Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality

[switters]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

 

[privatebydesign]

Perspective is typically understood as the relationship between your subject and its surroundings.

No, perspective is correctly understood as the relationship between you, and your subject and the surroundings.

While technically true, it's wrong in practice.

Well I find the suggestion ridiculous. If it is true, it is true in practice; if it is wrong in practice, it is not true.

I am not overly interested in a semantics debate, I am interested in telling the truth, that the majority of ill informed photographers think it is so, does not make it so. That all those photographers look up to equally ill educated 'pros', reviewers, bloggers etc means they can't really be blamed for the mistake, but it is a mistake.

Perspective is derived from your position, alone. Focal length, sensor size etc etc are meaningless when talking about perspective, they are not meaningless when talking about fov, framing etc, but we weren't and they are quite different from perspective.

If nobody ever points out what is correct and what is incorrect how does anybody ever learn? I am not belittling anybody for not knowing the difference, especially, as I said, because of the sources of their misinformation, but the word perspective has a definitive meaning and it isn't related to focal length or sensor size.

To put this in a photographic context.

I see a scene, an environmental portrait, I want to show a person and their very strong connection to a building across a body of water. I move to get the perspective I want, that is, how large they are in relation to the building, then I select the focal length I need to get the framing I want for the sensor I have. Done. But the perspective is the over reaching first step, the focal length is just a factor along with the sensor size used to achieve the desired framing, not the perspective.

See below, perspective drives everything else in cognitively framed images whether we are aware of that or not, focal length comes a distant second and then only in conjunction with sensor size and desired framing.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

 

[dlee13]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

 

[sunnyVan]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

 

[dlee13]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

At its launch price, I can see why people chose the Sigma over the Canon (even I would have). I'm glad to hear you're happu with the IS! I find it to be a really underrated lens but I'm happy see more and more people are starting to pick it up and realising how good it really is! The size and weight were definitely a huge factor for me too.

 

[ecka]

Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.

 

[Foxdude]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

+1
I had 35 ART one year, sold it and got the EF35 IS. Sigma was great, but so is the 35IS. I could't do side by side comparison, but with 35IS, I can easily count eyelashes shot wide open. It is extremely sharp. I really like lighter weight, size and price over Sigma. Bokeh seems to be little smoother with 35IS, too. I liked Sigma lot, but I like this new Canon even more. IS is also very nice to have, and I haven't missed that F1.4 at least yet.
Overall, I'm very happy with this lens. Very well balanced with 6D, and it is now my most used lens. 35IS+100L macro makes Reeally nice combo on 6D

 

[privatebydesign]

Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.

How does changing focal length change the perspective of the moon? It doesn't! It affects your reproduction magnification, but that is not related to perspective.

Please understand, perspective is about where you are, that is it. If you don't move your perspective doesn't change, if you move it does.

 

[Ripley]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

The Sigma is sharper several stops sooner. In low light, and for less DOF, the Sigma holds the advantage.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.

OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.

Technically, or otherwise, FL doesn't affect perspective directly, or indirectly. It can only affect our motivation to alter the subject distance. There are uncountable other factors that may motivate us to do the same, such as aperture in my example.
As I said earlier, you are equating framing with perspective. If the background is near infinity, running towards it will alter the perspective, but in an entirely negligible amount. After all, you are altering the subject distance only by 1/infinite amount. On the other hand, altering the focal length will merely change how much of the background you can see- which has nothing to do with perspective. Framing is NOT equivalent to perspective.
Perspective is HOW a subject looks at a certain distance. Framing is HOW MUCH of the subject you can see from that distance. If you don't change the subject distance, the subject will look exactly the same irrespective of focal lengths used, as PBD's illustration shows. What will change is how much you have to crop away in order for the images to look similar.

 

[dlee13]

I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).

http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/

It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

 

[sunnyVan]

I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).

http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/

It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.

 

[dlee13]

I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).

http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/

It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.

How is it an unfair comparison? Considering the 16-35 is double the price of the 35 IS and is also a L lens, it just shows the great quality of the 35 IS. I'm not saying the 16-35 is a bad lens either, I actually still plan on getting it!

 

[Arty]

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?

Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.

Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.

The Sigma is sharper several stops sooner. In low light, and for less DOF, the Sigma holds the advantage.

Perspective s purely a function of distance. Focal length has nothing to do with perspective. i have a number of refereed publicatons on perspective, and can assure you that focal length is not relevant.
Focal length does change the framing, depth of field, and amount of background blur. That may alter the final image.
No, I am not a pro photographer, but a psychologist with an interest in perspective.
Formal perspective was devised by Brunelleschi in the Renaissance. Ask an artist if you want to know.
If you change the distance, you change perspective. One way to think about perspective is to imagine loooking at a scene from a fixed position and then imagine a vertical plane at a particular distance. Think of everything within sight projecting on the vertical plane. This is what we do with cameras.
This is not a mere "technicality." Perspective is what it is, and one can't invent new definitions. There are socially agreed upon definitions of things like perspective.

 

[sunnyVan]

I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).

http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/

It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!

Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.

How is it an unfair comparison? Considering the 16-35 is double the price of the 35 IS and is also a L lens, it just shows the great quality of the 35 IS. I'm not saying the 16-35 is a bad lens either, I actually still plan on getting it!

I bring both with me quite frequently. They're for different purposes. The zoom is great for landscape and indoor architecture. It's useable at 35mm for portrait but the look is very different from what I'd get with the prime. I mainly use 35 prime to photograph my toddler son indoor. It has the classic magical look of a prime lens. The zoom I like to use 24mm for landscape and 16mm to get insanely close to foreground.

Having said that, I've used the zoom to shoot portrait and the prime for landscape. It's just not the primary reason I got them for.

 

[ashmadux]

I wholeheartedly recommend this lens.

Works great on crop (like a 45mm FF or so) and very journalistic at FF 35mm. Its not an L, so expect a more 'pale' image rendering comparable to the 85/1.8, 100/f2, etc with a fair amount of CA. Ive tried in on my t2i and my 6d- fantastic.

IMHO its way overpriced, even at 500, but if you can get a deal on it, by all means do. And im always baffled by shooters who argue about IS- its a great feature, and it should be in every lens as far as im concerned.

 

[JoFT]

For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...

Some ideas from the first day I had the optics in use:

http://selfpromotionphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/the-canon-ef-35mm-1-2-is-usm-the-fastest-lens-on-the-market

This link should work...

http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF

 

[privatebydesign]

For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...

Some ideas from the first day I had the optics in use:

http://selfpromotionphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/the-canon-ef-35mm-1-2-is-usm-the-fastest-lens-on-the-market

This link should work...

http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF

Is there an actual reason, other than shameless self promotion, that you are going round posting all these direct links to your blog?

You are making no further comment in the threads, you are inking to badly written misleading posts that you could just as easily leave here directly.

 

[Ruined]

just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?

The images from the 35mm f/2 IS USM are fantastic, however they do not have the color rendering and microcontrast of lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8L II

BUT consider vs the 24-70L,
1. The 35mm f/2 IS lets in significantly more light than the 24-70
2. The 35mm f/2 IS is small, making it the best "portable" lens Canon makes IMO
3. The Image Stabilization can come in use in some scenarios

And vs the current 35L:
1. With its curved aperture blades the 35mm has superior bokeh at f/2 on compared to the 35mm f/1.4L which has ugly angular bokeh highlights due to its straight aperture blades.
2. The 35L will be replaced likely sometime in the next 1-3 years (but who knows exactly when)
3. The 35L and its eventual successor will remain much larger and heavier than the 35mm f/2 IS


So in summary, the 35 IS performs great even if not 100% as stunning as some of the most expensive L lenses. Still, due to its other qualities the 35 IS remains a spectacular lens in your arsenal if you want the best quality portable walk around lens Canon makes.