My take on new 35mm

[sanj]

Being giving this a lot of thought. Deciding not to buy the new 35mm.
The main reason: IS. I rather have a sharp photo than a blurred one!
The new lens looks better in the charts, but don't think the end print will look so much better that I should be without IS.
I do not shoot in the rain so the build quality is not something I base my decision on.
I realize 1.4 is twice the light of 2, but 2 is good enough.
The blur that f2 produces is not so different than 1.4. And the difference is visible only when the focus point is close to a camera.
When the going gets tough, IS will come in more handy then the rest of the benefits of 1.4 lenses combined. For me, that is.
If the new lens had IS, I would pre-ordering it. Am I thinking wrong?

 

[Viggo]

I can't remember ever having shot anything with a shutter longer than 1/250s, 95% shorter than 1/1000s so for me IS is no point unless the focal length is more than 50.

I had a Zeiss 50 f2, but it did not have that beautiful pop that the 1.4 does, so for me f2.0? I might as well use my 24-70.

 

[sanj]

I find myself shooting in low light quite often especially when walking in a new country in the evening. Love to take photos just as sun is going down.

 

[risc32]

"The main reason: IS. I rather have a sharp photo than a blurred one!"

me too that's why i would go 1.4 over f2, IS or not.

Not sure how this can get complicated. If what you like to photograph moves, and it's dark you probably need 1.4, if it holds still you would be better off with IS regardless of f-stop. Of course then you'd be better off still with just a 30$ tripod, but where's the fun in that?

 

[sanj]

How I wish I could carry a tripod with me always.

 

[FTb-n]

The 35 f2 IS is a sharp lens. I actually like the IS in this focal length for landscape shots that include moving water. IS helps get controlled motion blur with slow shutter speeds. For people shots with kids, it's also fun to have one stand still while others move behind them at 1/15 sec. The blurred movement makes for a fun photo. The 1.4 allows twice the light and smaller DOF. In a 35mm, this is less of a concern for me. I should note that the new 35 is a bright lens, at least 1/3 stop brighter than the old one.

I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the 50's. I suspect the 50 1.2L will be replaced with a sharper model without IS and the 50 1.4 will be replaced with a USM version with IS. If these options are made available, it would be a tough choice. I think that I would be more tempted to consider the 1.2 as my "low light" lens and for the opportunities that this particularly small DOF offers in creative shots. For me, the benefits of small DOF are better utilized in the 50-100mm range for this range offers more flattering people shots than wide angle lenses do.

 

[risc32]

then again, http://www.superbikeplanet.com/image/2015/motogp/silverstone/1/6.htm

 

[Sporgon]

How I wish I could carry a tripod with me always.

You can ! Manfrotto BeFree carbon. There's no excuse not to have it any place, any time.

Best new toy I've bought in a long time.

To me the 1.4 is purely for producing a particular shallow dof effect. I don't really understand the 'low light' thing; it presumes you are never concerned with dof.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well I think Sanj is right, that is why I bought the f2 IS and I am getting along with it great, and I can honestly say I am not that fussed about the money, though I am no wealthy enthusiast if the L were the right tool I'd pay the money.

Besides you don't buy an f1.4 to use on a tripod! The f2.0 IS is giving me realistic dof control and very long shutter speeds, it is light and small to boot and, I think, with the vignetting, has a lot of character. I am very happy with the f2 IS and find it the perfect 'have on the camera' lens, indeed it is on it now.........

 

[unfocused]

I have to admit that I'm not really a 35mm focal length kind of guy. I prefer my wide angles to be wide (24mm) and my telephotos long.

That said, I would agree with Sanj's reasoning. Especially because I find Canon's IS on newer lenses pretty remarkable. I've been known to shoot the 70-300mm "L" at 300mm down to 1/30 second (must brace my arms very carefully and it helps if there is a wall to lean against).

I honestly can't figure out Canon's strategy on IS. I assume there are design reasons why they don't put it in certain lenses, as it certainly can't be a cost issue given that they include it in tons of kit lenses that cost virtually nothing.

I think as far this particular lens goes, it all comes down to shooting style and personal taste/vision.

 

[Ruined]

I find myself shooting in low light quite often especially when walking in a new country in the evening. Love to take photos just as sun is going down.

This is the main area the 35mm f/2 IS would have an advantage over the 35mm f/1.4L - landscape in dimming light; you don't want to open up to 1.4 for DOF purposes, but if you stop down to f/8 and don't have IS you might induce camera shake - and since its landscape you don't have to worry too much about motion blur.

I also think both the 35mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/2 IS are awesome. I don't think I could get rid of the latter even if I bought the former. But the 35mm f/1.4L II will be super for pros doing indoor event photography.

 

[Eldar]

To me the 1.4 is purely for producing a particular shallow dof effect. I don't really understand the 'low light' thing; it presumes you are never concerned with dof.

+1
My main reasons for getting a 35/1.4 is shallow DOF and bokeh, to get that magic 3D pop the fast primes give. This particular lens seems to excel in pretty much everything else also. I'm looking forward to compare it to the Zeiss 35/1.4.

In my experience, whenever a live creature is included in the image, I need shutter speeds I can handle without IS. If I need IS, I either use the 16-35 f4L IS, since I rarely would be using it at a wider aperture than f4 or I'll use a tripod. I am one of those who find carrying a tripod unproblematic (my smallest Gitzo weighs just over one kilo and packs very compact).

 

[jd7]

The 35 f2 IS is a sharp lens. I actually like the IS in this focal length for landscape shots that include moving water. IS helps get controlled motion blur with slow shutter speeds. For people shots with kids, it's also fun to have one stand still while others move behind them at 1/15 sec. The blurred movement makes for a fun photo. The 1.4 allows twice the light and smaller DOF. In a 35mm, this is less of a concern for me. I should note that the new 35 is a bright lens, at least 1/3 stop brighter than the old one.

I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the 50's. I suspect the 50 1.2L will be replaced with a sharper model without IS and the 50 1.4 will be replaced with a USM version with IS. If these options are made available, it would be a tough choice. I think that I would be more tempted to consider the 1.2 as my "low light" lens and for the opportunities that this particularly small DOF offers in creative shots. For me, the benefits of small DOF are better utilized in the 50-100mm range for this range offers more flattering people shots than wide angle lenses do.

That assessment makes a lot of sense to me!

I would have thought anyone who chose the 35/2 IS over the Sigma 35 1.4 Art would similarly choose the 35/2 IS over the 35/1.4 L II. The only exception to that I can think of would is if someone would have bought the Sigma but for concerns about the AF. Otherwise, noting the Sigma is not much more expensive than the 35/2 IS, I would have thought anyone interested in the 35/1.4 L II for 1.4 and/or "ultimate" IQ would be a Sigma owner rather than a 35/2 IS owner (although that said, I suppose some might argue the 35/2 IS has "better" bokeh than the Sigma).

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Well I think Sanj is right, that is why I bought the f2 IS and I am getting along with it great, and I can honestly say I am not that fussed about the money, though I am no wealthy enthusiast if the L were the right tool I'd pay the money.

Besides you don't buy an f1.4 to use on a tripod! The f2.0 IS is giving me realistic dof control and very long shutter speeds, it is light and small to boot and, I think, with the vignetting, has a lot of character. I am very happy with the f2 IS and find it the perfect 'have on the camera' lens, indeed it is on it now.........

+1 for the 35mm f2 IS

 

[Ruined]

What I would buy in about three seconds flat is if they released an EF 85mm f/1.2L III (or EF 85mm F/1.4L) that got rid of some of the bad qualities of the lens (slow focus, focus by wire, extending front element on focus, unprotected rear element, no weather sealing) while retaining most of the good stuff (fantastic IQ).

I'd even get excited over an 85mm f/1.8 IS if it were based on a design similar to the 35mm f/2 IS.

I am finding it hard to justify the 35mm f/1.4L II though, this is really an indoor event photographers lens, for those who like to use two primes. In those type of situations I use the 50mm f/1.2L more frequently though because it requires less camera swapping. And the 35mm f/2 IS, just is so good and is pretty much an unbeatable walkaround lens for various reasons.

 

[Viggo]

I should note that the new 35 is a bright lens, at least 1/3 stop brighter than the old one.

Where did you find this piece of information?

 

[FTb-n]

I should note that the new 35 is a bright lens, at least 1/3 stop brighter than the old one.

Where did you find this piece of information?

I based this on personal experience, but I over-estimated the difference between the old an the new 35 f2 lenses.

Both the 35 f2 IS and the 24-70 f2.8 II had impressed me as particularly bright compared to the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I often shoot with two 5D3's, with the 70-200 on one and a short zoom or the 35 on the other. When making my edits in Lightroom, I found that I was often decreasing the exposure factor more on images from the the 24-70 and the 35 IS than those from the 70-200.

When I first got my 35 IS, I did comparison shots against the old 35 and remembered that images with the new one were brighter and sharper.

I just did a quick test against an off-white wall with both 35's and both short zooms set at 35 mm. Exposure was set to ISO 6400, 1/200, and f4. Then I adjusted the exposure in Lightroom to get a similar look and similar histograms -- without knowing which lens was used. I found that the 24-70 and the 35 IS were very similar. No exposure adjustment needed and histograms were nearly identical. The old 35 was about 0.15 stop darker and the 24-105 about 0.40 stop darker. Curiously, the shape of the histograms for the 24-105 and the old 35 were very similar with a narrow spike. The shape of the histograms for the 24-70 and 35 IS were also similar with a "fatter", more uniform bar.

While I was at it, I also compared the zooms at 70 mm with the same exposure. Using the 24-70 as the baseline, the 24-105 was again, 0.40 stop darker and the 70-200 about 0.25 stop darker. The shape of histogram of the 70-200 was also similar to that of the 24-70.

 

[privatebydesign]

The shape of the histogram, when shooting a universally illuminated wall, is reflecting vignetting, the narrower the bulge the less vignetting, the wider the bulge the worse the vignetting.

 

[jd7]

I should note that the new 35 is a bright lens, at least 1/3 stop brighter than the old one.

Where did you find this piece of information?

I based this on personal experience, but I over-estimated the difference between the old an the new 35 f2 lenses.

Both the 35 f2 IS and the 24-70 f2.8 II had impressed me as particularly bright compared to the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 II. I often shoot with two 5D3's, with the 70-200 on one and a short zoom or the 35 on the other. When making my edits in Lightroom, I found that I was often decreasing the exposure factor more on images from the the 24-70 and the 35 IS than those from the 70-200.

When I first got my 35 IS, I did comparison shots against the old 35 and remembered that images with the new one were brighter and sharper.

I just did a quick test against an off-white wall with both 35's and both short zooms set at 35 mm. Exposure was set to ISO 6400, 1/200, and f4. Then I adjusted the exposure in Lightroom to get a similar look and similar histograms -- without knowing which lens was used. I found that the 24-70 and the 35 IS were very similar. No exposure adjustment needed and histograms were nearly identical. The old 35 was about 0.15 stop darker and the 24-105 about 0.40 stop darker. Curiously, the shape of the histograms for the 24-105 and the old 35 were very similar with a narrow spike. The shape of the histograms for the 24-70 and 35 IS were also similar with a "fatter", more uniform bar.

While I was at it, I also compared the zooms at 70 mm with the same exposure. Using the 24-70 as the baseline, the 24-105 was again, 0.40 stop darker and the 70-200 about 0.25 stop darker. The shape of histogram of the 70-200 was also similar to that of the 24-70.

For what it may be worth, DXO says:

35/2 IS has a T stop of 2 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-6D__836)
35/2 has a T stop of 2.2 (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F2-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III__436)
That suggests the 35/2 IS is about 0.25 of a stop "brighter" than the old 35/2 (despite the physical aperture diameter being the same, presumably), which isn't too far off what FTb-n is reporting.


Canon 24-104/4L IS has a T stop of 5.1.
Canon 24-70/2.8L II has a T stop of 3.
Canon 24-70/4L IS has a T stop of 4.
Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II has a T stop of 3.4.

(Actually, DXO's T stop measurements can vary a little between camera bodies(?), but the numbers above should be indicative.)

 

[aj1575]

Different lenses for different needs. IS definitly is nice to have in many situations. But the shorter the lens gets, the less sense it makes. First, with a 35mm handheld, you can go down to 1/30. This is already a setting, where motion of the subject causes problems. So IS does not make sense in a 35mm if you shoot anything that moves. IS is said to improve shooting up to 4 stops. 4 stops in a 35mm would mean a shutterspeed of 1/2 seconds, which is rather long. This is also something I expirienced in Standard-zoom lenses at the wide end. There is a point where IS does not help much anymore, because the camera moves just too much in such a long time.
Again, it all depends on your shooting style, and your budget. The good thing is, we have options: Canon 35mm f1.4 II, Canon 35mm f2 IS, Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, Canon 35mm f1.4 I. Those are all very nice lenses, you just Need to pick the one that suits you and your Budget the best.