Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality

[Patak]

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?

 

[davidcl0nel]

I love it.
I love the view angle, good enough for many tasks. Its very sharp, similar to my 100L macro... I often use both of them and don't miss a zoom.

 

[TeT]

If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.

Its a fine lens.

at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.

 

[bholliman]

I have both lenses (35/2 IS and 24-70/2.8 II), they are similar in IQ: excellent. Did you perform AFMA on your 35/2 IS? What specifically are you unhappy with in the images?

 

[privatebydesign]

If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.

Its a fine lens.

at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.

That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[sunnyVan]

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?

I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open. This is not unusual but I don't see that with my 24-70. This is not to say the 35 is bad. It's just that the 24-70 is too good, and too hard to beat. the prime has the advantage of an extra stop and IS. But putting them side by side, 9 out of 10 times I grab the zoom.

I sold my sigma 35 to purchase the canon version and I don't regret this part of the decision at all. The canon is so much more portable and more realistic to bring along with the zoom. The real question is whether I need a 35mm prime given how excellent the zoom is. The debate is ongoing but I don't have much choice here because I already cut the box for rebate purposes and can't return. I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.

Only you yourself know whether you need a 35mm prime. I can't imagine how expensive the 35Lii will be when it's launched. Maybe $1800?

 

[Sporgon]

Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens.

However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish). Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.

 

[zlatko]

I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.

Don't feel too bad. I paid $789 for the 35/2 IS in June, 2013.

 

[TeT]

If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.

Its a fine lens.

at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.

That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

 

[ecka]

That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

Focal length does affect perspective .

At the same settings there is no difference between a zoom lens and a prime lens background compression.
I don't know what you mean by "on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens". Some people are confusing "more zoom" with longer focal length, shorter focal length or more magnification. Are you?
"aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement" sounds like you don't know what you are talking about .

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens.

However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish). Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.

The moulded aspheric lenses in phones are remarkable, they vastly outperform our EF lenses for resolution.

 

[privatebydesign]

That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as 'background compression you get with a zoom' there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...

Focal length does affect perspective .

No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

 

[Arty]

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.
In comparing the two lenses, consider that you can reduce ISO when you can use F2. The 35 at F2 will let you use ISO 3200 where the F2.8 lens requires 6400. I don't know about you, but I get sharper images at ISO 3200 than 6400.
Of course, the 35F2 is limited in focal length and view.
I can think of lots of circumstances where I would want to keep ISO down with any camera, but your needs may be different.

 

[Arty]

P.S.
The 35F2 IS is one of my sharpest primes, and that includes my macro lenses.

 

[TeT]

".... sounds like you don't know what you are talking about .

I prefer confused over ignorant any day...

Specifically: When I shoot a subject with a not distant background with the 35 IS v. standing back and zooming in to the same framing with my 24 105; I find the image beyond the subject with the 24 105 zoomed to be more pleasing to me. If the background is distant I find that it doesn't matter as much. Surely I am not the only one to notice this....

Consider that I am often using f4 or narrower in those situations.

So if the above phenomenon had a name what would it be?

I had to look up Emoticon, who comes up with these terms?

 

[Sporgon]

standing back and zooming in

You've described what you like here; perspective is a result of distance from the subject, nothing else.

If you have a photo editing suite of some sort you can test this for yourself with a good standard zoom. Shoot a scene with plenty of depth detail at 24mm. Then shoot from exactly the same place at 70mm ( or 105 ). Look at the two pictures side by side, particularly the central area of the 24mm picture covered by the 70mm. The 70mm shot will appear to have more 'compression'.

Now crop out of the 24mm shot the same framing as the 70mm. Reduce the image size of the 70mm shot so both the cropped picture and the 70mm are the same size. Look at them both side by side again: this time they will be identical. If you can, overlay one on the other and reduce opacity to 50% so you can see them both. With a good quality zoom they will virtually overlay each other identically.

 

[Patak]

Thank you all for your useful and extensive comments. My slight dissappointment with the lens is not based on lack of sharpness or bokeh. it is the color and contrast and overall artistic impression of the image that does not meassure up to 24-70 Mk II. Put it this way; just came from vacation and used 3 lenses, 35 f2 IS, 24-70 II and 135 f2. The percentage of "keepers" is way higher on 24- 70 and 135 than on 35 f2. Perhaps, I am still not very familiar with this lens and used it more often in low light situations than the other two.

 

[ecka]

Focal length does affect perspective .

No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does .

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.

Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

 

[privatebydesign]

Focal length does affect perspective .

No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.

Yes it does .

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.

Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, same framing + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).

FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

to this "Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."

Then you will be on the right track.

 

[applecider]

Sunnyvan said:"I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open".

So my question is if anyone has used this lens for astrophotography and if so if the coma is enough to be concerning. Going to death valley at some point and want to take advantage of what I hope will be dark skies. Oh and I already have a 24 1.4 rokinon which I also plan to use.