I got the 35 f2, bummed . . .

Thanks! I would love the Canon 17-55, but way out of my price league right now. I have been eyeing the Tamron, too, and will get it eventually, but I like primes for portraits and this one is a good price (also, my 50 1.8, though it still takes wonderfully sharp images, lost it's AF last year.)

So . . . today's update. I was stricter about focal length (or filling the frame) and in better light and was much happier with what I am seeing! I am going to try some more this afternoon, but I am getting more hopeful about keeping this thing (though I am still tempted by the Sigma -- I just like the 35 fl and price, but 1.4 is appealing, too.)

Thanks again for all the input and for encouraging me to give it another try. Like I said, I've never had a problem with a lens or returned one, so really hoping this is the ticket. This would give me a wider prime for group shots and then my 85 for individuals (though I know I can use the 35 for individual, too.) That covers most of my needs for now (considering I still have the 50 if desperate.)

post up some pics!!

Mine is very sharp at MA +10 on my 50D, but without MA on a T2i it might be seen as a bad copy

OK, first test this morning. Location: Indoors. Light: Mostly from a large window, some ambient from over-head. 2.0 Aperture. These are SOOC (straight out of the camera); no processing. I made sure my subject filled the frame fairly equally in both shots -- though I prefer the 85 rendition, I'm encouraged by the results! The sharpness is close!

1. 35 2.0:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66144​73903/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66144​73841/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66145​44475/

shooting wide open you won't see the pentagons...it's once you start to stop it down that the aperture blades come into play

Ah, I see -- well, I will probably shoot wide open most of the time with indoor shots, but I'll have to mess around and see the pentagons anyway.

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629923
Ah, I see -- well, I will probably shoot wide open most of the time with indoor shots, but I'll have to mess around and see the pentagons anyway.

you said you are going to use this for group shots, but using it wide open? I hope I'm just misinterpreting you here.

Sorry, I meant for individual shots indoors. (Mostly my own kids.) My (paid) group shots have always been outdoors.

It might be time to start improving your lighting as well as your lenses.

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629898
The sharpness is close!

Looks like it is. Similar to my 35F2 and 100F2 USM difference, which is liitle as well.
I took this shot today at F8. Focused in the middle, faces on the right are sharper at 100% view compare to faces on the left. But still OK.

gonzogolf wrote in post #13629977
It might be time to start improving your lighting as well as your lenses.

Yes, plan to when I make more $$. I am very part-time at this, but lighting is a need. I have an old Sunpak that serves me fine for my own pics, but not good enough results for jobs. Even so, I love natural light and it serves me well for now.

kf095 wrote in post #13630006
Looks like it is. Similar to my 35F2 and 100F2 USM difference, which is liitle as well.
I took this shot today at F8. Focused in the middle, faces on the right are sharper at 100% view compare to faces on the left. But still OK.

Nice pic, but hard to see close up. Still I like seeing the group shot with this lens! Is this all natural light or flash?

I use the 35mm f/2 Canon on my 7D. It is very sharp and has nice color. Maybe you got a dud...?

had one...get the Sigma 30mm f1.4

I recommend getting a hood if you don't have one yet and always keep it on the lens. The 35f2 is a sharp lens but does have a problem with flare. A hood will help and I always keep one on mine.
It is a fine lens, but an older design.

YankeeMom wrote in post #13625718
In spite of decent reviews, it does not come close to measuring up to my 85 1.8 in sharpness. The difference was quite profound, so I'll be sending it back and trying either the 28 1.8 or (more likely) Sigma 30 1.4.

Initially, I was more interested in those lenses anyway, but the 35 focal length (and decent reviews) got me to change my mind at the last minute. Sigh.

I need a wider-angled lens for portraits (mainly groups) and it really needs to be very close to my 85 in sharpness -- these will be my working lenses for quite a while.

Bummed that I am back to the drawing board and have to make this return (to Adorama.) I had high hopes for this one!

That is too bad, mine was fantastic. However, and as you already may know, the corners wide open are quite soft...mushy soft.

I hope you can get this all squared away.


Jason C