35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.

Thanks for the valuable feedback. My goal was not to bash the Sigma, but rather to demonstrate my reasons for choosing the Canon.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks to everyone for weighing in with your personal observations. I'm actually just happy to see some dialogue about this lens; it doesn't seem to have gotten on many people's radar. Too bad, as it is a deserving little lens.

 

[wickidwombat]

It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.

And that is exactly why I do feel that Canon made a mistake with initial pricing. There are those that argue that a high price for early adopters is the way to go and perfectly justifiable. It may be justifiable, but it is also a mistake, IMO. How many others like you would have purchased the Canon instead of the Sigma if the initial price had been $200-300 less for the Canon? This excellent lens has had next to zero buzz because it was initially overpriced. Contrast that with, say, the new Tamron 150-600mm, which has a waiting list of months everywhere in large part because it is a a good lens at an excellent price. For that matter, look at the "shorty-forty". It seems like it has ended up in just about everyone's bag (including my own). Would that have been the case if it was even $100 more expensive?

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

 

[mackguyver]

So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

 

[sagittariansrock]

So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

The exact reason why, even after looking at the price tag so many times, I have refrained from buying it. I'll never use it.

 

[Random Orbits]

Dustin,

Did you have a chance to use the S35 personally? I would have guessed the S35 would have been a better match to your 24-70 f/2.8 VC because the difference in aperture is greater.

The size/price advantages of the recent Canon IS lenses compared to their L counterparts are large, but I often wonder what is the point of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is priced near 1k. It seems to me that Canon didn't think someone would deliver a 24-70 f/2.8 VC when it decided to design the new 24 and 28 mm lenses. If Sigma sells its new 50mm f/1.4 for about 1k, I can see a Canon 50 f/1.8 IS meeting the same fate as the 35 f/2 IS because I don't think Canon would sell it for 300 or less. If the price is 500 or more, most people would prefer to upgrade/get a better zoom than for a single focal length.

 

[Random Orbits]

So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.

The exact reason why, even after looking at the price tag so many times, I have refrained from buying it. I'll never use it.

It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either. I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer. It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens. It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.

 

[mackguyver]

It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either. I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer. It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens. It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.

I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it. I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket. For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though. I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.

I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS. I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit. The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).

 

[Random Orbits]

I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it. I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket. For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though. I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.

I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS. I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit. The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).

I don't bother getting hoods for the non-L lenses. The hoods decrease their size advantage, and if I'm trying to go as small and light as possible... I didn't realize how much bigger the 35 f/2 IS is compared to the 24 f/2.8 IS.

I have never used the M and the DSLR at the same time, although I can see it being useful at times. When the light is low indoors, I prefer using FF over the APS-C, which is probably why I rarely use the M's 18-55. My wife uses it (she doesn't bother with the DSLR anymore), but I use the 22 f/2 more. Perhaps that would change if the M's AF would be improved, but I find I like the DSLR ergonomics so much more even though the M's touchscreen is one of its best features.

 

[wickidwombat]

It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.

And that is exactly why I do feel that Canon made a mistake with initial pricing. There are those that argue that a high price for early adopters is the way to go and perfectly justifiable. It may be justifiable, but it is also a mistake, IMO. How many others like you would have purchased the Canon instead of the Sigma if the initial price had been $200-300 less for the Canon? This excellent lens has had next to zero buzz because it was initially overpriced. Contrast that with, say, the new Tamron 150-600mm, which has a waiting list of months everywhere in large part because it is a a good lens at an excellent price. For that matter, look at the "shorty-forty". It seems like it has ended up in just about everyone's bag (including my own). Would that have been the case if it was even $100 more expensive?

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

speaking of the tamron I've been using it a bit and the images I am getting from this lens are frigging amazing, did a zoo trip to shanghai zoo a few days ago with it. I would have posted images sooner however i have so many tack sharp images of lions, tigers etc that i'm having a hard time culling it, it's down to analysing slight facial variations of the animal to work out which ones i like best. Sorry to go OT but it was your review that made me jump onto the bleeding edge with this lens which is amazing because I was a confirmed tamron hater until this lens came out.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin,

Did you have a chance to use the S35 personally? I would have guessed the S35 would have been a better match to your 24-70 f/2.8 VC because the difference in aperture is greater.

The size/price advantages of the recent Canon IS lenses compared to their L counterparts are large, but I often wonder what is the point of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is priced near 1k. It seems to me that Canon didn't think someone would deliver a 24-70 f/2.8 VC when it decided to design the new 24 and 28 mm lenses. If Sigma sells its new 50mm f/1.4 for about 1k, I can see a Canon 50 f/1.8 IS meeting the same fate as the 35 f/2 IS because I don't think Canon would sell it for 300 or less. If the price is 500 or more, most people would prefer to upgrade/get a better zoom than for a single focal length.

That was pretty much my same line of logic initially. I didn't see a big advantage when I have the Tamron and like it so much. Still, I have found that the images from the 35IS are pretty special, and 2) I do love primes. There is something about them that stretches your creativity a bit more. The size difference is enough that I frequently will take the 35 when going out for a walk. I just got back from going out of the country to shoot a wedding, though, and I packed only two lenses - a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. It's hard to beat the flexibility of a zoom for event work.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.

And that is exactly why I do feel that Canon made a mistake with initial pricing. There are those that argue that a high price for early adopters is the way to go and perfectly justifiable. It may be justifiable, but it is also a mistake, IMO. How many others like you would have purchased the Canon instead of the Sigma if the initial price had been $200-300 less for the Canon? This excellent lens has had next to zero buzz because it was initially overpriced. Contrast that with, say, the new Tamron 150-600mm, which has a waiting list of months everywhere in large part because it is a a good lens at an excellent price. For that matter, look at the "shorty-forty". It seems like it has ended up in just about everyone's bag (including my own). Would that have been the case if it was even $100 more expensive?

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.

speaking of the tamron I've been using it a bit and the images I am getting from this lens are frigging amazing, did a zoo trip to shanghai zoo a few days ago with it. I would have posted images sooner however i have so many tack sharp images of lions, tigers etc that i'm having a hard time culling it, it's down to analysing slight facial variations of the animal to work out which ones i like best. Sorry to go OT but it was your review that made me jump onto the bleeding edge with this lens which is amazing because I was a confirmed tamron hater until this lens came out.

The last 5 Tamron lenses have all been great (70-300, 24-70, 70-200, 90mm macro, and 150-600). My Tamron 24-70 is my most used lens, and when I travel it is my first choice. I liked a few Tamron lenses previously (28-75mm and 17-50 f/2.8), but they were the "bargain choice". The new Tamrons are competing on merit, much like several of the new Sigmas. That's great news for consumers.

Glad you are enjoying yours!

 

[bholliman]

Great review Dustin! I always enjoy your reviews since they are written from a photographers perspective and are not all about charts and numbers. I purchased the Canon 35 f/2 IS in February and am also very pleased with it. I chose it over the 35L and S35A primarily due to its more compact size and IS with similar optical properties. I was looking for a relatively small and light prime to use as a single lens option or to use in conjunction with my 70-200.

I really enjoy this lens both indoors with the kids and as a light weight option outdoors. It's very sharp and color rendition is excellent. The bokeh also is very pleasing. It's on my 6D more than a third of the time now (may be the newest lens factor at play here). I made a weekend trip to San Diego a few weeks ago and just took this lens on my 6D. Despite missing additional reach at times, it performed great and I was pleased with the pictures I came home with.

 

[bholliman]

I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.

I bought a 35 f/2 IS a few months ago primarily to use along with my 70-200. It works great for this, but so does the EOS-M as you pointed out.

Two weeks ago our family spent the day at a theme park as part of a spring break vacation. I took most of my equipment on the trip, but accidentally left both of my spare batteries for my 6D at home. The 70-200 and 35 IS were my lenses of choice for a day in the theme park, but I was worried my battery in the 6D wouldn't make it all day. So, I opted to take my M +22/2 (and EOS adapter just in case) to use in conjunction with the 70-200 and leave the 35IS (and 24-70) locked in our vehicle trunk. This combination worked great! The 70-200 is a nearly perfect lens for theme parks with little ones, as you can get some terrific shots on the kiddie rides. It was also long enough to catch our older son and his buddy on roller coasters and more advanced rides. The M was perfect for the occasional wider group shot or in tighter quarters. The M is also a pretty effective video camera.

In the future I'll probably use the M in the role again (but will remember to bring my spare batteries!)

 

[JonAustin]

All the pros & cons stated in these posts for using this and other lenses in various situations and circumstances serve to reinforce in my mind how much the entire value proposition for any piece of gear depends on intended use and a variety of personal preferences.

The latest L-level zooms are of such high quality that they must represent a significant impact on the sales potential for primes ... and yet the market demand is sufficient that manufacturers continue to develop new and improved prime designs.

I have only two prime lenses (50 & 100mm) in my kit, and I use them almost exclusively for studio work, where distance to subject, composition & framing are just a few of the factors which I can easily control. I am interested in buying one of these new 35/2 IS primes in the near future, primarily to "challenge myself" from time to time with street and environmental photography.

It's great to have choices / options.

 

[privatebydesign]

Still no correction of the incorrect IS information though.........

 

[Dantana]

Thanks for another great and practical review, Dustin.

I have the old 35, which I used often on my old crop body, and picked up the 40 on sale in December. I don't think I'm in the market for another lens in that range, but it was nice to read about the 35IS all the same.

As for the 40 and its usefulness, it was nice to have on vacation two weeks ago when I didn't want to always carry around a zoom but wanted a real camera. It made my 6D tiny.

 

[JPAZ]

Nice review. Thanks.

Lots of info in this thead that has got me thinking.

First, the 40mm Pancake. I also have a difficult time figuring out where it fits into my regime. Frankly, I do like using it on the M with the adapter and almost never put it on the DSLR. But, as others pointed out, the price was very right when this lens came out and it does fit into my pocket.

What's really got me thinking is using the M in conjunction with the DSLR. I am not accustomed to carrying more than one camera body on my adventures but the discussions, here, were like an epiphany for me. I can carry my 5Diii with my usual 2 or three lenses and then also bring the M with an appropriate lens to expand my opportunities while out and about. That's another reason why I look about on CR.....to get new ideas and to learn.

 

[dcm]

Nice review. Thanks.

Lots of info in this thead that has got me thinking.

First, the 40mm Pancake. I also have a difficult time figuring out where it fits into my regime. Frankly, I do like using it on the M with the adapter and almost never put it on the DSLR. But, as others pointed out, the price was very right when this lens came out and it does fit into my pocket.

What's really got me thinking is using the M in conjunction with the DSLR. I am not accustomed to carrying more than one camera body on my adventures but the discussions, here, were like an epiphany for me. I can carry my 5Diii with my usual 2 or three lenses and then also bring the M with an appropriate lens to expand my opportunities while out and about. That's another reason why I look about on CR.....to get new ideas and to learn.

I find the M/22 complements my 6D/70-200 when shooting an event. Might try the M/11-22 next time out. The 40 has become my lens cap on the 6D when I don't have something else mounted.