35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?

[Saffier]

September this year we're going to the US for a four week holiday. It's our first visit to the US. After a 2,5 day stopover in New York, we will be flying to Denver. From thereon we will be traveling by car. Besides several national parks we'll spend time in Las Vegas, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

I would love to take pictures in these cities at night and therefore I am thinking of buying the 35mm f2 IS. My current gear: 6D, 16-35 f2.8 II, 24-105 f4, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II. My wife has the SL1, 18-55 IS STM and the 55-250 IS STM. We will both take our gear with us. The Lowepro roller will be in trunk of the car and for every daytrip I will select two lenses max to take with me in the shoulder bag.

Why the 35? It offers me IS and 1 stop of light compared to the 16-35 and it offers me 2 stops of light compared to the 24-105. Since we will be walking around a lot, I don't think I will be carying a tripod with me. Finally the 35 can also be a nice low-light addition to my wife's set of lenses, but that will not be the decisive argument.

What do you think? Does this make sense to you? Or shall I stick to the 24-105 and use high ISO settings? Looking forward to your comments.

 

[wayno]

Concur. Sounds like a decent set up.

 

[JustMeOregon]

If your just shooting stills, have you give any thought to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art? You lose IS of course, but you gain a full stop of nighttime low-light-grabbing-capability and softer bokeh, along with what is arguably the sharpest 35mm lens on the planet...

 

[MLfan3]

it is a very practical lens , I love it, I much prefer this lens to the Sigma overrated 35mm f1.4.
for hnadheld night photography, there is no better lens than this one. with the Sigma , Canon or the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , you cannot shoot at extremely slow shutter speed with decent DOF even in extreme lowlight(of course you can always use a tripod but for street work it does not work).
so I think the Sigma Zeiss 35mm f1.4 lenses are way too overrated , they are not very practical in real world where you can't or do not want to use a tripod.

not many of us love uselessly thin only one eye in focus kind of DOF, in fact, in most of scenes we need decently deep DOF, say f2.8-5.6 at least to get good photos.
f1.4 , f1.2 primes are always overrated , they are not really sharp at f1.2 or f1.4 and most of times we do not want that super shallow DOF.

 

[JustMeOregon]

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...

Now for my style of shooting, sharpness is everything... The Sigma at 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the Canon at 2.0 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. With both lenses at 2.0, the Sigma left the Canon in the dust http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2.

Don't get me wrong, I like image stabilization as much as the next guy, but for me 35mm is easily wide enough so that IS isn't really necessary. But to each his own...

 

[sdsr]

A couple of observations:

First, all the lenses you currently own work really well in cities at night on 6d, with its superb low light performance, including the 24-105. Sure, if you want to keep the ISO as low as possible or want to freeze action, something faster is nice, but otherwise I'm not so sure. It would be helpful on the SL1, though.

Second, as for the Sigma 35 1.4 vs Canon 35mm IS, I think those digital picture charts show that they are in fact quite similar in terms of sharpness (that was my experience, anyway), and if you were going to use them in bright daylight, I might suggest you toss a coin. As for cities at night, each has an advantage the other lacks: while IS is nice to have if your shutter speeds get slow, city lights provide ample opportunities for coma (distant street lights near edges and corners, for instance); and if that bothers you (it does me), the Sigma is the better choice - it has the best coma performance of any fast lens I've used: it's only slight wide open and only a little stopping down makes it disappear altogether, whereas the Canon starts off much worse and takes longer to go away as you stop down, which rather defeats the purpose of using a fast lens (that's one reason why I like the 24-105 so much - coma isn't a significant problem with slowish zooms). This won't be an issue on the SL1. Check out the lenstip reviews - they address coma better than anyone else's I've seen.

 

[ahab1372]

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...

Now for my style of shooting, sharpness is everything... The Sigma at 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the Canon at 2.0 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. With both lenses at 2.0, the Sigma left the Canon in the dust http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Don't get me wrong, I like image stabilization as much as the next guy, but for me 35mm is easily wide enough so that IS isn't really necessary. But to each his own...

Maybe in the center, but in the corners the Canon 35mm f/2 IS looks a bit sharper to me than the sigma, both at f/2 - I wonder if the difference is visible in real life landscape shots
note: there was an extra . at the end of the URL which caused the link to fail

 

[wopbv4]

I have a good keeper rate at 1/15 s, the IS does it's job.

 

[Mathias]

In theory a four stop IS with f/2 should give you eight times as much light as f/1.4 without IS. So for not moving subjects the 35mm f/2 IS should be the perfect low light lens.

 

[Etienne]

I bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS for low light and video work. It's a great little lens.
It's smaller and lighter than the 1.4 lenses, which is important to me, and it has IS, which, apart from low light, is great for:

-Video
-Anytime you want deep DOF handheld in less than bright light.

It's a sharp lens with good contrast and color

 

[wickidwombat]

depends how much the IS will benefit you and size/weight

what will you shoot mostly if its people then the sigma will be better because it is razor sharp wide open at 1.4 so you can get double the shutter speed of the f2 lens and the IS is going to do nothing for any subject movement

but if you are shooting static scenes alot then the IS is gonna be awesome

also in the f2 IS favour is it is ALOT smaller and lighter which makes it a bette travel option too

 

[slclick]

Sigma Art lenses are only overrated if you are so blinded by brand loyalty. This past week had seen CR being filled with Brand Loyalists to Canon who are desperate to find logic without experience. Time will tell has been the latest crock of shiite. BS, images NOW tell the story.

 

[bholliman]

Sigma Art lenses are only overrated if you are so blinded by brand loyalty. This past week had seen CR being filled with Brand Loyalists to Canon who are desperate to find logic without experience. Time will tell has been the latest crock of shiite. BS, images NOW tell the story.

Both the Sigma 1.4 Art and Canon 35 f/2 IS are terrific lenses and have pros and cons when compared. I don't think you have to be a Canon or Sigma fan boy to favor one over the other.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

September this year we're going to the US for a four week holiday. It's our first visit to the US. After a 2,5 day stopover in New York, we will be flying to Denver. From thereon we will be traveling by car. Besides several national parks we'll spend time in Las Vegas, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

I would love to take pictures in these cities at night and therefore I am thinking of buying the 35mm f2 IS. My current gear: 6D, 16-35 f2.8 II, 24-105 f4, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II. My wife has the SL1, 18-55 IS STM and the 55-250 IS STM. We will both take our gear with us. The Lowepro roller will be in trunk of the car and for every daytrip I will select two lenses max to take with me in the shoulder bag.

Why the 35? It offers me IS and 1 stop of light compared to the 16-35 and it offers me 2 stops of light compared to the 24-105. Since we will be walking around a lot, I don't think I will be carying a tripod with me. Finally the 35 can also be a nice low-light addition to my wife's set of lenses, but that will not be the decisive argument.

What do you think? Does this make sense to you? Or shall I stick to the 24-105 and use high ISO settings? Looking forward to your comments.

The Canon 35mm f2IS is 'slower?' than the Sigma and in terms of sharpness are close with slight advantage on the Sigma but, if you want to walk light, don't need ultra thin DOF and aren't planning to shot fast moving subjects you can benefit with the Canon IS and get sharp pictures at 1/5 second. Other than that it also balance well in your small SL1.

 

[bholliman]

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...

Now for my style of shooting, sharpness is everything... The Sigma at 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the Canon at 2.0 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. With both lenses at 2.0, the Sigma left the Canon in the dust http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Don't get me wrong, I like image stabilization as much as the next guy, but for me 35mm is easily wide enough so that IS isn't really necessary. But to each his own...

Maybe in the center, but in the corners the Canon 35mm f/2 IS looks a bit sharper to me than the sigma, both at f/2 - I wonder if the difference is visible in real life landscape shots
note: there was an extra . at the end of the URL which caused the link to fail

I don't own either of these lenses, but am considering adding a 35mm prime at some point. I previously owned the Canon 35 L and was generally pleased with it. However, I realize now both of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and Canon 35mm f/2 IS are superior.

Looking at the TDP crops in the link above, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is slightly sharper in the center, but the Canon 35 f/2 IS is sharper by a similar amount at mid frame and corner to my eyes. So, I would consider them equally sharp at f/2.

Of course, sharpness is just one evaluation characteristic. AF speed, accuracy and precision, bokeh, transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas, build quality, handling, weight, size, and of course IS are other considerations. I plan to rent both to try side-by-side before making my final decision.

 

[IsaacImage]

Have both.
Both are great lenses.

1 - Canon : faster AF, IS, more lighter and invisible.
2 - Sigma 1.4, bit sharper.

Need 1.4 buy Sigma

 

[mwh1964]

I use the Canon 35 IS for low light shooting in NY. And it is a very good lens for that purpose as well as in general. Compared you to the 24-105 you will gain in IQ and handiness but of course loose some flexibility. I would probably just stay with the 24-105 for your travel.

 

[Rudeofus]

If I understood the TO correctly, he is fully aware of the theoretical tradeoff between F/1.4 and F/2 IS. What I think he really inquired about where the practical implications for night city photography:

• How good is the IS of Canon's new 35 in practice? What are the longest exposure times people use for free hand shooting?
• What are reasonable exposure times for night city shots that don't incur subject motion blur? If IS allows you to shoot at 1/5s, does that give you a practical advantage or will you shoot at 1/30s anyway?
• What are expected exposure parameters in US cities at night? What ISO range will one need at F/2 and 1/10s? If the answer is ISO 102400+, that extra lens may not be worth the effort. Same thing if the answer is ISO 800, he might as well use his 24-105 and ISO 3200

 

[Saffier]

If I understood the TO correctly, he is fully aware of the theoretical tradeoff between F/1.4 and F/2 IS. What I think he really inquired about where the practical implications for night city photography:

• How good is the IS of Canon's new 35 in practice? What are the longest exposure times people use for free hand shooting?
• What are reasonable exposure times for night city shots that don't incur subject motion blur? If IS allows you to shoot at 1/5s, does that give you a practical advantage or will you shoot at 1/30s anyway?
• What are expected exposure parameters in US cities at night? What ISO range will one need at F/2 and 1/10s? If the answer is ISO 102400+, that extra lens may not be worth the effort. Same thing if the answer is ISO 800, he might as well use his 24-105 and ISO 3200

First of all, being a newbee on this forum, I am very happy with all your tips and thoughts. Thank you!
I am especially interested in the answers related to your third question. Perhaps anyone can share his of her experiences?

 

[e17paul]

I have recently invested in a 24/2.8 IS, and tried handheld night scenes using the maximum benefit of IS. In warm and dry conditions (indoors looking out), I can often manage to hold a steady shot at 1s, and exceptionally 2s. It helps to use the 2 second timer. Outdoors in the wind, when cold, wet and sometimes shivering, I have understandably had less success but still achieved a 2 stop improvement over rule of thumb. In conclusion, I would still expect the 35/2 IS to give you more advantage in night conditions than the extra stop of the 35/1.4L.

None of this is is as good as some form of tripod (or even monopod), but the IS does give opportunities to take photos when support is not an issue.