Please help me love ef 35mm f2 IS vs 40mm pancake

[eninja]

I recently got a 10 month old 35mm f2 IS. On top of my two month old 40mm pancake.

I love the pictures coming out from pancake when it came, so sharp, so cute, so light, no distortion, i can make head shots with no enlarge parts.
6D and 40mm combination as light as like i was holding my nexus 7.

Recently, I invested on 35mm f2 IS.
I could not love the pictures at f2, portrait subject is not sharp, and its just giving me a headache looking at it.
at f2.8 picture almost identical on both lens.
I shoot 1/60 and faster so i eliminate the love for IS.

Field of view wise, with 40mm i can take one step backward and field of view is the same.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. And need more time to play with 35mm. Or I could rent a 35L and see how it fairs.

again f2 is not a keeper at all. or my copy is not sharp as per normal.

 

[Loswr]

Did you do an AF microadjustment on the 35/2 IS?

 

[DRR]

Based purely on the reputation of the 35mm f/2 IS, I would say you either need to do a microadjustment, or you bought a bad copy of the lens.

 

[eninja]

Did you do an AF microadjustment on the 35/2 IS?

Hi Neuro, yes I did.
I will try compare AF and Liveview tonight. I will post images if necessary.

I AF microadjust, twice on two different days and result settings was different.
For my target I use white paper and paste it on a black paper - made sure corner of white paper is on the center of center AF point.

Subject distance is about 2 meters. (I forgot the rule on distance)

any comment on my set up?

thanks.

 

[Loswr]

I'd print out a 'starburst' target, they work better than lines. Distance is fine (usually 25-50x focal length).

 

[Jamesy]

Interested to hear the outcome of this - I have the 40 pancake and am considering adding the 35 F2 IS to the collection.

If you aren't using FoCal or the like, you could try the Dot-Tune method to validate your AFMA numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zE50jCUPhM

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi,
I think you got a lemon. I was very pleased with my 40mm until I got my 35 f2 is, which is extremely sharp from f2 and at f2.8 was sharp border to border.
This is my most used lens for street photography specially at night time

 

[josephandrews222]

I am in exactly the same boat...well, sort of. Traveling to FL/Disney/beach in a couple of weeks, and would just love to provide family with pix from inside some of the Disney rides/exhibits/etc. I do not yet own the 35mm 2.0IS and am considering it (instead of the 40mm pancake, which works quite well on the 5DMkIII but I haven't really tested it indoors at Disney when mated to the 5DMkIII). Just how much better would the 35mm 2.0 IS be for this sort of thing? Not live-action sports, but kids are involved, and some movement on rides etc.

I've had some luck with the EOS M/22mm 2.0 as well as the 11-22 something-or-other for outdoor walkaround at Disney and the beaches...and in past years I've used a 40D/17-55 2.8IS for indoor (and outdoor) shots. Recall that the 40D only goes to ISO 3200. Now that I have full-frame capabilities, I'm looking to better my chances.

I get the sense that, for a non-L lens, that the 35mm 2.0IS is a nice one for this sort of thing...

Help/advice is welcome.

 

[wopbv4]

Hi,
I think you got a lemon. I was very pleased with my 40mm until I got my 35 f2 is, which is extremely sharp from f2 and at f2.8 was sharp border to border.
This is my most used lens for street photography specially at night time

+1

I have both lenses and I like them both. If I would have to make a choice , purely on sharpness, then I would take the 35

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

+1 from me , the 35mm F2 IS s my sharpest lens and walks all over my L lenses including my previous 50mm 1.2L and the 24-105 and 70-200 Ls , sharp centre from F2 and perfect by F4 all over, if you can you should change it , obviously i am presuming that you are keeping shutter speeds over 1/50 when handheld. Micro adjusting in my own experience just leads you round in ever decreasing circles and drives you mad - if its new then get it changed.

Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York

 

[jd7]

I have both the 35 IS and the 40, and I have to say the 35 IS has grown on me the more I've used it.

This was my thinking a while ago (from a post of mine earlier in the year - sorry it's a bit of a long ramble, but saved me some typing now ):
- my feeling is the 35IS is a little sharper, but there's not a whole lot in it
- my feeling is the 35IS has slightly better colour and contrast, but there's not a lot in it
- my thinking is the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
- the 35IS has noticeably faster and quieter AF - but that's not to say the pancake is bad in those respects, so query how much difference this is likely to make in practice (no doubt it depends in large part on what you're shooting)
- the 35IS feels more substantial and hence makes you think it may have better build quality - but I have no idea whether, in reality, the 35IS is likely to be any more durable. (In this case I strongly suspect it is likely to be more durable than the pancake, but all the same I get sick of reading lens reviews which seem to equate weight with build quality, and conclude anything light weight is lesser quality. Isn't that like saying something made of steel is always a higher build quality than something made of titanium or carbon fibre?)
- of course, the 35IS has a one stop aperture advantage (which you'd rather have than not), and IS (worth at least another 3 stops - which allows you the choice of longer shutter times or lower ISO)
- the 35IS has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)
- the extra 5 mm of width (in the focal length) is noticeable on the 35IS but again, it's not very different - and to the extent there is a difference, each has its pros and cons
- much better focus ring

Weighed against that, the 35IS is around 3x more expensive than the pancake, substantially larger and over 2.5x heavier (even if it still ranks as a relatively small and light lens in the bigger scheme of things).

For all that though, the more I've used the 35IS the more I like it over the 40mm. I like the slightly wider FOV, the slicker AF, the IS for low light, f/2 for low light and blurring backgrounds (well, it's a 35mm lens so I don't expect miracles ), the manual focus ring, .... In the end all the little things add up. I think the 40mm is a great little lens and I can understand why you're happy with it - and it's very hard to go past for the money - but if I could only keep one I'd keep the 35IS. It's just a bit more versatile.

By the way, my 35IS is pretty sharp even at f/2. If yours isn't, I'd say you either need AFMA or there's something wrong with it.

 

[Random Orbits]

I am in exactly the same boat...well, sort of. Traveling to FL/Disney/beach in a couple of weeks, and would just love to provide family with pix from inside some of the Disney rides/exhibits/etc. I do not yet own the 35mm 2.0IS and am considering it (instead of the 40mm pancake, which works quite well on the 5DMkIII but I haven't really tested it indoors at Disney when mated to the 5DMkIII). Just how much better would the 35mm 2.0 IS be for this sort of thing? Not live-action sports, but kids are involved, and some movement on rides etc.

I've had some luck with the EOS M/22mm 2.0 as well as the 11-22 something-or-other for outdoor walkaround at Disney and the beaches...and in past years I've used a 40D/17-55 2.8IS for indoor (and outdoor) shots. Recall that the 40D only goes to ISO 3200. Now that I have full-frame capabilities, I'm looking to better my chances.

I get the sense that, for a non-L lens, that the 35mm 2.0IS is a nice one for this sort of thing...

Help/advice is welcome.

What other lenses do you have and what is your budget? I find that the 35 f/2 IS and the 40 are too close (in focal length range, maximum aperture) to bring together on the same trip. If you don't have anything wider than the 40 that you can use on FF, I'd suggest looking into the the 24 f/2.8 IS or 28 f/2.8 IS. If you're planning to have people in the shot, the 28 may be easier to use but would still give you a wider angle of view than the 40.

 

[Random Orbits]

I recently got a 10 month old 35mm f2 IS. On top of my two month old 40mm pancake.

I love the pictures coming out from pancake when it came, so sharp, so cute, so light, no distortion, i can make head shots with no enlarge parts.
6D and 40mm combination as light as like i was holding my nexus 7.

Recently, I invested on 35mm f2 IS.
I could not love the pictures at f2, portrait subject is not sharp, and its just giving me a headache looking at it.
at f2.8 picture almost identical on both lens.
I shoot 1/60 and faster so i eliminate the love for IS.

Field of view wise, with 40mm i can take one step backward and field of view is the same.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. And need more time to play with 35mm. Or I could rent a 35L and see how it fairs.

again f2 is not a keeper at all. or my copy is not sharp as per normal.

Agree with others to take another look at AFMA. It is unusual to have poor focus at f/2 and good focus at f/2.8 if the AFMA is set correctly. I once had a lens that had poor focus and had to be sent in to Canon to be recalibrated/focus adjusted but that lens gave soft pictures even at f/5.6. When you recheck the AFMA, check to see that lens elements don't show major signs of decentering (uneven blur from corner to corner). Also see if shots taken at f/2 with live view can satisfy your requirements for this lens.

The fact that both the 40 and 35 appear similarly sharp at f/2.8 and smaller is a credit to the value/performance of the 40. The 35 may be better at f/2.8 but it won't matter or be noticeable in many situtations.

The 35 does have a bit more distortion than the 40, but it is more likely that the increased distortion that you see with the 35 is a function of the closer distance between you and the subject to achieve similar framing. That one step difference can make a big difference in perspective when the subject is close...

 

[eninja]

Thanks guys.

I knew it there must be something behind the big glass.

The culprit, I was doing AFMA wrong. My target was wrong and I read somewhere that subject must be far enough.
So I download starburst chart and follow Neuro's post back in 2011.
See final AF results below (I resize the chart to fit A4, which was wrong cos AF box does not detect center starburst) - good enough

Now its time to compose some shots.

. AF Test
. 35mm f2 IS crop
. 40mm crop

 

[dgatwood]

At least on my 6D, I've always found the 40mm to be amazingly sharp from corner to corner. Judging from TDP's sample crops, the 35mm f/2 IS doesn't look to be significantly sharper. They look to be very comparable in IQ from about f/2.8 up.

So I don't think you got a dud. The 40 is just an absolutely amazing lens for the price.

As far as I can tell, the big advantages of the 35mm are the image stabilization, less CA at smaller apertures (at least judging by the sample crops), ring USM, and the ability to focus while the camera/lens is asleep.

And, of course, the fact that it goes to f/2, but that goes without saying.