Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 31 Dec 2011 (Saturday) 13:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I got the 35 f2, bummed . . .

 
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 01, 2012 11:08 |  #31

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.)


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Skrim17
The only TPBMer without a title. Enjoying my anonymity.
Avatar
40,070 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2006
Location: In my tree
     
Jan 01, 2012 11:40 |  #32

post up some pics!!


Crissa
PLEASE HELP ME FIND MY PHOTOS!! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frugal
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Northern CA
     
Jan 01, 2012 12:04 as a reply to  @ Skrim17's post |  #33

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


Richard
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:18 |  #34

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: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7032/6614473903_6e24d6934c_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66144​73903/  (external link)

2. 85 1.8

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7149/6614473841_b7f26c90af_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66144​73841/  (external link)

Oh, and oddly enough, the one "downer" I've heard about the 35 is that the bokeh is pentangle in shape (like the 50 1.8), so not as "pretty" as other lenses, but I don't see that on my samples -- the (light) bokeh is really nice!

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6614544475_c630b99e7f_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66145​44475/  (external link)

Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,381 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3279
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:24 |  #35

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


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:25 |  #36

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. :)


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,214 posts
Gallery: 277 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8305
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:28 |  #37

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629923 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:32 |  #38

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


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,214 posts
Gallery: 277 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8305
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:41 |  #39

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Out buying Wheaties
Avatar
6,789 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Jan 01, 2012 14:50 |  #40

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629898 (external link)
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.

IMAGE: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-bK9lfngSqzU/TwC9bSwuJaI/AAAAAAAAZSA/bCpRWd99Zno/s640/FFAM-6.JPG

Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 01, 2012 15:00 |  #41

gonzogolf wrote in post #13629977 (external link)
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 (external link)
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.

QUOTED IMAGE

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?


Kristin
Mom to 11 ~ Still sane and rocking my Canon 5DMkII.
Calibrated with Spyder 4
Website (external link)
| Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | 500px (external link) | Pinterest (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LibertyToad
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Jan 06, 2012 12:25 |  #42

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


Canon 7D, 17-85mm USM IS, 70-300mm USM IS, 24-105mm f/4 USM IS L, 35mm f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
muskyhunter
Goldmember
Avatar
1,137 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 06, 2012 13:31 |  #43

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



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 06, 2012 21:03 |  #44

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jason ­ C
do I need to submit a resume...?
4,834 posts
Gallery: 143 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1580
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Calabasas, CA
     
Jan 06, 2012 21:08 |  #45

YankeeMom wrote in post #13625718 (external link)
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


Equipment & Feedback
"I am not interested in shooting new things-I am interested to see things new"--Ernst Haas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

13,097 views & 0 likes for this thread
I got the 35 f2, bummed . . .
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is pdomag
768 guests, 226 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.