Canon EF 35mm f/2 [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

embdude

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:18

I have had this lens for 3 months now. It performs well and focuses very close in so you can use it for small objects or bugs and such if a macro lens is not handy. It is a very light and short lens (maybe canon's smallest) and will easily fit in a jacket pocket. The f/2 is nice for portraits and such and blurs the background nicely. I also like the focal legnth better than the 50mm on the smaller digital sensor.

I used it today to shoot these:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=139661

I will try to find something better to post later...

The only down sides to this lens is the lack of a quiet USM motor and you can't focus manualy when the lens is switched to autofocus. On the plus side the focus moves the front element in and out and does not spin the front element like some cheaper canon lenses like the 18-55 kit lens.

I dont think the L lens blows it away as far as image quality is concerned, it is twice as fast though at f/1.4 and is built hardier. The L is also annoyingly large. I can not forsee ever looking to get the L myself.

LightRules

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:22

The worst thing about the 35 f2 is the AF noise (aka, "wasp in a matchbox"). But AF speed is pretty fast and optics are very good above f2.8 (while f2 is quite useable). Size and weight is excellent (actually second to none really), and price is relatively low. Another great aspect of the 35 f2 is the close MFD. That said, I almost never use the lens because it can't compete with my Sigma 30 f1.4 EX.

bolantej

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:32

Thanks embdude. I like the smaller lenses for toting the beast around, too. nice shots, I'd love to see somemore before tomorow ;) that is, if the shop has one in stock.

fStopJojo-
That Sigma is tempting, but I'm working on a budget right now, so the cheaper the better, as long as the optics are decent. doing a paid gig next month in a gym so I've gotta get something for some fast wider shots. I know, the 1.4 would definitely help, but the pocket is hurting a bit after my recent purchases. does that mean you're selling your 35/2? I forget where you're located. ;)

Thanks all for the comments.

LightRules

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:38

does that mean you're selling your 35/2? I forget where you're located. ;)

i doubt i'll ever sell it really. it's such a good, small, lightweight lens that has its use for me here and there. but i do recommend it as it gives a nice walkaround 56mm FOV on your crop body for a very reasonable price. enjoy.

aparmley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:39

Its a fun little lens. I haven't used it too terribly much but Its a great focal lenght on a 1.6. Sharpness, AF speed, and more importantly AF accuracy blows my 50 1.8 out of the water - the "nifty" is a joke compared to it. But as jojo pointed out the focus motor is something you'd never heard before - he described it pretty close there.

Some samples for you:
F3.2
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45573986-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45663071-L.jpg

F8 and some edits obviously
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45662306-M.jpg

Wide open F2 [ I think thats what they call "usable" ]
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45662302-L.jpg

F4
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45575203-L.jpg

Heres a taste of the close focus distance I love this perk!
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/45577784-L.jpg

heres a little look at the bokeh and highlight performance - the bokeh isn't as dreamy as some but its not bad for the $$s.
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/46098958-L.jpg

This is getting long - sorry about that - but I figure its all good. . .

comparison of focus tests between it and the 50 1.8 - please pardon the lack of custom WB here.
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/54085235-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/54085229-L.jpg

Please note this isn't the 50s best performance on the focus test - if I triple focus the results are better however, they are still soft and no where near the 35s sharpness - The point is to show what, under normal shooting conditions what I get when I simply focus and fire - its great when you have the time to lock focus a few times until you "Think" the lens finally has it right - but its a PITA!

but if you really want to see the best results I can get with the 50 focusing it a bunch of times, taking about 10 photos, and then going with the pick of the litter - well here ya are. . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57464126-L.jpg

by my eyes, the 35 is still better - first time around too - thats whats nice.

This is kinda long but I hope you like the sample images - I hope they help at least. . . My conclusion is that its a fun lens. . . if you got the money for it and you aren't deciding between this and a real nice lens I think it would be a nice addition. Opinions vary though - I can just give ya mine.

good luck to ya.
Andy

aparmley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:47

Looks like mine and Redbirds lenses are pretty "usable" wide open. Good example Red.

aparmley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 01:59

Hey Aparmley, I just realize that I have the exact same primes as your lineup. Regarding the "usability" of the 35mm F/2, I like mine very much for portrait and landscape shots. Thanks and happy shooting!

haha no kidding. . . Its been an interesting journey thus far. Thanks u 2 bud.

bolantej

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 02:32

Very nice shots from all of you!thanks so much. as logn as there is oen in the shop I may just have to pick it up (unless it's waaaaaaaay overpriced). I can deal with noise in exchange for prime goodness.

embdude

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 03:27

Here is a portrait of my daughter Sabrina with the 35 f/2

Also a link to a landscape taken with the 35mm, I posted last month...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128746

Wavy C

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 06:22

The 35L blows it away, but that's what so much money buys you :D

I don't think the 35L 'blows the f2 away' at all - the f2 lacks the silent usm focusing motor, but focus is still fast and extremely accurate. Optically I doubt if there is much between them. Certainly the f1.4 is nice, but the f2 is no slouch either.

It's light weight makes the 35mm f2 my favourite walkaround lens - you hardly know it is on the camera.

Sean-Mcr

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 09:03

I'm not going to get in to a debate about the two versions, alls i can say is that no matter the version, a 35 is a great lens to own

I have to say, my 35 1.4 is sharper then my 50 1.4 and my 50 is sharp. But of course there's more to a lens then that

Wavy C

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 10:59

I'm not going to get in to a debate about the two versions, alls i can say is that no matter the version, a 35 is a great lens to own

lol - wise decision on the debate, and I agree wholeheartedly that a 35mm is a great lens to own. If I could only have one lens I think it would be a 35mm!

Anyway, I've used both versions and, imho, the L version is probably optically slightly better in most if not all respects. Not a mile better, slightly better. In many cases it would be difficult to distinguish between them.

Mechanically, the L is definitely better - its usm motor offers silent (although not much faster) focusing, while the f2 makes a distinct rasp sound. Both seem very accurate. The f2 build quality, while not up to L quality, is still very good. It certainly does not feel a cheap lens, like, for example, the 50mm f1.8.

But, in my mind at least, the 35 f2 is the ultimate walkaround lens because of its small size and weight. If you carry your camera around your neck or over your shoulder it balances perfectly (at least on my 20D). The f2 is also nearly perfect for candid shots because out on the street it doesn't look a professional lens (the f1.4 looks more like a small zoom). The small size and weight also makes it easy to shoot one-handed if necessary, holding the camera by its handgrip. If you combine it with an 85mm f1.8, I'd say you are ready to tackle nearly any everyday situation (oh, and as an added bonus they both can use the same hood on a 1.6 crop body).

I much prefer this lens (or the f1.4 for that matter) to either of the 50mm lenses.

Highly recommended (and good value too)!

jjonsalt

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 11:22

might ask to see the 35 f/2. opinions before I buy?

I would think, considering what you now have, it would be a welcomed addition to your gear. That being said, since you have a 50mm and 'normal' with a 1.6 crop factor being 29mm, perhaps you should also look at the 28mm f/1.8 which, by the way, has USM. 28ish seems to me about right for full length portraits. I'm not much interested in third party lenses myself, but for those that are Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4. I have no idea how good/bad it is.

jjonsalt

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 11:24

If I could only have one lens I think it would be a 35mm!

If we are talking only primes then I agree (for my 20D, that is).

In2Photos

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 11:33

I would think, considering what you now have, it would be a welcomed addition to your gear. That being said, since you have a 50mm and 'normal' with a 1.6 crop factor being 29mm, perhaps you should also look at the 28mm f/1.8 which, by the way, has USM. 28ish seems to me about right for full length portraits. I'm not much interested in third party lenses myself, but for those that are Sigma has a 30mm f/1.4. I have no idea how good/bad it is.

Good suggestion but the EF 28 1.8 is the same price as the Sigma 30 and bolantej said that price was a concern. The 35 f/2 is almost half the price of both these lenses.

jjonsalt

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 12:11

Good suggestion but the EF 28 1.8 is the same price as the Sigma 30 and bolantej said that price was a concern. The 35 f/2 is almost half the price of both these lenses.

point noted

jojohohanon

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 13:20

I had one and returned it. I overpaid for it ($270), and felt that it should have handled alot better for that price. Like fStop said, very buzzy, plasticy.

Had it been priced like the 50mm/1.8, it would have been a clear keeper, but the sigma 30mm is only a little bit more and gives you a full stop advantage.

Of course, now I have neither, so there you go.

In2Photos

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 13:23

Gary W. Graley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 14:41

This was shot with a 35 f2, should have hung onto that lens, a bit noisy but sharp!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/GaryWGraley/EOS%2020D/castle3.jpg

G2

embdude

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 14:43

The Minolta near the bottom of the page was taken with the 35mm f/2
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89381&page=3

I have to say the more I use this little lens the more I like it!

As for the focusing noise, I don't understand the fuss. It makes the standard AF noise, period! All autofocus lenses used to make this noise, many cameras/lenses still do. The invention of USM motors (basically rubberbands instead of metal gears) has made focusing quiet. Apparently people have forgotten the good old days!

The EF 35mm f/2 was one of Canon's original EF lenses. Designed before USM or even "L"* Lenses. One reason it has not been updated is to keep the price down.

(* FD mount "L" lenses existed at the launch of the EOS system back in 1987 but took till late 1988 to appear in EF mount)

Gary W. Graley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 15:20

Chris, I agree, that noise really wasn't that bad at all, to me, only reason I
moved it was I was in the midst of getting a 16-35L, sold that as well as my
35-135 zoom, both were good lenses, the 16-35 that came didn't focus properly
nor did the second :( so I ended up getting a 17-40L and the 200L now those
worked GREAT! :)
Wished I'd have kept that 35, but I'm getting the Sigma 30mm f1.4, a little wider
and a bit faster, more money too but it's 1.4...so
G2

jerrypeisen

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 15:57

Here is some samples shot this morning at a local car delaer while my car was in for service. Lighting was terrible in the showroom, nothing I could do about it. Was processed in BB and only PP was in a trial copy of iCorrect Editlab Pro 5.0

http://www.pbase.com/image/56472867
http://www.pbase.com/image/56472866

Sean-Mcr

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 16:32

lol - wise decision on the debate, and I agree wholeheartedly that a 35mm is a great lens to own. If I could only have one lens I think it would be a 35mm!

Anyway, I've used both versions and, imho, the L version is probably optically slightly better in most if not all respects. Not a mile better, slightly better. In many cases it would be difficult to distinguish between them.

Mechanically, the L is definitely better - its usm motor offers silent (although not much faster) focusing, while the f2 makes a distinct rasp sound. Both seem very accurate. The f2 build quality, while not up to L quality, is still very good. It certainly does not feel a cheap lens, like, for example, the 50mm f1.8.

But, in my mind at least, the 35 f2 is the ultimate walkaround lens because of its small size and weight. If you carry your camera around your neck or over your shoulder it balances perfectly (at least on my 20D). The f2 is also nearly perfect for candid shots because out on the street it doesn't look a professional lens (the f1.4 looks more like a small zoom). The small size and weight also makes it easy to shoot one-handed if necessary, holding the camera by its handgrip. If you combine it with an 85mm f1.8, I'd say you are ready to tackle nearly any everyday situation (oh, and as an added bonus they both can use the same hood on a 1.6 crop body).

I much prefer this lens (or the f1.4 for that matter) to either of the 50mm lenses.

Highly recommended (and good value too)!

I shoot candids/street shots with my 35 more then any other lens now. I happily carry around two bodies and 4 primes all day in and around town, even when i'm in bars way past midnight. So the weight between the two lenses is a none issue for me when i'm willing to carry that around. I don't hide when it take candids, im normally part of the scene i'm shooting. As you know if you use your 35 for candids ect, it's a waiting/timing game, not a hiding game. I also have the 85, and i've got some good candids with it, but i do prefer shorter focal lengths now.

embdude

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 17:42

This was shot with a 35 f2, should have hung onto that lens, a bit noisy but sharp!
G2

Fantastic shot Gary:D

Gary W. Graley

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 17:52

Thanks Chris! very sharp image there, printed it out on some 11x17 paper and amazing detail.
G2

bolantej

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 20:37

Well, folks, I got it. It sure is a buzzing son-of-a-gun. Kinda scared me when I hit the * button for the first time. Almost dropped the camera ;) It seems to be pretty fast, though. As long as it's not hunting around, it really isn't noticable. I'll try to post some shots up tonight.
Just wondering though, does the focus switch when set to auto disconnect the ring from the focusing mechanism or something? that thing spins so freely when in AF, and I have to spin it a few mm once I switch it to manual in order to get it going again. I noticed the same thing for the display model at the store. I mean, both move if I breath on them too hard in AF mode. I was worried about wreckign the AF mechanism, but it does not seem as though it will do this. Opinions from owners on this?

Thanks to all who posted.

embdude

24th of February 2006 (Fri), 23:44

The focus ring moves freely in AF, the switch is a clutch.

Congratulations!

mebailey

25th of February 2006 (Sat), 00:26

Lets see some pics!! Congrats!!

tessina

25th of February 2006 (Sat), 00:27

yep would appreciate some pics,prefebably indoor portraits:)

bolantej

25th of February 2006 (Sat), 11:45

Thanks eveyrone. It seems to be a pretty sharp copy, as far as I can tell. No real portraits as of yet, but I'm gonna try to get some done this weekend.

His name is Scratch- a friend's doggie. Sorry it's so big.

100% crop no pp
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/bolantej/Scratch100.jpg
Full shot, no pp resized for web only. Sorry, earlier I resized it in photobucket and it was only like a 1/4 inch diagonal. Here's the real shot, cropped and resized for web.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/bolantej/Scratch2.jpg

Sean-Mcr

25th of February 2006 (Sat), 17:23

mebailey

26th of February 2006 (Sun), 00:01

That looks good for a 100% crop with no PP. I look forward to seeing the rest of your pics with the new lens.

bolantej

26th of February 2006 (Sun), 02:21

I'm sorry, been out on the town, but such shots say zero about a lens to me. 100 crops etc

Dogs eye? I don't believe for one second you give a rats arse about a dogs eye, where's the Challenge in that? What am i meant to say to a shot like that? that is quite litteraly a shot of a dogs eye, erm money well spent.

What reassurance do you want or need?. Honestly now no offence to you, but you could have took that shot with any lens you owned

We all have to get away from this, is my purchase a good one. have i made the right choice ect.

Enjoy your lens, learn how to use it, and don't seek reassurance from anybody.

I've just gotten back from a night on the town as well, so here it goes:

If you looked at the first post close enough you would have noticed that (due to my error) the whole shot was there (not just the eye), but it's size was reduced to almost a 1/4 inch viewable, so it was unnoticed. My screw up, I fixed it. Big deal. Sorry to be so misleading to those who don't look at the whole post.

While you're entitled to your opinion, I think what you said and the way you said it is just plain rude, whether or not that was your intention.

1) I do care about the dog's eye. I liked the fact that I could see the reflection so clearly (at least to my standards). You are not meant to say anything if you don't want to. No one is forcing you. I do not care what anyone thinks of what I do, but I know that there are knowledgable people here that can tell me if they notice anything out of the ordinary, and I (as do many others) rely on everyone here to be honest and alert me of anything that I should know of so I do not waste my hard earned money on things that don't perform. I come to this forum for reassurance. To me, that's what it's for. So what if you don't like it. Yeah, my 50 1.8 could have produced the same shot, but who cares? I was posting a picture that I created while using the 35.

2) I enjoy reading/sharing about people's purchases, and I am glad that there is somewhere we can go to ask these things. People asked for pictures. I posted them. I don't see anything wrong with people asking for guidance. Not everyone here is expert on all things lenses.

3) I am and will continue to seek reassurance if and when I see fit. Just don't read my posts if you think they are silly.

4) Here's another shot for those who care:
Exposure time: 0.020 s (1/50)
Aperture: f/2.0
ISO equiv.: 1600
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/bolantej/IMG_3440.jpg

bolantej

26th of February 2006 (Sun), 02:30

Oh yeah, thanks everyone for the comments.:D

brupaint

29th of November 2006 (Wed), 05:36

Oh yeah, thanks everyone for the comments.:D

I have been following along. Before I hit the "BUY" button at B&H...
let us recap.
The 35 f2mm is great , for a prime/only walk about,similar to 50mm in 35mm feel...,

The 28mm is great too and has USM ...
I'm leaning to the 28mm for the 50ish feel. I do have other lens ( a macro and a zoom)
Good pick?

I Simonius

29th of November 2006 (Wed), 05:47

Okay, headed to the shop tomorrow, might ask to see the 35 f/2. opinions before I buy? shots even? thanks all.

Tried it before but went for the 1.4L

The f2 is very good at f5.6-f8 range sharpness wise but the colurs are a little cold for my liking, for its price though a good lens. Not so great wide open compared to the 1.4L but helluva site cheaper!;)

Pros: small, cheap, very good IQ at f5.6-f8
Cons: non-silent AF (noisy to some ears, including mine), cool colour rendition, just OK IQ at wider apertures

sirsloop

29th of November 2006 (Wed), 09:15

Ive been using my 35/2 for a few months now and really love the lens. Its cheap, its sharp, its perfect for 2-3 person portraits, and great as a walk around lens. There are no major issues with the lens as far as vingetting, CA, or distortions (unlike its brother the 28/2.8 and CA). If you have double the money, the Sigma 30/1.4 is a nice alternative. Better build, better IQ, better performer at f/2. I got mine for $165 so its gonna be damn near impossible to beat at that price point.

gardengirl13

30th of November 2006 (Thu), 13:13

Here are some of my 35 2.0 shots (I'm new to digital so they may not be all that great!)

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/3fae40f6e8b13623cc3b3100d1472aa9-.jpg

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/c3c0a88a34dece278024f4cfcf961cc0-.jpg

http://gardengirl13.zoto.com/img/45/6ab78c347a71cefca8f3953161fff95c-.jpg

gardengirl13

30th of November 2006 (Thu), 13:14

I LOVE this lens! I blew that rose up to 16x20 and it's awesome!!

Double Negative

30th of November 2006 (Thu), 13:49

I used the 35mm f/2 for five years straight as my primary lens. Sure it has its faults, but it takes great pictures. For the money, it's a great lens.

sirsloop

30th of November 2006 (Thu), 14:39

:)
The cats didnt seem to care too much about the AF motor... then again I dont think theey would care about ANYTHING other than a dog at that point :)

http://www.jdhaesloop.com/IMG_7082.JPG

gardengirl13

1st of December 2006 (Fri), 08:25

cute kitties! I find that dogs love the AF sound! They perk their ears up and look all cute for the photo!

Lightstream

1st of December 2006 (Fri), 08:41

cute kitties! I find that dogs love the AF sound! They perk their ears up and look all cute for the photo!

Yeah but I thought you were a manual focus user! See AF is not all that bad! :D :D :D (just pokin' fun.. ;) ) How is your digital adventure going?

Great second shot, I like the composition and the colors (including the transition of the colors from left to right as the image is viewed) of the fruit and veg on the plate.

gardengirl13

1st of December 2006 (Fri), 11:18

OMG I'm loving it so much!!! The 30D makes all the difference in AF speed and accuracy! I'm having so much fun I may sell one of the three FD lenses I said I'd never sell!

Double Negative

1st of December 2006 (Fri), 11:47

...I'm having so much fun I may sell one of the three FD lenses I said I'd never sell!

Such as? ;)

Lightstream

1st of December 2006 (Fri), 20:19

OMG I'm loving it so much!!! The 30D makes all the difference in AF speed and accuracy! I'm having so much fun I may sell one of the three FD lenses I said I'd never sell!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

It's a pity you have to let go of the old FD glass, but look forward.. :)

Glad you are enjoying your digital/AF experience though!!

Double Negative

2nd of December 2006 (Sat), 00:28

I'm still fondly attached to my FD collection. I've had the 50mm f/1.2L for years already. :p

sirsloop

2nd of December 2006 (Sat), 14:01

35/2 FTW!

http://www.jdhaesloop.com/IMG_7382.JPG

http://www.jdhaesloop.com/IMG_7381.JPG

http://www.jdhaesloop.com/IMG_7481.JPG

cactusclay

2nd of December 2006 (Sat), 15:36

Seems like a nice little lens. I haven't used it, but browsed through shots at pbase. Decently fast, tiny bit longer than normal on a crop body.

The 35L blows it away, but that's what so much money buys you :D

It's noisy, but it focusses fast.

Wide angles are harder to build, so don't expect something as sharp as the nifty... but stopped down to ~f/5.6 it should be tack sharp :)
I haven't used it, but the 35L blows it away? That sounds rather silly. I owned them both at the same time and decided that the 35/2 was an excellent lens, smaller, lighter. The bokeh is different, but I like it. I tested both lenses at F2 and found no difference in center sharpness, so I sold the 35L and have no regrets. Photodo rates them 3.9 and 4.0, for what that is worth.

gardengirl13

5th of December 2006 (Tue), 11:32

Yeah the thing that makes me mad is a year ago I could have sold them for twice what they're going off at now!! That's what I get for buying through B&H/KEH and paying through the nose for them to begin with!

dave_bass5

6th of December 2006 (Wed), 04:36

I just wanted to post one image i really like taken with my 35mm f/2.0 its been my most used lens throughout the summer when ive needed a small, light and fast lens.
It can keep up IQ wise with my 24-105L
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/112362850-L.jpg

Raymate

6th of December 2006 (Wed), 05:40

this lens looks very nice.... not thought about it before :)

sirsloop

6th of December 2006 (Wed), 12:18

You got it covered with the 17-40L though....or the 50/1.4 if you are looking for fast...

Double Negative

6th of December 2006 (Wed), 15:55

You got it covered with the 17-40L though....or the 50/1.4 if you are looking for fast...

But on the zoom it's a 35mm f/4.0 and the 50mm is, well, 50mm - not 35mm. ;)

sirsloop

6th of December 2006 (Wed), 16:14

true that... i really do enjoy super fast lenses :) When shooting with the 35/2... i'm usually using flash at f/5.6 anyways.

Larry Weinman

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 09:38

I am considering this lens and would like to see what it can do.

kidpower

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 09:59

Many photos are already around.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=1878859

PetKal

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 10:48

Double Negative

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 11:41

Love this lens. It's inexpensive but ridiculously sharp, small and lightweight. For the money hard to beat! The 35L version is all this an more, and improves on one particularly minor annoyance of the f/2 version - the old AFD AF. It's a little slow and buzzy but don't let that stop you from considering this lens! Well worth the money, IMO.

Larry Weinman

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 17:00

Thanks, I was hoping for a better response but I can see the lens has very good quality in the right hands

BrandonSi

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 17:22

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_35_2

dave_bass5

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 20:12

These are amongst my fav's with the 35mm f/2.0

http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/82210719-L.jpg
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/76414258-L.jpg

sirsloop

21st of December 2006 (Thu), 20:17

ahh... the 35/2! The least expensive and the BEST lens in my case!!!!!

a couple nice ones...

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/114266593-L-1.jpg

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/104593402-L.jpg

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/112810038-L.jpg

http://photos.tallmanphoto.com/photos/104609162-L.jpg

sirsloop

22nd of December 2006 (Fri), 09:16

no love for the 35/2?

JimAskew

22nd of December 2006 (Fri), 09:31

One of my best birding lenses. She is a "razor". In the right hands the wee one works magic.
Granted, diverse personal insecurities and lack of requisite photographic skills often compel people to go with bigger and much more expensive lenses, however, my results speak for themselves.:cool:

PetKal,

Wow! Outstanding...I see two scenarios:

a. You lay on the ground and the birds fly to you?
b. You have mastered the stelth low crawl and sneak up on the little buggers?

Again, outstanding shots!

sirsloop

22nd of December 2006 (Fri), 09:43

or he baits them with a loaf of wonder bread! HAHAH!

PetKal

22nd of December 2006 (Fri), 10:12

PetKal,

Wow! Outstanding...I see two scenarios:

a. You lay on the ground and the birds fly to you?
b. You have mastered the stelth low crawl and sneak up on the little buggers?

Again, outstanding shots!

:D Thanx Jimmy, for those kinda shots I have to go down on all four. Also, a few morsels of food attracts the birds to me.;)

TimothyHughes

22nd of January 2007 (Mon), 00:44

I picked up a 35mm f/2.0 from my friend for $185 who had a mint copy just sitting around the house :)

This shot is severely cropped because I was at the lens minimum focusing distance for this little guy.
http://weaztek.com/forums/Frog2.jpg

My first impressions of this lens are very positive. The audible noise doesn't bother me (heck I use a beep when I get a focus lock). There obviously is some softness and vignetting around the edges (full frame), but in many shots it's negligible and I'm so happy with the price I got it for that I'm willing to overlook that. Color saturation is slightly low so I tend to bump it up slightly in post and then it looks fantastic.

ray_lam5

16th of February 2007 (Fri), 10:27

Its a nice lens, compact, fairly sharp and decent above f2.8. My only gripes with it is the somewhat washed out contrast that i seem to get. Not as nice as the nifty or my 7-2/4L in terms of colour rendition, vibrancy and contrast. Still its pretty good for most things at an affordable price. It was surprisingly sharper than my sigma at 35mm which quite a result but miles behind my nikkor micro

The Imagician

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 08:59

Has anyone used this lens in bars and nightclubs w/o flash?

Double Negative

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 11:07

Has anyone used this lens in bars and nightclubs w/o flash?

I have - albeit on the ol' D30. I couldn't crank up the ISO like I can today with the 1D2N and remain nearly as noise-free. ISO 1600 will get you there in pretty dim lighting and assuming people aren't moving much. So it should perform well, but not great. The AF will likely hunt a little and f/2.0 isn't as bright as you'd like, ideally. That's where the 35mm f/1.4L really comes in handy.

If you use a flash, then you can shoot with anything.

dave_bass5

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 11:18

These were all taken with the 35mm f/2 although a lot of them weren't by me as im in the band so i had to give my camera to the sound guy.
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/gallery/2008202

Layston

27th of March 2007 (Tue), 13:24

Has anyone used this lens in bars and nightclubs w/o flash?

Have you considered the Sigma 30mm f1.4 for this job?

Dorman

23rd of April 2007 (Mon), 14:58

Been looking around at "normal" lenses for crop cameras, was originally looking at the 28mm F/1.8 but this lens seems to give IQ for the dollar a run for it's money. Just how noisey is it really?

93octane

23rd of April 2007 (Mon), 16:17

Been looking around at "normal" lenses for crop cameras, was originally looking at the 28mm F/1.8 but this lens seems to give IQ for the dollar a run for it's money. Just how noisey is it really?

Its a great lens and its not really that noisy...it makes noise compared to an USM lens but not as bad as they make it out to be.... one sample to through on the pot...

http://home.rgv.rr.com/gt281/35mm%20F2.jpg

Dorman

23rd of April 2007 (Mon), 21:27

My visa dislikes this thread & the images on pbase, just ordered the 35mm 10 minutes ago.

ayreonaut

27th of April 2007 (Fri), 15:45

I'm really keen on shooting family candids indoors without flash, so wide open performance is paramount to me. The first copy of the 35/2 I bought wasn't great. Focusing indoors at night was inconsistent. The focused shots were significantly softer than what I get from my Nifty. Based on the reviews of the 35/2, it seems that some copies are not as sharp as others. So I returned the first one and ordered another copy.

I picked up the second copy of the 35/2 yesterday. I took it home and tested center sharpness wide open. This second copy of the 35/2 is consistenly a bit sharper than my Nifty.

The telephoto hood (ET-65III) provides maximum shading, but does not cause vignetting on the XTi. I think it looks cool; the hood is longer than the lens!

gardengirl13

31st of May 2007 (Thu), 09:40

OK my old photo hosting site has decided to charge so my photos are gone. I only have couple images on this computer with this lens but here they are.

This one is a bad photo but shows how sharp the lens is (doesn't look as good resized for the web)

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/dyinglilacflower.jpg

None are great photos but can somewhat show what the lens can do. It's sharp and focuses nice and close.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/chives.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/beardediris2.jpg

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w287/gardengirl13/allium.jpg

marcusgarby

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 07:31

What was I thinking ordering a 35L and 35f2 and expecting the 35L to justify the extra expense it demands? Based on some of these shots, I don't think I will be taking the 35L.

Discovering I can use the same hood as on my 85 1.8 is a bonus! CP filters will cost me a hell of lot less. Care more about the pics than noise, and MF is always an option in quiet environments.

Well, time will tell as I have both on order, and will have the chance to compare them at f2 in low light before making a final decision.

Thanks to all for the pictures and comments so far on this thread.

Mark. :)

Jaetie

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 09:59

Discovering I can use the same hood as on my 85 1.8 is a bonus! CP filters will cost me a hell of lot less. Care more about the pics than noise, and MF is always an option in quiet environments.

no way. the 35/2 has a 52mm filter thread, and the 85/1.8 a 58mm filter thread. heck, even lenses with the same filter thread size may not be able to share hoods.

marcusgarby

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 12:34

Due to the click on nature of the ET-65 series hoods I think both the -II and -III hoods fit various lenses in common including (70-210mm F3.5-4.5, 85mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8 and 35mm F2) although this isn't explicitly stated by Canon.

But hey, you may be right as I don't have the 35 f2 in my possession yet. Can anyone clarify who has both lenses?

May the great pics from the 35 f2 keep coming.

Mark.

kitacanon

24th of June 2007 (Sun), 19:38

The full circle hood from my 85mm Nikkor fits the 35mm Canon (both with 52mm threads) with no vignetting on my 10D

marcusgarby

27th of June 2007 (Wed), 15:23

dave_bass5

27th of June 2007 (Wed), 15:28

I can now confirm the 85 1.8 hood ET-65-III also fits the 35 f2 - for those who might care about this sort of thing and might be considering the 35 f2.

Just received mine, will upload shots soon.

Mark.

Thanks for that
I have just ordered a 85mm f/1.8 and i already have the hood for my 35mm f/2. I did order a hood for the 85mm f/1.8 as well but are you saying i should be able to put the 35mm hood on it?
That would be great if i could as the hood wont be here for about a week and i need to use the lens this weekend and its arriving tomorrow

dave_bass5

28th of June 2007 (Thu), 08:34

Just a follow up to my last message.
I now have the 85 f/1.8 and although the 35mmf/22 hood does fit it wont mount on backwards so im glad i have got the ET65-III on order as well. I assume it will be a bit bigger than the EW65-II.

bluebomberx

14th of December 2007 (Fri), 10:10

Canon Elan 7e w/ EF 35mm f/2 - Fuji Velvia 50; 2002
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2223/2109489663_65716c998e.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/bluebomberx/2109489663/)

mrcoons

23rd of December 2007 (Sun), 06:46

My 35mm f/2 is on my Rebel XT most of the time.

Aperture f/2.8 - ISO 100 - Focal Length 35mm - Bounce flash used as the room was dark

http://MusicMan5.smugmug.com/photos/234856164-L.jpg

toneepham

29th of February 2008 (Fri), 15:39

Anymore pictures? :) I am thinking about picking one up soon!

Dannydoo

29th of February 2008 (Fri), 16:01

Very nice little lens.
It was on my camera 90% of the time.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2100027342_e69815ee5d.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2098860471_29faa5f377.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2155/2082000643_7fdc007087.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/1960530508_f839d9d586.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2381/1665333849_87887df6ee.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2250/1665331449_001af169f4.jpg

toneepham

29th of February 2008 (Fri), 16:03

^ very sharp photos Daniel. I think I will be getting a 35mm soon.

mrcoons

29th of February 2008 (Fri), 18:05

http://MusicMan5.smugmug.com/photos/258228537_sL5Zb-L.jpg

msowsun

25th of April 2008 (Fri), 12:27

f/7.1
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6355_640.jpg

100% Crop
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6355_crop.jpg

angryhampster

20th of May 2008 (Tue), 02:57

Messed around with one of these on a friend's 5d tonight. It seemed really nice -- super light and it's got an extremely close focusing distance. Pondering buying.

S-S

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 06:03

why is this only an F/2? its wider than the 80 and the 50...
(or is there a faster 35L that i dont know about?)

msowsun

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 07:53

The 35mm f/2 is a low cost lens like the 50mm 1.8 or 28mm 2.8
http://www.bruidsfotojournalist.nl/gear/Canon_EF_Fixed_Focal_Length_Lenses/Canon_EF_35mm_F2.jpg

There is a 35mm f/1.4L

It is a VERY nice lens. But it is 3 times heavier, twice as big, and cost about 5 times more...
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Pictured above from left to right are the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 Lens, Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens, Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM Lens, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM Lens and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens. http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Other/Canon-Lenses.jpg

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=277475

http://photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/336-canon-ef-35mm-f14-test-report--review

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_35_14/kit.jpg

shutterfiend

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 08:05

why is this only an F/2? its wider than the 80 and the 50...
(or is there a faster 35L that i dont know about?)

I don't get the joke. After 6000+ posts that just can't be a legit question, that's all I know.

jylitalo

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 08:10

why is this only an F/2? its wider than the 80 and the 50...
(or is there a faster 35L that i dont know about?)

As far as I've understood, 50mm lenses are easist to design and manufacture. When you go wider or longer from 50mm, things get more challenging. We should also keep in mind that 35mm f/2 is older design than 85mm f/1.8 lens with its USM, etc..

msowsun

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 08:13

I don't get the joke. After 6000+ posts that just can't be a legit question, that's all I know.

Good catch. I didn't even notice who posted the question. He probably has a 35L too. :)

shutterfiend

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 08:32

Now, that's funny.

S-S

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 17:19

oh, my mistake, i assumed this was the L version of the lens - i had searched the lens archives but missed the 35L thread. thanks to the poster who supplied the info i was looking for...

and thanks to the others for taking the opportunity to poke fun anyhow... ;)

Mediation

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 18:16

noob

S-S

23rd of May 2008 (Fri), 19:11

hahaha rofl...

j0k3r

25th of May 2008 (Sun), 17:01

May be it's a good decision to switch from 50mm f/1.8 to 35mm f/2 on a crop body? :rolleyes:

Mark-B

25th of May 2008 (Sun), 20:28

f/2.2, 1/50, ISO 100

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p247793747-4.jpg

f/2.2, 1/80, ISO 100

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p350804951-4.jpg

f/2, 1/100, ISO 100

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p880554626-4.jpg

geekaleek

25th of July 2008 (Fri), 06:49

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2700703122_df2591386e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3266/2700703034_24f5126605_o.jpg

hammer418

25th of July 2008 (Fri), 10:46

The 35mm f/2 is my favorite wallk-a-bout. It's very versatile, lighweight, and unobtrusive.

291533

ALaS

24th of August 2008 (Sun), 19:34

More pics guys!

geekaleek

25th of August 2008 (Mon), 03:55

1.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2727217982_be7d9c6b12.jpg

2. 1600 iso, so its grainy
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2728872840_33d1ab9855.jpg

ALaS

25th of August 2008 (Mon), 04:28

Adorable pics!

msowsun

14th of September 2008 (Sun), 23:33

A few more.....

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6031.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6044.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6048.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6056a.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6918.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/photo%20stuff/IMG_6968.jpg

ALaS

15th of September 2008 (Mon), 01:19

WOW! That is sharp.

ahmeng

16th of September 2008 (Tue), 13:04

i oredi book this lense : )
need more sharing ~

tcphoto1

16th of September 2008 (Tue), 15:26

I stitched two images together that were shot from the top of my building.

j0sh_dc5

17th of October 2008 (Fri), 15:43

should i pick this lens up for $150? a local has one comes with box and everything...

geekaleek

17th of October 2008 (Fri), 16:18

thats a good price.
i got mine here used for $185 i think.

amriddell

19th of October 2008 (Sun), 17:44

Here's one shot wide open with some pp. Enjoy.

http://adamriddellphotography.smugmug.com/photos/397682788_ZkUUc-L-1.jpg

Layston

19th of October 2008 (Sun), 18:52

I'm assuming the PP you are talking about did some softening of the corners... it seems very odd for the edges and corners to be so soft compared to the rest of the image.

amriddell

21st of October 2008 (Tue), 09:54

Yes. The edges are blurred. That's not the lens fault.

paten

30th of October 2008 (Thu), 17:25

Not the best lens out there, the edge is rather soft, and the vignette sometimes annoying if i wanna shots landscape, but for a cheap lens and wider than 50mm, i won't complain ;), i buy this lens coz my wide lens(10-22mm) is on repair,..

if this goes out well with ma 400D (on repair too) i'm thinking to keep it for a while..

all shots with 5D @ f/2.0 exiff intag
http://i37.tinypic.com/nldfkm.jpg

http://i34.tinypic.com/2wd6pup.jpg

http://i34.tinypic.com/2lbdg1w.jpg
Testing the AF, no prob..

http://i35.tinypic.com/izxowm.jpg
last one is my first shot with it,..

Well this is my review after using it for 2 month:
Pros:
cheap, small, light, f/2.0, center is rather sharp, goes into my small bag :D

Conz:
edge is rather soft, vignette sometimes annoying with FF, not FTMF, AF is loud(Not USM) :mad:, build is not the best

if u have the money go for the 35L, if not,.. this lens can be interesting to try :)

tcphoto1

2nd of November 2008 (Sun), 23:52

Two images from my rooftop stitched together.

madhatter04

19th of November 2008 (Wed), 01:40

My copy of this lens is arriving this coming Thursday or Friday! Can't wait!

ALaS

21st of November 2008 (Fri), 15:53

Your copy is gonna suck. I know it. It's just your luck.

geekaleek

22nd of November 2008 (Sat), 19:27

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/3051588268_348c5ac9d9.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/3050751167_122f14eed7.jpg

hammer418

22nd of November 2008 (Sat), 19:45

321805

geekaleek

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 00:59

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/3060730922_5d242a3dcd_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3060730922/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/3060730754_e3eedce851_o.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3060730754/)

ThomasW

26th of November 2008 (Wed), 16:41

http://weblog.thomasvanderwillik.com/album/images/algemeen/bbq_21_06_2008/img_5146-b.jpg

http://weblog.thomasvanderwillik.com/album/images/algemeen/bbq_21_06_2008/img_5149-b.jpg

http://weblog.thomasvanderwillik.com/album/images/algemeen/bbq_21_06_2008/img_4985-b.jpg

madhatter04

27th of November 2008 (Thu), 15:57

Great photos! I'm shocked we're only on page 9 of this gallery. Considering the great IQ wide open and the great price, you'd think there would be a lot more people who own this lens.

Dorman

27th of November 2008 (Thu), 16:24

Great photos! I'm shocked we're only on page 9 of this gallery. Considering the great IQ wide open and the great price, you'd think there would be a lot more people who own this lens.

I kinda wish I had kept it - but I think what limits sale and use of this lens is the F/2 aperture, being so close to the F/2.8 zooms I never really found a good reason to use it over my zoom set to 35mm

madhatter04

27th of November 2008 (Thu), 16:51

I kinda wish I had kept it - but I think what limits sale and use of this lens is the F/2 aperture, being so close to the F/2.8 zooms I never really found a good reason to use it over my zoom set to 35mm
I agree, although I only have a zoom covering the 12-24mm range so I'm in a bit of a different boat. The IQ is still really great though! ;)

dtngo

1st of December 2008 (Mon), 18:50

Great pics in here. Does anyone have more samples with a 5D? *looks at paten and geekaleek* :)

geekaleek

2nd of December 2008 (Tue), 05:07

i'll try to get some more samples tomorrow
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/3070489798_0062e340d2_o.jpg

paten

7th of December 2008 (Sun), 08:58

i'm thinking bout selling this lens, (coz the purpose i buy this lens that my 10-22 and 400D is on service and now it's fixed :) ) and buying a tele or maybe upgrade it to 35L, but looking at the reviews again and again, i'm confused,..
what i like about this lens is the weight and size, and MFD

maybe i just take more shot with it and see what it goes,..
anyway here some sample again,.. all with 5D
ISO 800 | f/2.0 | 1/40s
http://i34.tinypic.com/2cy2jpt.jpg

ISO 800 | f/2.5 | 1/40s
http://i35.tinypic.com/330h5qp.jpg

ISO 50 | f/2.5 | 1/200s
http://i35.tinypic.com/t7lg85.jpg

ISO 50 | f/22 | 1/6s
http://i38.tinypic.com/eg4h0o.jpg

Flip it back and you can do simple macro shot with it, this shot is my brother skin, lol
http://i33.tinypic.com/1p80vm.jpg

Double Negative

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 10:26

I used the 2/35 for about 5-6 years before finally upgrading all my lenses. If you ask me, it's one of Canon's unsung heroes. For the money, it's a real sleeper lens.

Okay, it's not the best quality (it's not an L), doesn't have the best bokeh when stopped down (only has five aperture blades) and buzzes when focusing (thanks to the old AFD AF).

But it's very sharp, very small and very light. It's also quite cheap, beaten only by the Nifty. With crop cameras, I'd rather have the 2/35 than that POS Nifty, personally.

All in all, I still have mine after what, seven years... If I need to go small, it's a great choice. And f/2 isn't that slow (and a stop brighter than f/2.8 zooms).

mleone

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 20:26

Double Negative is right. This best cheap lens ever. Heck my 50 f/1.8 broke inside my bag which was not dropped. But 35/2 was dropped in sand and still worked!

See-
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3261/2745812528_75bae18be3_b.jpg

madhatter04

10th of December 2008 (Wed), 21:44

Heck yeah. I have NO regrets selling my 24L for this lens and pocketing the $800 difference. ;) Great photo! ^^

mitsu13gman

11th of December 2008 (Thu), 19:42

I know test-shots are kind of annoying, but I was just playing with my brand-new lens (my first!) and I was just blown away by this shot. I just hand-held this, and I was just floored at how they came out!

The first shot is the whole pic, then 100% crop below that.

My only other lens is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS, and I knew I wanted something significantly wider. I'll need to do some outdoor shooting with it to get a feel for how wide it really is, but I'm pretty surprised so far. The traditional wisdom is that 50mm gives a "natural" view, and since the 35 works out to 45.5 on the 1.3 crop, I wasn't expecting miracles. But honestly, it's a LOT wider than my natural vision.

The min focus distance is great, too. I know it isn't a real macro lens, but for what I paid for it, getting a very useful wider lens, the sharpness shown below, the light it can pull in, and the near-macro functionality, I'd have a hard time ponying up for the L.

Anyway, great lens. And it really lightens up the big 1D body!

madhatter04

11th of December 2008 (Thu), 19:46

mitsu13gman

12th of December 2008 (Fri), 10:33

Congratulations on your purchase! You'll be pleased!

Here's one from me from a trip a couple weeks ago. I must say this little lens continues to surprise me. It's the new love of my life. ;)
But, remember, the charts and graphs show it to be one of Canon's worst, so no one get too excited! ;)

I did notice some C/A in one shot I was looking at last night, so I understand that it isn't perfect.

What does it for me is the insane light-gathering and the very useful focal length on the 1.3 crop-body.

Also, I get now what people mean about 50mm. I was expecting the viewfinder to overlay with my natural vision, which this lens clearly does not. However, when you look at a scene and try to pick out the edges of what you consider to be in your primary vision, it's pretty close. So when assessing a photo, what you hope to see in the shot with your eyes is largely what you'd get with this lens.

Anyway, I'm quite happy. We're getting ice and rain right now, but when things clear up a bit, hopefully I can get some nice shots.

Jason C

16th of December 2008 (Tue), 15:07

I just bought an older one on eBay, and I can't wait to get it. Looking forward to posting some pics with the 35/2...

Double Negative

16th of December 2008 (Tue), 15:24

...The min focus distance is great, too. I know it isn't a real macro lens, but for what I paid for it, getting a very useful wider lens, the sharpness shown below, the light it can pull in, and the near-macro functionality, I'd have a hard time ponying up for the L...

That's another thing I meant to point out. The 35/2 has one of the closest focusing distances among the Canon lenses. By itself it's really useful. If extension tubes aren't your thing (and wouldn't work too well on a 35mm anyway), pick up some close-up filters. I did this as a lark one time and was amazed at how well it worked out. The filters are more portable than tubes and cheaper, though do degrade image quality some as a compromise.

All of these (http://litpixel.com/ee/list.php?exhibition=6&ee_lang=eng) were shot with the 35/2; some with, some without filters (+3/+2/+1 stacked).

Jason C

22nd of December 2008 (Mon), 17:54

I just recieved my 35/2 today and did some quick shoots, and i am very pleased with this piece of glass. Double Negative stated this is a sleeper of a lens, and I must agree.

the attached image is quite boring, but tells me I'm good to go with this 35/2.

40D/1-320th sec @ f2/iso 100/B&W uv haze filter I forgot to take off/Limited PP=40D custom picture style with all parameters set to zero--RAW to JPEG with DPP--CS2 to crop only--No in camera or external sharpening or any other adjustments.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/3129420378_acb9571556_b.jpg
The following image is the same, except with CS2 USM 100/1.7/0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/3129472146_c7d31824a8_b.jpg