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 . . .

 
Frugal
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Northern CA
     
Jan 07, 2012 00:23 |  #46

YankeeMom wrote in post #13629898 (external link)
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:

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66144​73903/  (external link)

2. 85 1.8

QUOTED IMAGE
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!

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/66145​44475/  (external link)

#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.


Richard
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
YankeeMom
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
3,120 posts
Gallery: 312 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
     
Jan 07, 2012 11:10 |  #47

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!


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
highergr0und
Senior Member
545 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Jan 20, 2012 22:40 |  #48

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.

IMAGE: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-BAKPmWNfonM/Txo_PweUB5I/AAAAAAAAEJo/I1hSC9peI-o/s720/eyes.JPG

ISO 800 1/60 f2 convert save and resize (c/s/r)

IMAGE: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OvAkdDHZevY/Txo_PMPENSI/AAAAAAAAEJg/HXMqIDvVLgw/s720/nick.JPG

ISO 3200 f2 focus on the key with the big chip. I did a bit of DPP noise reduction, cropped, converted, resize

IMAGE: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dAsBLn_tl30/Txo_Opz2geI/AAAAAAAAEJY/Au0_uJmUuDw/s720/piano.JPG

ISO 200 1/1600 f2 100% crop..... yep pretty sharp

IMAGE: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-casI1LMXQNw/Txo_NtLySVI/AAAAAAAAEJQ/9w_PJZiXmTc/s720/brick.JPG

T3i, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 1.4, 18-55 kit, 55-250, YN-565, a few books, some software, and a desire to get good.....

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
highergr0und
Senior Member
545 posts
Joined Aug 2011
     
Jan 20, 2012 22:47 |  #49

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


T3i, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 30 1.4, 18-55 kit, 55-250, YN-565, a few books, some software, and a desire to get good.....

  
  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 21, 2012 15:13 |  #50

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: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7144/6738016303_efd4122639_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/67380​16303/  (external link)

35 2.0 at 500 ISO (fs 2.0):

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7150/6738068137_72d4aefaa4_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/67380​68137/  (external link)

I plan to test in better light, soon, but I think this is going to work for me. I am curious about the Sigma, too, but the price and brand means I'll probably stick with this. It really seems comparable to my 85 and that's the most important thing for now.

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
Golden ­ Hunter
Senior Member
Avatar
806 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
     
Jan 22, 2012 07:48 as a reply to  @ YankeeMom's post |  #51

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.


Brent
5D Mark2 // 16-35 f4L // 70-200 f4L // 17-40 f4L // Sigma 50 f1.4//
580EX2

  
  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 22, 2012 09:11 |  #52

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.)


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
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 22, 2012 09:12 |  #53

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.




  
  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
     
Feb 10, 2012 15:05 |  #54

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: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6853090939_313233f61a_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/68530​90939/  (external link)
5-years-old (external link) by Kristin Small (external link), on Flickr

Another, also in window-light:

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6849729925_662bbb1419_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/yankeemom/68497​29925/  (external link)
7-months-old (external link) by Kristin Small (external link), on Flickr

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
mco_970
Senior Member
350 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2009
Location: SW Colorado
     
Feb 10, 2012 16:32 |  #55

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...


Michelle - 7D, 40 STM, 400 f/5.6, 500 f/4.5, NEX, and going Nikon FF - eager to see what 7D2 brings!

STOLEN from me in Colorado 7/6/2011: 1D3 (serial 505764),
FM feedback (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
     
Feb 10, 2012 17:01 |  #56

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. :)


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
     
Feb 19, 2012 17:12 |  #57

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.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Csae
Goldmember
Avatar
3,350 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Feb 20, 2012 00:03 |  #58

YankeeMom wrote in post #13863922 (external link)
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.


Feel free to call me Case.
CasePhoto.ca (external link) - FanPage (external link)
-Montreal based Photography.

  
  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
     
Feb 20, 2012 08:36 |  #59

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.


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
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Feb 20, 2012 13:27 |  #60

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.




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

12,968 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 potatopicker21
665 guests, 297 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.