35L vs 35/2 IS

[memoriaphoto]

I've been thinking about the 35L for years but never really pulled the trigger. I am now about to either trade my 50L (which I don't use that often anymore) for a 35L or keep the 50L and get the 35/2 IS instead. Then perhaps sell it and go for the 35L II (whenever that one will be introduced)

Anyway...I like what I've seen so far from the 35/2 IS and reviews seem to confirm this. Photozone really likes it and I've always trusted their opinions. And IS can be quite useful for creative stuff such as motion blur.

Is there anyone here who has compared the two?

Ps. Not interested in the SIGMA so this is strictly a canon thing...

 

[tayassu]

Well, Bryan Carnathan over at TDP did, and I think he found the 35/2 IS to be better.

 

[slcparche]

The EF 35 f/2 is is a pretty good lens. Photos are crisp, it is pretty light. I think you will like it.

 

[convexferret]

I have both

I started with the 35L but found it a little heavy as my always-on lens. Now that I have both and have compared them I think that the optical differences are fairly minor.

The 35/2 is smaller, lighter and has IS
The 35/1.4 has 1.4 and probably better build quality.

So I think that it depends very much what type of photography you do. I tend to do more low-light scenery than low-light action and so the IS is a little more useful. For that reason I'm probably going to get rid of the 35/1.4. But either will do a good job for you.

 

[Random Orbits]

I got the 35L years ago, before the S35 and 35 f/2 IS came out. I picked up a 35 f/2 IS when it went on sale at the Canon refurb store. The 35 f/2 IS is nice, but I prefer using the 35L more. I use it indoors for family gatherings/events and the flexibility of having an extra stop for creative uses or for blurring a background slightly more is welcome.

 

[tomscott]

Also been thinking about this, from what I gather the 35 F2 is a brilliant lens.

The 35mm L is about equal in sharpness but it creates those special images, similar to the 85mm.

The 35 F2 will produce 100 great images and the L will create 80% of those great images but you will get 10% unique gorgeous images.

Thats what I have gathered.

 

[Ruined]

While the 35mm has f/1.4, when you stop it down it has (IMO) ugly and distracting angular bokeh balls due to its straight aperture blades.

On the other hand, the 35mm f/2 IS can only do f/2, but at least when stopped down you get nice round bokeh.

If I had to pick either (and I did), I would go with the 35mm f/2 IS because I don't shoot wide open 100% of the time and do not want to be stuck with distracting angular bokeh balls in my shot.

Of course, if Canon released a new version of the 35mm f/1.4 with curved aperture blades, I may very well buy it. Not a guarantee though, as 24L/50L/100L macro is my main prime usage. 35mm f/2 IS I use for unobtrusive city shooting or when I want IS for panning shots. It is my one and only smallish lens

 

[memoriaphoto]

Yes, I've heard about that. Not that I normally would stop it down but it is still annoying.

I've just read the TDP review and one thing that has never crossed my mind before is the minimum focus distance and magnification. By using my 25mm extension tube I could literally use it as a 1:1 macro. Not as flexible as a real macro of course but still very interesting and unexpected indeed...