35 f2 IS USM opinions

[siegsAR]

Excellent lens, I got mine at a low price - pre-owned, mint condition. I almost sold it because I didn't like the focal equivalent on the 70D, the iq is very good though; no complaint. Now w/ the 6D its the lens that gets used the most; family occasions, street photos, etc. No astro though, I have the Samyang 14mm UMC for that, so I can't say about the coma.

Easy pair to carry around, and I can still fits on my small, 6yr old Tamrac 5510 bag.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

All the wide angle primes with IS are great for walkaround and shooting in low light and the 35mm f2 IS is the best of all.
When I don't have my 24-70mm f2.8L II on my camera the lens choice is the 35mm f2IS. It's is one of the most handholdable lens in market and image quality is superb.
You won't be dissapointed.

 

[scyrene]

Mine's arriving tomorrow!

 

[pdirestajr]

I sold my Sigma 35 after getting the Canon 35 f/2 IS during a canon refurb sale. I love the smaller size.

Was that the Sigma 35-Art or an older Sigma lens?

The 35 Art. The Sigma is also a really nice lens, but I just liked the lower price, smaller size/ weight, more consistent AF and IS- especially since I shoot one handed a lot with this focal length.

 

[gobucks]

The 35 F2 IS is my favorite lens. Perfect focal length for street photos, and random across-the-table friend shots. With a 6D, I can shoot at comically low light levels. I haven't tried the Sigma, but it weighs nearly as much as my Tamron 24-70, and that lens is heavy enough that I try to avoid carrying unless I really need to. The light, compact 35 IS is a dream to use in comparison. If Canon updates the rest of their primes in similar fashion (Come on 50mm 1.4 IS, maybe 100mm 2.0 IS!), I will be happy to give them more of my money.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Love mine. Compact, excellent IQ, works amazingly in low light with the f/2 and IS working for you. I got it after I got the 40 pancake and ought to sell that thing; it's never been used since.

 

[sunnyVan]

The 35 F2 IS is my favorite lens. Perfect focal length for street photos, and random across-the-table friend shots. With a 6D, I can shoot at comically low light levels. I haven't tried the Sigma, but it weighs nearly as much as my Tamron 24-70, and that lens is heavy enough that I try to avoid carrying unless I really need to. The light, compact 35 IS is a dream to use in comparison. If Canon updates the rest of their primes in similar fashion (Come on 50mm 1.4 IS, maybe 100mm 2.0 IS!), I will be happy to give them more of my money.

+1. 50/85 1.4 IS would be awesome.

 

[lastcoyote]

:-\ having a bit if a mare at the moment with my purchasing this lens..

First copy I was sent had something behind front element, saw it as soon as I took lens cap off. Larger than just dust, in fact what concerned me was that it even looked like being an air bubble or imperfection in the glass. I checked it out though on my 5D III and the lens image quality and performance was great, really sharp and bang on AF. Great IS. All as expected. However being me I thought best to return for replacement due to the foreign object behind the glass. Yes I'm a bit OCD :

So got the replacement today...checked all over, all looks perfect. Put it on my camera and done some testing. To my disappointment this is just a straightforward soft copy tried AFMA which didn't help as it was already as good as it would ever be which was way softer than the one I returned in fact stopping down didn't improve much either. Also AF was inconsistent and actually noisier than the other copy.

Bummer!

So back it goes for another. Maybe third time lucky? Hope so because the performance of the first one was just great. Doh!

Maybe this 2nd one was similar to your soft copy jackb?

UPDATE: New copy received is awesome. So guess it was indeed third time lucky.

 

[JohnUSA]

I hit the jackpot with my copy of the 35mm f2 IS USM. Super sharp wide open and autofocus is dead on with my 5D3. It's a gem of a lens.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

+1. 50/85 1.4 IS would be awesome.

Looking forward for a 85mm f/1.8 IS, since the current one is showing age. I don't think a new 50mm will be coming soon after releasing the new nifty-fifty

 

[lastcoyote]

I hit the jackpot with my copy of the 35mm f2 IS USM. Super sharp wide open and autofocus is dead on with my 5D3. It's a gem of a lens.

Yay!! I'm a happy boy ;D
My replacement 35mm f2 IS USM lens arrived this morning and it's an absolute beauty.
Super sharp from wide open and nice quiet operation. I now know why this lens gets such good reviews.
It'll definitely go with me to the South of France in July. Awesomeness.

As a side note it also looks and balances so well on the 5D MK III. I got the proper Canon hood for it too.

 

[dlee13]

The 35 IS is easily my favorite and most used lens. I've seen a few people who switched from the 35 Art to the IS and one guy believes the 35 IS to be sharper wide open than the Art wide open. The IQ on both lenses are really amazing which is great since there's something amazing about the 35mm FOV.

To me if someone is trying to decide between the Art and IS, it comes down to a simple choice. Do you want the IS, lighter weight and cheaper price of the Canon, or the faster aperture and less vignetting on the Art.

 

[cellomaster27]

I have a question..
Would it be worth selling my 28mm 1.8 for the 35mm f2 IS? I have shot stars at night with the 28mm and the f1.8 does help in various situations. Just curious if anyone can attest to preferences between these two lenses. Thanks.

 

[gobucks]

I have a question..
Would it be worth selling my 28mm 1.8 for the 35mm f2 IS? I have shot stars at night with the 28mm and the f1.8 does help in various situations. Just curious if anyone can attest to preferences between these two lenses. Thanks.

What are your main uses for the lens? For me, 35mm is much more general purpose than 28mm, so I think it makes a much better walk around lens (especially with IS). But obv sometimes 35mm just isnt wide enough. As for performance, DXO says its a massive improvement in nearly every way - IS, less chromatic aberration, a huge bump in sharpness (17mp vs 12mp on a 5DII), and its actually brighter - T2.0 vs T2.1, so the 35mm is technically faster even if it has less depth of field capabilities. the F1.8 will give you slightly shallower depth of field, but im betting the wider focal length largely cancels out that advantage.

Overall, I woudl definitely make the swap, unless you really need the extra wide field of view.

 

[cellomaster27]

I have a question..
Would it be worth selling my 28mm 1.8 for the 35mm f2 IS? I have shot stars at night with the 28mm and the f1.8 does help in various situations. Just curious if anyone can attest to preferences between these two lenses. Thanks.

What are your main uses for the lens? For me, 35mm is much more general purpose than 28mm, so I think it makes a much better walk around lens (especially with IS). But obv sometimes 35mm just isnt wide enough. As for performance, DXO says its a massive improvement in nearly every way - IS, less chromatic aberration, a huge bump in sharpness (17mp vs 12mp on a 5DII), and its actually brighter - T2.0 vs T2.1, so the 35mm is technically faster even if it has less depth of field capabilities. the F1.8 will give you slightly shallower depth of field, but im betting the wider focal length largely cancels out that advantage.

Overall, I woudl definitely make the swap, unless you really need the extra wide field of view.

I don't find the need for the extra few mm of view. Is this lens good for stars? I just use it mainly for night photos and low light situations. Some street photography. I would get better IQ, contrast, and IS.. for about $50 more. and it's f2. So not bad. I'm tempted... haha.

 

[sunnyVan]

I have a question..
Would it be worth selling my 28mm 1.8 for the 35mm f2 IS? I have shot stars at night with the 28mm and the f1.8 does help in various situations. Just curious if anyone can attest to preferences between these two lenses. Thanks.

What are your main uses for the lens? For me, 35mm is much more general purpose than 28mm, so I think it makes a much better walk around lens (especially with IS). But obv sometimes 35mm just isnt wide enough. As for performance, DXO says its a massive improvement in nearly every way - IS, less chromatic aberration, a huge bump in sharpness (17mp vs 12mp on a 5DII), and its actually brighter - T2.0 vs T2.1, so the 35mm is technically faster even if it has less depth of field capabilities. the F1.8 will give you slightly shallower depth of field, but im betting the wider focal length largely cancels out that advantage.

Overall, I woudl definitely make the swap, unless you really need the extra wide field of view.

I don't find the need for the extra few mm of view. Is this lens good for stars? I just use it mainly for night photos and low light situations. Some street photography. I would get better IQ, contrast, and IS.. for about $50 more. and it's f2. So not bad. I'm tempted... haha.

I get a lot of coma when shooting wide open. Still see it when shooting at 2.8. I get far less coma shooting at 2.8 with my 24-70, so that's my go-to lens for stars.

Indoor use that doesn't involve small bright points is fine. I have tons of fun taking pictures of my 2yr old with the 35f2 IS.

 

[Frodo]

Is this lens good for stars? I just use it mainly for night photos and low light situations.

Is it good for stars? Short answer: no, coma is bad. My Samyang 14mm/2.8 is waaayyy better - no coma to speak of.
Not sure if that contributes to lovely soft bokeh when shooting near wide open.
But this is a great available light lens and I haven't been bothered by OOF light points. With astrophotos I tend to be more technically critical.
I also consider it to be a great light, available lens. Its wonderfully small (without hood) and light lens on my 6D. So I take it most places and so is more available than e.g. by 24-104/4.
Pairs nicely with my 85/1.8.

 

[JohnUSA]

I have a question..
Would it be worth selling my 28mm 1.8 for the 35mm f2 IS? I have shot stars at night with the 28mm and the f1.8 does help in various situations. Just curious if anyone can attest to preferences between these two lenses. Thanks.

There's a killer 35mm f2 IS review on YouTube that mentions the coma at night... I'll try to find it. The review was right on the money about the lens. I've only shot a couple weddings with it and it's stellar!

 

[gobucks]

Is this lens good for stars? I just use it mainly for night photos and low light situations.

Is it good for stars? Short answer: no, coma is bad. My Samyang 14mm/2.8 is waaayyy better - no coma to speak of.
Not sure if that contributes to lovely soft bokeh when shooting near wide open.
But this is a great available light lens and I haven't been bothered by OOF light points. With astrophotos I tend to be more technically critical.
I also consider it to be a great light, available lens. Its wonderfully small (without hood) and light lens on my 6D. So I take it most places and so is more available than e.g. by 24-104/4.
Pairs nicely with my 85/1.8.

I haven't tested coma, but the reviews I saw were not positive on it. That being said, apparently the 28mm 1.8 is a total disaster in the coma department http://www.lenstip.com/253.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_28_mm_f_1.8_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

So if you were using your 28mm 1.8 for stars before, I doubt it will be any worse, but not really any better. Judging by most people's comments, if you are really into night sky photos, it's probably worth it to just shell out $300 for the Samyang as a dedicated star lens (it gives you the side benefit of a mega ultra wide lens for architectural photos). IIRC, you want as wide a view as possible to allow for longer exposures without star trails, so neither the 28mm or 35mm are ideal for that.

 

[cellomaster27]

Is this lens good for stars? I just use it mainly for night photos and low light situations.

Is it good for stars? Short answer: no, coma is bad. My Samyang 14mm/2.8 is waaayyy better - no coma to speak of.
Not sure if that contributes to lovely soft bokeh when shooting near wide open.
But this is a great available light lens and I haven't been bothered by OOF light points. With astrophotos I tend to be more technically critical.
I also consider it to be a great light, available lens. Its wonderfully small (without hood) and light lens on my 6D. So I take it most places and so is more available than e.g. by 24-104/4.
Pairs nicely with my 85/1.8.

I haven't tested coma, but the reviews I saw were not positive on it. That being said, apparently the 28mm 1.8 is a total disaster in the coma department http://www.lenstip.com/253.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_28_mm_f_1.8_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html

So if you were using your 28mm 1.8 for stars before, I doubt it will be any worse, but not really any better. Judging by most people's comments, if you are really into night sky photos, it's probably worth it to just shell out $300 for the Samyang as a dedicated star lens (it gives you the side benefit of a mega ultra wide lens for architectural photos). IIRC, you want as wide a view as possible to allow for longer exposures without star trails, so neither the 28mm or 35mm are ideal for that.

Thank you everyone! Really really helpful! I feel stupid for not knowing how the 28mm fared in the coma department.. but now I know! ;D I'll have to try to sell it and fund a future 35mm f2. and samyang for christmas? besides, I don't use the 28mm at 1.8 too often.. it is an amazing lens though. Thanks again!