Hold out for EF 35/2 IS or jump in with classic 35 1.4L

[Ew]

I've been lusting for the 35/1.4 since I gave away (to old friend w new baby - shooting w T2i) my 2nd 28/1.8 in July. Just as I was bout to pull the trigger - whammo - options options.

Many rumors of updates for the ol' 35 but that was not an issue for me as it is a great lens - Now!

In comparison, I shoot the 50/1,4 at 2.0+ most of the time. Opening up in really bad light.

In a bizzare state of excitement and confusion over this one. I'll hold off for a couple of days to cool down a bit and review in a sane state of mind.

It doesn't seem that the new 35/2 IS would be a replacement for the 1.4.... Am I wrong??

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.

 

[PackLight]

No, it is not a replacement for the 35mm f1.4L. You didn't see a red ring on the f/2 did you?

 

[Daniel Flather]

My 35L is awesome on the 5D3, get the 1.4L if price is not an issue. The new 35/2IS looks nice. Or, hold out for a few more years for the 35LII. Buy what you want now, or you'll wait forever.

 

[marcosv]

I love my 35L. But, it isn't a small lens, being fairly long.

That 35/2 IS looks a bit closer to the compactness of the 35/2 non-IS. Could be a consideration of you got a bag full of glass.

I think the answer will be how close does the 35/2 IS gets to the 35L optically.

 

[AudioGlenn]

+1 vote for the 35L. Awesome lens. Why wait? If you have the money and you know what you want, get what you want. I don't see a great need for the IS, even for video. I'm sure there's a market for it but the 35L is awesome AND it's already available.

 

[RLPhoto]

35L is nice, but it's not quite razor sharp until F/1.8

 

[Jakontil]

I didnt wait and get myself 35L n couldnt be happier since...

Now... Should i get the 24-70II in place for my 24-105?

Optically speaking, 24-105 aint great but the extra length that puts me still

 

[Axilrod]

Do you shoot alot of video? I would think the 35 f/2 IS would be an APS-C video shooter's dream. I'd honestly wait and see how the 35 f/2 performs, if it's anything like the 24 IS and 28 IS it may be worth checking out.

 

[SJTstudios]

The 35mm f2 will be better stopped down sharpness wise, but for 1.4-2, the 35mm 1.4 will be better, so for that light, it will be good, weight wise, we really won't see a difference, it's just a matter of what your use will be.

 

[tron]

35 f/2 at 900 is a complete waste of money. Get the 35 1.4L before they replace it with a $2K lens...

 

[Bosman]

The price is not super far off from the L however given the other new lenses they have released it probably is sharp at F2. For those merging or adding video to their work its going to be real good for that and the is may be handy for low light since its the hybrid is. The new 35 F1.4 LII that comes out, god knows when, will probably be $1800. The optics are probably designed for the future hi resolution cameras that come out in the next 5 years at least that would make sense. I personally will probably get this lens for shooting finish line shots for sports given that i sold my 24-70 and liked the 35mm focal length for that. However, I want to see reviews and learn more before dropping the cash. The compromise would also be that i would need to use a rain sleeve for my equipment shooting events in bad weather which I havent had to do with my 1dm3 and 24-70 or 70-200, still it is just smart to protect it.
new the 35L is $1,329.00
new the 35F2 is $849.00
If $500 is a lot to you then the F2 is it. Personally I'd get the F2 and if you needed more power or weather proofing built in due to using it in bad weather conditions then the L is it but then I doubt it offers much more than the F2 until or unless they get a F1.2 35mm on the books in which case bam! that would be a must buy but also be $2500 if it did see the light of day.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I didnt wait and get myself 35L n couldnt be happier since...

Now... Should i get the 24-70II in place for my 24-105?

Optically speaking, 24-105 aint great but the extra length that puts me still

Canon is getting rid of that extra length so people can decide more easily :

Get the 35 1.4L before they replace it with a $2K lens...

Good advice.

 

[gjones5252]

I have been in this same situation as this is one of the lens choices i am thinking about.
One thing i have seen is the MTF of the new 35 is quite a bit better than the L version. I dont know enough te know exactly what this means but wouldnt that be at least worth waiting? Its quite a big increase looks like....

 

[weilin]

I am an L addict but given the 35 F2 is available and it has a gasket seal which shocks me since that is typically reserved for L lenses.

Where did you see that the new 35mm F/2 has a gasket? I seemed to have missed that announcement

 

[keithfullermusic]

2.0 vs. 1.4 is vastly different.

a) 1.4-1.8 looks incredible - especially 1.4 if you get the focus right.

b) 1.4 is amazing in low light. 2.0 is really good, but that's an entire stop different. sure, 4-stop IS is great for static objects, but if you're shooting events i think shutter speed is more important. What would you rather have, 1.4 @ 1/50 or 2.0 @ 1/100 with people moving around? I'd vote for the former.

c) IS is really really really nice for video, but at 35mm you aren't going to need it as much as you would at say 100mm

d) size and weight are different

e) price

 

[Bosman]

Uh oh, I read up first thing this morning and got cross modginated. I apologize for my lack of truth on the gasket that was the 24-70 F4L. So sorry. I'm an idiot.

 

[Plato the Wise]

I have the 35L and all I can say is that it is awesome. It is a great focal length on full frame and at 1.4 the background just melts away from the subject. It is a sharp lens and the color is great as well.

The only drawback is that I don't think it is sealed like the other Ls.

 

[ahsanford]

I had to make a similar choice a few months back -- the 35L or the new 28 IS. Rented them both first. I ended up choosing the 28 IS and have been quite pleased.

Money didn't factor into this call. My considerations were as follows (apply these to your situation as needed):

The 28 IS (2.8 + 4 stops IS) is more handholdable in low light than the 35L. That applies to what I shoot, but perhaps not for you. (I'm often shooting nighttime street or stationary people indoors at social events.) With my 5D3, I can bring home useable shots from ISO 6400 - 10000 shots at 1/20 of a second. The 35/1.4L cannot bring those shots in without shooting wide open (i.e. soft anywhere but in the center with an unusably small DOF for my needs) and at an even higher ISO to net a useable non-IS shutter speed.

New non-L EF (not EF-S) designs rival old L designs from an IQ perspective. The new 28 is as sharp as the 35L in head to head on the 28's wide open end (comparing both at F/2.8 ). The 35L is a shade better in the corners when you stop it down for landscape work. So I shot both and couldn't really see a difference in the IQ.

IMHO, the 28 IS has better build quality than the 35L. The 28 IS build/materials/etc. is nearly identical to the modern 'plastic' L lenses like the 100L macro (though the 28 lacks a gasket), whereas the 35L is dated, has cheaper looking/feeling plastic, etc. As an owner of the tank-like 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I and 70-200 F/2.8L IS II lenses, I was shocked to see the famous 35L I've heard so much about resemble my non-L 50mm F/1.4 in build quality.

The 28 is small, light, and unassuming. I love this as I often shoot candids, street, etc. In return for this little lens, I lost the prestige of a red ring. Great trade for me, but perhaps not for you.


So, given all of the above, I went with the 28. It was the right call for me. Had the same IQ statements been true and the new 35 F/2 IS was available then, I very well may have gone with that lens instead of the 28. But, if you like what F/1.4 - F/2 looks like, are shooting moving targets (where IS's longer useable shutter speeds won't help you), or need a red ring -- the 35L is the option.

 

[wayno]

I cant agree that the 35L and the 50 1.4 are of similar build quality. The 35L is a league ahead in that regard, despite it's age, IMO.

 

[Gothmoth]

i would wait and check the new sigma 35mm f1.4.

http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14.html

i hope it will be a winner.

i was not much of a sigma fan in the past.
but i give them some credit and i hope they do what they promised and make their quality management better.

New user-control tools and software, and new quality control measures

The new Sigma Optimization Pro software and USB Dock are designed exclusively for these new product lines and will enable Sigma users to connect their lenses to their computers to update lens firmware and fine-tune focus parameters via easy-to-use, on-screen controls.

All of these new lenses will also be subject to Sigma’s new, proprietary modulation transfer function (MTF) measuring system called “A1.” Named in honor of the company’s sole production base, the Aizu factory in Aizu, Japan, the A1 system will allow inspectors to verify previously undetectable high-frequency details in each lens before it is shipped.

“We used to measure lens performance with a MTF measuring system using conventional sensors, but this new A1 system uses our own 46-megapixel Foveon direct imaging sensors,” said Yamaki. “We view this new method of performance evaluation as being incredibly important, not only because we owe it to our customers, but because we owe it to ourselves. We’ve spent more than 50 years perfecting our design and manufacturing processes, and now we deliver a complete package by closing the loop on that commitment to quality by adopting a more stringent verification process.”

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/requirement/index.html#requirement04