35mm F2.0

[drisley]

I am contemplating getting the Canon 35mm F2 lens as an "in between" lens to my 17mm and 50mm lenses.
Could those out there who own this lens give me their opinions?
Perhaps a comparison in optics and build to the 50mm F1.8II?
TIA

[johnbs]

I am contemplating getting the Canon 35mm F2 lens as an "in between" lens to my 17mm and 50mm lenses.
Perhaps a comparison in optics and build to the 50mm F1.8II?
TIA

Comparable in optics, better build, very useful for indoor pictures with a 1.6 multiplier camera.

I like it a lot - the 35/1.4 is too expensive for me, but I am eagerly awaiting the Sigma 30/1.4 DC which hopefully will be even better

John

[Redbird_xo]

I have both Canon's 35mm and 50mm MK II. In terms of sharpness, I think there are no discernible differences. Geometric distortion on the 35mm is a non issue. Minor chromatic aberration when the lens is used wide open which is a no surprise. Both the 35mm and 50mm MK II use linear extension AF, but the 35mm generates much louder noise when the AF is hunting. Real life pictures shows comparable bokeh from both lenses as they both have a 7-element, 5-groups lens construction. All in all, the 35mm delivers good bangs for the bucks. Hope this helps.

[nosquare2003]

Drisley, I also have the 17/3.5, 50/1.8 and the 35/2. I don't have much to add from John and Redbird_xo, while I highly recommend this small lens to you.

[roanjohn]

I had this lens........but I returned it. Was a noisy little bugger...........Also, the focal length is very similar to a 50. Probably better off investing in a 28 f1.8.....A tad faster and wider.

The pics I took from it are very good and contrasty though.......

Ro1

[cmM]

I've read a review once comparing it with the 35mm f/1.4L (I can't find it anymore, don't know where it is).

I don't own the lens, but according to that review, it's optically great (a little soft wide open), the AF is a little slow and noisy (sounds like a bumble-bee according to the review:)), the bokeh is not that great compared to the 1.4 (DUH!!!), but given the price difference, it's a good deal.
I was looking into this lens as well, and I might get one down the road.

[johnbs]

I've read a review once comparing it with the 35mm f/1.4L (I can't find it anymore, don't know where it is).


I think this may be the link

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

He concludes that the Canon 35/1.4 is much better, but then it should be for the price difference ;)

Hurry up, SIgma!

John

[drisley]

Thanks everybody. You gave me exactly the information I was looking for.
Redbird, that is exactly what I was looking for. Great comparison that helps a alot.
Also, nosquare, since you have similar lenses that helps too.

All in all this sounds like the perfect lens for me except, as roanjohn points out, it is a noisy AF
lens. This may be the only thing that keeps me from buying the lens.
I agree with you RJ too about the focal length. The 28mm almost seems perfect, but I haven't heard that many great reviews about the 28mm lenses that are currently available.

Johnbs, I was eyeballing the 351.4L for a long time, but then I decided that if I was going to spend that money, I might just sell the Tokina 17mm (shocker) I have and invest in the 16-35 F2.8L.

[nosquare2003]

Yes, the 35/2 is noisy in AF. The 28/2.8 is very similar to 35/2 (including optics) but it is still noisy. I haven't read any great reviews on the 28/1.8 either (while I haven't tried this 28/1.8 myself.)

As you said, the 16-35/2.8 may suit you more.

[drisley]

Yeah, it seems that there isn't much to choose in the wide-normal angle with primes.

[johnbs]

Yes, the 35/2 is noisy in AF.

Maybe I'm lucky, but my second-hand 35/2.0 is quiet. Nobody notices me taking pictures with this lens on a 350XT.

YMMV

John

[drisley]

Johnbs,
Thanks for the info.
Curious, what other lens do you have to compare to say it is "quiet".
I'm not a big stickler as far as noise goes, but I think the noise of the 50/1.8II is about as loud as I would want to go.

[johnbs]

Johnbs,
Thanks for the info.
Curious, what other lens do you have to compare to say it is "quiet".


I have Canon 50/1.8 II, 85/1.8, 28-135, 70-300, Sigma 20/1.8, 18-50/2.8, Tamron 180

I find it quieter than my 50/1.8 II, but I know that some people find it buzzy.

John

[drisley]

Thanks John.
That lens is definately the front runner for my range.

[Redbird_xo]

I have Canon 50/1.8 II, 85/1.8, 28-135, 70-300, Sigma 20/1.8, 18-50/2.8, Tamron 180

I find it quieter than my 50/1.8 II, but I know that some people find it buzzy.

John

That sounds unusual to me. It could be my ears...

Still remember the first time I heard the buzz from the AF of my 35mm f/2...I thought the lens was DOA.

[jylitalo]

All in all this sounds like the perfect lens for me except, as roanjohn points out, it is a noisy AF
lens. This may be the only thing that keeps me from buying the lens.


Most of the time AF in 35/2 is fast enough, so that I don't pay too much attention to noise. If I get the feeling that its starting to hunt, I quickly lift my finger and try to figure better focusing point.
My reasoning for buying this lens was that I wanted to minimize financial risks, while testing if 35mm would be THE right lens for me during winter seasons, when days are very short in northern Europe and f4 zooms are more or less useless. I always felt that 50/1.8 has too narrow field of view for street/outdoor photography, but 35mm would seem to be good candidate for those. Now if Sigma 30/1.4 would eventually push 35L prices down, .... (I know its only wishful thinking, but ...)

[DocFrankenstein]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

Boy does that guy has a crappy copy of 35/2

At least I hope so... Shame for canon if they actually manufacture it to such low specs.

[johnbs]

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm
Boy does that guy has a crappy copy of 35/2


Perhaps, but then he is comparing it to 2 of Canon's very best L lenses which are big, heavy and expensive.

Let's just hope Sigma gets it right with the 30/1.4 ;)

John

[DocFrankenstein]

Perhaps, but then he is comparing it to 2 of Canon's very best L lenses which are big, heavy and expensive.

Let's just hope Sigma gets it right with the 30/1.4 ;)
But then the 35/2 is about 100 times easier to construct than 35/1.4 or the 24-70

Slow primes should have higher quality than fast primes. That's just simple physics.

I hope it's just a bad copy of the lens.

[drisley]

I really wish sigma would post an estimated street price of that 30/1.4. It looks like it could be an amazing piece of glass, exactly what I'm looking for. If it's going to be more than $600us, I would probably get the Canon 28/1.8 USM (which is conveniently available now)

[johnbs]

I really wish sigma would post an estimated street price of that 30/1.4.

Agreed. There has been considerable speculation, but it seems unlikely to me that they would look for much more than the cost of a Canon 50/1.4, which is in some ways comparable for FF. Seems like they will sell a lot of copies if it is US$400.

Comparison of Canon 50/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 DC

Canon Sigma
Elements 7 7
Groups 6 7
Diameter (mm) 74 76
Length (mm) 51 59
Weight (g) 290 ??
Filter size (mm) 58 62
Closest Focus (cm) 45 40
Blades 8 8
Focus Motor MicroUSM HSM
B&H Price US$310 ??

[Sorry, I do not know how to format the table properly]

John

[drisley]

Thanks for the info.
I know what the blades do for image quality, but I've never really understood the importance of lens elements and groups. Could anybody explain that to me?
I'm not sure I could wait for the Sigma if it's going to be a couple months more. I really wish they had some sample pictures too.

[DocFrankenstein]

Thanks for the info.
I know what the blades do for image quality, but I've never really understood the importance of lens elements and groups. Could anybody explain that to me?
I don't think you can draw any conclusions from those.

There are some genius simple designs, like Gauss which give good quality.

Some other designs have more elements, but better image quality. Some have more elements, but poor execution, alighnment or coating... or something else, and the lens is bad.

So there's no dependance on number of elements/groups on image quality.

[drisley]

Thanks Doc.

[johnbs]

Thanks for the info.
I know what the blades do for image quality, but I've never really understood the importance of lens elements and groups.

Well, there is at least some relation to complexity and hence cost. Of course, cost and quality also depend on other issues including the type of glass used and the motor.

However, my logic was that these lenses are quite similar in size and complexity, so I *hope* quite similar in cost ;)

John

[drisley]

I think I will do my best to hold out for the sigma 30mm. PLEASE HURRY SIGMA!