I got the 35 f2, bummed . . .

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629898
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/

2. 85 1.8

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

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

#1 is more underexposed than #2. Did you have the camera on something other than manual?
The color temperature is also different between the two did you have that on auto?
When I correct those two problems they look pretty similar other than the perspective distortion in #1 due to being too close with a wide angle lens.

I do keep my WB on auto and shot in AV at 2.0. I shoot RAW, so usually fix all this in LR. I agree that, in these samples, they do look very close in sharpness. I am happier than I was and I think I can make this lens work for my needs after all. I'm not crazy about how "noisy" it is (meaning the noise of the motor), but it's apx. $200 cheaper than the 28 or Sigma, so I'm going to keep it for awhile. The most important things to me is a.) sharpness (it has to compare to my 85) and b.) distortion (I get more nervous about that with even wider lenses, but I don't plan to do a lot of close-ups with the 35; more for groups/smaller spaces.) Thanks for the comments!

I just got my little noisebox today..... So far, so good. It's sharp right out of the box, the focal length is fantastic on my t3i, and it's a nice size. That AF is definitely interesting, but it almost has a nostalgic feel. It doesn't bother me, but I don't plan on shooting weddings. It is pretty quick

Here are some pretty much SOOC pics. It does what I expected. The only issue I've seen is some CA which seems to be expected.

ISO 800 1/50 f2 just convert and save and resize for web.

I'm still on the fence with the Sigma 30 though..... Those test pics tell me I probably don't need it, but the extra stop is intriguing. I think I might want one 1.4 in the bag. On the flip side, 1.4 doesn't matter if the AF can't hit in the light or is inconsistent.... Plus I can put that $150 towards another lens. Decisions, decisions. Got to do some edge tests with the canon tomorrow. I don't want to be constrained to the middle of the frame

This isn't the best comparison, but here are two pictures taken at the same time; both in a basement room, so low light. No flash. The first is with my 85 1.8, but the ISO was higher at 1250 (it was set on "auto" and I forgot to change it); f-stop 2.0. Of course, both were a bit noisy, but sharpness pretty close to the same. Both were edited with Lightroom:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/67380​16303/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/67380​68137/

Bear in mind Kristin that in both your examples, the shutter speed for the 85mm shots were 1/125 sec. On your 35mm shots, the shutter speeds were less than half that ( 1/60 and 1/50 sec, respectively). I would try and get those speeds up if I were scrutinizing this closely. Not sure if your model has live view or mirror lockup, but if so, I would be using them along with a tripod for any testing.

BTW; these are some nice shots, I like the composition and the DOF. Good job.

Thanks! I definitely need to be a bit more scientific about this if I really want to compare (I had my setting on AV), but I think it's clear that I can get sharp pics with the 35 and that it compares favorably to my 85. This is not a very active photo-taking time for me, so I can't wait until I can get outside again (or when the light is much better here in NH.)

The 35f2 is sharp in the corners, but not at 1 foot from the target. It is not a macro lens. My copy is sharp across the frame when stopped down at normal shooting distances, but this varies with aperture. You can't get macro lens performance without getting a macro lens.
If you look at the reviews, you find that it will do really well compared to the 30f1.4, probably better in the corners. The advantage of the 30f1.4 is the wide aperture - if you want it - and very high resolution in the center. The Canon 35f2 may have more even performance across the frame.

I still haven't had many good opportunities to "play" with this lens -- stuck indoors for the winter -- but the few chances have been encouraging. Here is one I took by window-light. It is comparable to what I would get with my 85 in the same conditions, so relieved!:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/68530​90939/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/68497​29925/

IMO, this lens really shines indoors with a bit of fill light. I think if you add a nice bounced flash for your indoor portraits - whether off the ceiling or an umbrella -the results will be worth it. It seems like you have a good copy of the lens to begin with (I also have a good copy), and you have a good handle on portraiture. You don't have to buy a pricey flash, one of the YN560's + a radio trigger does the job well and it's economical. I feel like my 50 1.4 also benefits a lot from a bit of extra light indoors - going from meh to really nice...

Thanks, Michelle -- I do have a cheapo Sunpak that I bounce off the ceiling often, but it is very limited, so I'm going to purchase a 430 EX this year. I don't do a lot of indoor portraits, but I live in a dark state and it's just a good idea.

That's odd. I bought a 35mm f/2 a few months ago and it's a great lens--especially for the money. My is very, very sharp and has nice colors. Focus motor is a bit noisy but I didn't think it was as bad, at least to me, as some people make it out to be. My guess is that you got a bad copy.

YankeeMom wrote in post #13863922
I still haven't had many good opportunities to "play" with this lens -- stuck indoors for the winter -- but the few chances have been encouraging. Here is one I took by window-light. It is comparable to what I would get with my 85 in the same conditions, so relieved!:

Please guys, its fine for comparing sharpness, but a headshot from a 35mm FL?

Its not comparable to a 85mm ever.

It is comparable in sharpness and that's what I was referring to. (I have both.) I will mainly use it for group shots and when I am cramped for space.

You were underexposing on some of the early shots with the 35f2. It has a wider field of view, so you need to keep that in mind when using it.
It is a sharp lens. There is one flaw - the coatings are not as good as with some newer lenses, so you can get pretty monstrous flare if shooting into the sun. I recommend getting a Canon lens hood for it and keep in on at all times. That will help protect the front element, and help cut flare.