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

[TeenTog]

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

A bit. The 35 f/1.4 is an "L" series lens- even though the the the new 35 f/2 is "new", I'm guessing the f/1.4L will outperform it even still. It's just a better lens, as all "L" series lenses are. Plus, the f/1.4L has better weather sealing and durability. All the pros that use it just love it. Plus, on a full frame pro body, its not a bad "general" lens.

 

[tron]

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

Plus, the f/1.4L has better weather sealing and durability.

The 35mm f/1.4L does not have weather sealing.

 

[TeenTog]

The 35mm f/1.4L does not have weather sealing.

Hmmmm... well, it would probably hold up better if dropped, right?

 

[tron]

The 35mm f/1.4L does not have weather sealing.

Hmmmm... well, it would probably hold up better if dropped, right?

;D I haven't made any comparison

 

[Gothmoth]

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

Plus, the f/1.4L has better weather sealing and durability.

The 35mm f/1.4L does not have weather sealing.

yep it seems to be a common myth that all L lenses are weather sealed.

 

[switters]

I'm certainly intrigued by the optical quality of the Sigma 35. However, I have the 35L now and my copy, at least, is razor sharp at f/1.4 and gets ridiculously sharp from there. The colors, AF and rendering are also amazing. No complaints there.

The main reason I'm interested in the 35/2 is the smaller size and weight. The 35L isn't huge, but it's not compact either. If I can get the same or even better optical quality in a more compact package, I'd probably be willing to sacrifice the extra stop. However, I shoot almost exclusively portraits (of my 16-month old daughter, who never stops moving), so IS doesn't help me at all; f/1.4 is a lot more useful in those circumstances.

The Sigma is bigger and heavier than the 35L (660g vs. 580g, and 3.03 x 3.7 vs. 3.1 x 3.4), so even if it's a little sharper than the 35L, I'm not interested. My 35L is plenty sharp, and the size and weight are more important to me.

I have the 40/2.8 too, which is incredible especially considering its size. In fact, I also prefer the 40mm focal length to 35mm. I wish Canon made a 40/1.8. I'd be all over that. I used to shoot Pentax and their 43/1.9 was my favorite lens ever.

 

[tron]

I wish Canon made a 40/1.8. I'd be all over that. I used to shoot Pentax and their 43/1.9 was my favorite lens ever.

NOW! You reminded me of my first SLR: A Konica Autoreflex TC with 40mm f/1.8

 

[Zv]

I like my primes to be small, light and fast. Just the opposite of my zooms. I would like to own a 35L but I think what I would benifit more from is the 35 f/2 IS. Perfect for a small event or party where IS is helpful for low light as well as a relatively wide aperture for moving subjects. I really like my 50 f/1.8 but on a 7D (I prefer my 7D for it's AF and speed) it's just a bit too long and focuses quite slow. The 35 f/2 IS sounds perfect. Can't wait!