, and even with an excellent build quality, I have psychological barrier to spend such amount on a non-L lens. But that might just be me!

Thanks again.

 

[Dylan777]

Very nice review Dustin!

It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.

+1

 

[batotman]

I've had this lens for the last month. I think he nails it. I also have the old 35F2 and it is nice but it's definitely not close to the new one.

As for the 40 2.8, I've never cared for it. I tried to make myself like it but found myself unimpressed with both copies I've owned. The images are okay but the focal length is odd on both my 6D and T4i. For the money it's good, but I don't think it's a great lens.

 

[Arctic Photo]

Finally, thank you!

 

[Frodo]

Yes, I like Dustin's reviews - thanks Dustin.
And yes, I like this lens - thanks Canon.
I bought it for the small size, the sharpness and relatively small depth of field wide open, and for the IS.
Its weakness is bad coma wide open - I've posted elsewhere on this site about that.

 

[Sporgon]

Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Just out of curiosity from which source(s) of information did you draw these conclusions ?

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the 40 vignettes quite badly at 2.8 whereas at 2.8 on the 35 IS the vignette is much less.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Just out of curiosity from which source(s) of information did you draw these conclusions ?

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the 40 vignettes quite badly at 2.8 whereas at 2.8 on the 35 IS the vignette is much less.

In terms of sharpness I normally refer to TDP crops:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

In terms of terms if vignetting: reviews on Photozone.de
The 35IS is mostly cleared up by f/2.8. At f/2.8 the 40mm's vignette is significant but not quite as bad as the 35IS is at f/2.

I briefly tested 35mm f/2 IS when I was considering the various options for 35mm. I'm struggling to find my sample images so it's much easier to just refer to crops and weblinks. Anyway, the 35IS was quite expensive on release and I managed to get a 35L at a good price so I rather opted for that instead. Now that the price has dropped (relatively) the 35IS has become a must-consider option.

 

[Gino]

Hi Dustin,

Great review as usual...keep up the great work! Your portfolio of photographs is exceptional!

Thanks,
Gino

 

[JonAustin]

Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off.

I've seen many comments in this review, these postings and others that Canon missed the mark with its premier pricing of this lens (and others), and quite frankly, I find it a little maddening.

I don't blame manufacturers for pricing any new product as high as they think they can get away with. As the old saying goes, "whatever the market will bear." They have their own price sensitivity models, and only they know how many they have to sell, at what price, and how quickly, to recover their R&D investments.

They can always drop the price later, as Canon has done with this product, once they've reaped the purchases of all the early adopters who are willing to pay the premium, whatever their rationale / justification.

This will probably be my next lens purchase. I wish I had picked one up during one of the recent sales; the ~ $50 discount would have paid for the lens hood.

Each new lens announcement (I'm looking forward to the 50/1.x-2.x IS and the 100-400 II) will take us on the high price ride all over again.

 

[PVS]

The WOW effect is in the eye of a photographer. Personally, I didn't find any of the wows in Dustin's link so it's always down to what works for you. Some lenses are awful at cettain distances, sonetimes distracting rendering of the OoF areas works better than silky smooth, really, there's no rule.
I wouldn't agree with S35/1.4A being clinical, it is indeed a quite modern lens design and it takes some time to get used to advantages coming from that design. Here's my post from other forum where I gave some examples from Sigma:
http://www.dizajnzona.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65927&view=findpost&p=1256406

See, when I bought the 24-70/2.8L mk2 lens I was a bit turned off by lens being almost perfect in so many ways especially because I got used to mk1 rendering quite a lot but after a while I got used to it and now I just love it. It's just about getting to know your tools and the trademarks they give and, like I've said - it always boils down to whatever works for you personally.