Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test

[Zlatko]

Have to say...this new Canon 35mm is a very mediocre lens, to me.
I know that a lot of people had problems with their Sigma 50 mm f/1.4...but I have had nothing but a great experience with mine...and I personally think that the bokeh is just incredible. As good as it gets with a 50mm f/1.4.
These new Sigma lenses (artist Series) appear to be a cut above anything the Co. has done in the past and reports are the customer service is on the mend,too. ...but don't tell what you are going to do. Show me. I think that Sigma has done that with their new 35mm....actually I think Canon has, too!

The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2L
Nikon 50/1.4G
Sigma 50/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4 (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Planar (for Leica M)
Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar (for Leica M)
Leica 50/2 Summicron
Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux

It's not surprising that the new 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS scored a bit higher on resoluton, as they are both f/2.8. Stop down the new 35/2 IS to f/2.8 and it will score higher too.

One thing that the Sigma proves is that to make a better lens for a DSLR, you often have to make it BIGGER. So it's bigger than the already largish Canon 35/1.4L. It's no doubt going to be great for usage at f/1.4, and thus very attractive for photographers who will make use of that. But for photographers who typically shoot at f/2 and smaller, the more compact Canon 35/2 IS may make more sense, especially with the addition of IS.

People are comparing the price of the new 35/2 IS and the old 35/2 and asking why pay so much more "just" for IS? — but they are overlooking the fact that the old 35/2 had that noisy AF motor from the 1980's and has a cheaper build overall. Also, keep in mind that the new 35/2 IS is being introduced at $850 but isn't going to cost $850 in the long run. The 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS were introduced at $850 and $800 and are both under $700 currently.

 

[dswatson83]

The real winner is definitely the Sigma. What an awesome lens. Everywhere I look it is getting praised. AMAZING Sigma!!!
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review

 

[weekendshooter]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11? Never hurt to ask ;D

No lens is sharpest wide open and typically all lenses produce their best IQ somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0

Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom :

what are you going on about? Even your precious 24-70 is best between f/5.6-8.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

 

[meli]

The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:

Zlatko you make no sense, what does 50mm has to do with 35?
Plus, about build quality, i ve only seen the sigma from up close but the build quality is insane for the price.

 

[Zlatko]

The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:

Zlatko you make no sense, what does 50mm has to do with 35?
Plus, about build quality, i ve only seen the sigma from up close but the build quality is insane for the price.

Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?

 

[mrsfotografie]

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2L
Nikon 50/1.4G
Sigma 50/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4 (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Planar (for Leica M)
Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar (for Leica M)
Leica 50/2 Summicron
Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux

Good point, it's better to compare the resolution figures with a wider set of primes like these. My Sigma 50/1.4 is really great, and sharp enough for me.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.

It can't be too mediocre if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:

Zlatko you make no sense, what does 50mm has to do with 35?
Plus, about build quality, i ve only seen the sigma from up close but the build quality is insane for the price.

Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?

Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.

 

[eyeland]

It's also worth remembering the value of the 35mm IS as a valuable addition to the primekit of a DSLR videographer. If the Sigma had IS, I would add it to my shopping list right away, but sinc eit doesn't, the only reason for me NOT to get the 35mm IS would be the choice between that and 24/28 which will probably be settles when I decide between going FF or staying on crop.
Regardless, as mentioned by others, the 35mmmk2 seems like QUITE an upgrade over the old version assuming that the AF is on par with the rest of canons new stuff and at least decent build

 

[Sporgon]

Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').

I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.

This just isn't true.

I attach a picture that we took for Selby Abbey, taken on the 35 f2 - we could reproduce this 3 m across if we needed to. We do have the 35 f1.4, but once you get to f11 there is no difference.

I'm surprised that Lens Rentals achieved the same centre MTF at f2 against the 1.4 at f2. This wouldn't be our experience in practice.

 

[Zlatko]

Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.

Agreed, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is turning in fantastic numbers. That makes it a very compelling alternative to the Canon 35/1.4L, offering both better resolution and lower price. Roger mentions that some people are finding the Sigma's bokeh less attractive, so I'd like to see a bokeh comparison of the two. If the bokeh and autofocus performance are good, then it's even more compelling.

The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS, and because a few sample images online look very promising (but small); I'm eager to see some full-res samples. It's not the winner on the resolution test, but it seems to have other good qualities, and certainly offers resolution numbers comparable to those of some highly regarded lenses.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').

I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.

This just isn't true.

I attach a picture that we took for Selby Abbey, taken on the 35 f2 - we could reproduce this 3 m across if we needed to. We do have the 35 f1.4, but once you get to f11 there is no difference.

I'm surprised that Lens Rentals achieved the same centre MTF at f2 against the 1.4 at f2. This wouldn't be our experience in practice.

At F/11? I need such a prime to be useful (nearly) wide open. I can use a much slower lens if I bring a tripod!!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11? Never hurt to ask ;D

No lens is sharpest wide open and typically all lenses produce their best IQ somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0

Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom :

Most peak around f/4-f/5.6.
Some do much worse wide open compared to stopped down a bit and others not as much of a difference.
The 24-70 II is sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is actually by a pretty marginal difference in the center on the copies that do best wide open and by just f/3.2 it's basically there (on those best wide open copies), only super close careful peeping at 200% would ever tell any difference between 3.2 and 3.5 or 4. Same for most of the super-tele. The 135 2 does very well wide open.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

That sigma does look pretty amazing. Wonder if they ever got their AF system working well yet? I'm sure it won't have the high-precision mode of the new 35 IS but it would be nice if it could at least AF as well as the 35L. I wonder though. But the resolution wow. Kinda shows up the Canons.

 

[Dylan777]

I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0

I would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11? Never hurt to ask ;D

No lens is sharpest wide open and typically all lenses produce their best IQ somewhere between f/5.6 and f/8.0

Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom :

what are you going on about? Even your precious 24-70 is best between f/5.6-8.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

I don't read reviews. Mime seems best at f2.8

I wish I can say that on my 16-35 II :

 

[GDub]

...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...

Ditto!

 

[hmmm]

This is the first of the Art series from Sigma, and a great start. But I'm more interested in something like a 24mm.

This being a rumor site, any idea what comes next in the Sigma Art series, and when?

 

[Zlatko]

...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...

Ditto!

The original 35/f2 without IS is even smaller and lighter and still has almost equal IQ

Yes, almost equal at center and on average, but not almost equal in corners. Also not almost equal in quiet autofocus motor or image stabilization. Doesn't make the original 35/2 a bad lens, just that the new one has something extra to offer, which may be of use to some photographers.

A comparison of weights may be of interest:
Canon 35/2 original = 210 grams
new Canon 35/2 IS = 335 grams
Canon 35/1.4L = 580 grams
new Sigma 35/1.4 = 665 grams

 

[Radiating]

A few months ago, comparing the old 35mm f/2 against the 35mm f/1.4L would have been considered an unfair comparison, given their wildly different prices.

Now we have an even better and much cheaper 35mm f/1.4 in the Sigma, and an improved but much more expensive replacement for Canon's 35mm f/2. And now, we consider comparison of these two lenses to be valid. I wonder if this would have been the case if the new Canon were priced at $500, and the Sigma at $1,100, or would we then have seen more clearly that these two lenses are, in reality, a league apart?

The Sigma 1.4 absolutely has harsher broken than the Canon 1.4, comparison tests have been misleading. The Sigma only shows harsher bokeh under particular and particularly contrasty backgrounds. Back to back comparisons have avoided the right set of circumstances to trigger harsh background blur but I'd you look at sample photos you can see a harsh background blur in about 20% of photos with a keen eye, but lenses like the 70-200mm Ii and 100mm macro IS also cause harsh background blur ocassionally. The sharpness is phenomenal though so its a trade off.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Interesting post, CR. so Canon managed to produce a slower and softer lens for the same price. Ouch.

In theory I like Sigma lenses (and own one), but had issues with customer service warranty work. Still, the results don't lie.

On the other hand, I'm a sucker for IS and primes. The 35 F2 would be a fun lens for low light shooting and video work...I could see it on the camera most of the time when indoors. I'd probably go with the Canon for the intangibles.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/

 

[meli]

Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?

Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons;
how does it make sense comparing 35mm and 50mm res in the context of choosing a 35mm? And if it does, then how about comparing 35mm and 85mm or 35 and 24mm? What about 200mm, shall we compare them also?
If someone is on the market for a 35mm he will be interested on 35mm lenses only, not how they fare with some other random category.
Plus, Infared mentioned his sigma 50/1.4 to make a point about his experience with sigma's bokeh rendering unrelatedly to his opinion on 35/2IS

Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.

The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.