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 25 Aug 2014 (Monday) 07:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Just ordered Canon EF 35 f/2 IS USM

 
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 550
Joined Mar 2011
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:31 |  #16

i dont really shoot wide, i have a 40mm pancake that gets the job done, is it worth it to get the 35/2 over the 40?

the focus speed on the 40 flat out sucks btw. i only shoot portraits with it sparingly so i tolerate it..


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,202 posts
Gallery: 1640 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10332
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:33 |  #17

mike_311 wrote in post #17118455 (external link)
i dont really shoot wide, i have a 40mm pancake that gets the job done, is it worth it to get the 35/2 over the 40?

the focus speed on the 40 flat out sucks btw. i only shoot portraits with it sparingly so i tolerate it..

Heya,

How does the 40 STM's focus speed suck? I have both of these lenses, and the 40 focuses plenty fast. It's a hair slower than the 85 F1.8 which is lightning quick. The 35 F2 IS is pretty fast too.

The 35 F2 IS is superior in every way to the 40 STM though. I like both, but the 35 F2 IS gets used over the 40 no matter what. My 40 just sits in a bag these days because I have no use for a F2.8 prime in that focal length. It's too inexpensive to worry about it collecting dust, so it just sits on an XSi for the lady to use when she's willing to put her cellphone "camera" aside.

Anyways, F2 is faster than F2.8, and that matters to me when it comes to a wide prime. It's a bit wider than the 40, but doesn't distort. Has IS, the 40 does not. The 35 is sharper wide open, has better contrast, better color, but all of that is merely a wee bit better, not tremendously better. Is it worth 4 times the price? To me yes. I use it for portraits more than anything and some astro. But for someone doing portraits, especially if you stop down at all, then I would say no. If you wanted to take it up a notch without buying a $900~1500 lens, the 35 F2 IS would be the lens to get. However, if you want the best 35 out there to replace your 40, look to the Sigma 35 ART. If you want the next best 35, the 35 F2 IS would be nearly it. The 35L isn't really better than this lens, and is only an option if you need F1.4, the moment you stop down the 35L to F2, you might as well have just gotten the 35 F2 IS. And the 35ART is simply better and costs less than the `L, so it makes sense to go that direction if you're looking for the best.

The only lens I would trade my 35 F2 IS for would be the Sigma 35 ART. But that's the stepping stone. $500 versus $900. If that F1.4 stop is worth twice the price, then it's obvious which to get.

Anyhow, I use my 35 F2 IS over the 40 STM any day for any purpose. The size difference doesn't matter, it's attached to an SLR and the 35 isn't huge and doesn't weigh a ton like 24-70 F2.8, so size makes zero difference here; neither are pocketable, and again the camera body is big, so the size of the lens really doesn't matter so long as it's not bigger than the body and heavy as all get out, which neither are. The 35 is simply better than the 40. Again, I only keep the 40 because it's not worth selling since they're dirt cheap and it's one of those lenses that I can put in my pocket when a big telephoto is on one of my cameras. But I've replaced it completely with the EOS-M and 22mm pancake as my "small fast pancake prime setup."

I use an 85mm F1.4 and 35 F2 IS for my primary portrait lenses. My 85 is a manual lens (Samyang). The 35 is autofocus obviously. So take the "speed" of focus from me with a grain of salt. The 85 F1.8 that I have is lightning fast to focus. It surprises me every time. But I'm so used to manual focus with long throw lenses like the 85 F1.4 Samyang, that I don't even care about autofocus since I don't use it on portraits hardly at all.

But if you have the 28mm F1.8 and the 40mm F2.8 STM, I don't see a reason to get the 35, especially if you don't shoot wide.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Abu ­ Mahendra
Senior Member
368 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:34 |  #18
bannedPermanent ban

mike_311 wrote in post #17118455 (external link)
i dont really shoot wide, i have a 40mm pancake that gets the job done, is it worth it to get the 35/2 over the 40?

the focus speed on the 40 flat out sucks btw. i only shoot portraits with it sparingly so i tolerate it..

If you value and need an extra stop, instantaneous USM focusing, 5mm wider and IS, yes. If not, no. I own both lenses. They are sufficiently different to warrant owning both. What does the 40STM give you that the 35IS doesn't? Smaller size, lighter weight and 5mm of additional reach.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hermelin
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,127 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 26, 2014 12:58 |  #19

Wo! I picked it up today. Here's some of my first shots

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/abrv5D3.jpg

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/1oFIUFe.jpg

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/uXPP3AD.jpg

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/GhDqnXz.jpg

IMAGE: http://i.imgur.com/SwwgZ3P.jpg

Fujifilm X100F

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DieselTech
Member
73 posts
Joined Oct 2013
     
Aug 26, 2014 13:10 |  #20

MalVeauX wrote in post #17118458 (external link)
Heya,

How does the 40 STM's focus speed suck? I have both of these lenses, and the 40 focuses plenty fast. It's a hair slower than the 85 F1.8 which is lightning quick. The 35 F2 IS is pretty fast too.

The 35 F2 IS is superior in every way to the 40 STM though. I like both, but the 35 F2 IS gets used over the 40 no matter what. My 40 just sits in a bag these days because I have no use for a F2.8 prime in that focal length. It's too inexpensive to worry about it collecting dust, so it just sits on an XSi for the lady to use when she's willing to put her cellphone "camera" aside.

Anyways, F2 is faster than F2.8, and that matters to me when it comes to a wide prime. It's a bit wider than the 40, but doesn't distort. Has IS, the 40 does not. The 35 is sharper wide open, has better contrast, better color, but all of that is merely a wee bit better, not tremendously better. Is it worth 4 times the price? To me yes. I use it for portraits more than anything and some astro. But for someone doing portraits, especially if you stop down at all, then I would say no. If you wanted to take it up a notch without buying a $900~1500 lens, the 35 F2 IS would be the lens to get. However, if you want the best 35 out there to replace your 40, look to the Sigma 35 ART. If you want the next best 35, the 35 F2 IS would be nearly it. The 35L isn't really better than this lens, and is only an option if you need F1.4, the moment you stop down the 35L to F2, you might as well have just gotten the 35 F2 IS. And the 35ART is simply better and costs less than the `L, so it makes sense to go that direction if you're looking for the best.

The only lens I would trade my 35 F2 IS for would be the Sigma 35 ART. But that's the stepping stone. $500 versus $900. If that F1.4 stop is worth twice the price, then it's obvious which to get.

Anyhow, I use my 35 F2 IS over the 40 STM any day for any purpose. The size difference doesn't matter, it's attached to an SLR and the 35 isn't huge and doesn't weigh a ton like 24-70 F2.8, so size makes zero difference here; neither are pocketable, and again the camera body is big, so the size of the lens really doesn't matter so long as it's not bigger than the body and heavy as all get out, which neither are. The 35 is simply better than the 40. Again, I only keep the 40 because it's not worth selling since they're dirt cheap and it's one of those lenses that I can put in my pocket when a big telephoto is on one of my cameras. But I've replaced it completely with the EOS-M and 22mm pancake as my "small fast pancake prime setup."

I use an 85mm F1.4 and 35 F2 IS for my primary portrait lenses. My 85 is a manual lens (Samyang). The 35 is autofocus obviously. So take the "speed" of focus from me with a grain of salt. The 85 F1.8 that I have is lightning fast to focus. It surprises me every time. But I'm so used to manual focus with long throw lenses like the 85 F1.4 Samyang, that I don't even care about autofocus since I don't use it on portraits hardly at all.

But if you have the 28mm F1.8 and the 40mm F2.8 STM, I don't see a reason to get the 35, especially if you don't shoot wide.

Very best,

I own a 28mm f1.8 and it shoots suprisingly sharp at f/2.8 for an old prime
I thought about having a 35mm f2 IS, but that would cannibalize my 28mm f1.8
Still waiting for the new 35mm L (hope they could go bigger with 1.2!)


5D mk II, Rokinon 8mm, Rokinon 14mm, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L II, 100mm 2.8L, 24-105mm L, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
slookx24
Member
Avatar
233 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Los Angeles
     
Aug 26, 2014 13:37 |  #21

I had this lens and really enjoyed it.

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3830/14258052546_ceaa039153_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nHWf​hb  (external link) Flower Girl (external link) by nshtnnrng (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,202 posts
Gallery: 1640 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10332
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 26, 2014 13:45 |  #22

DieselTech wrote in post #17119046 (external link)
I own a 28mm f1.8 and it shoots suprisingly sharp at f/2.8 for an old prime
I thought about having a 35mm f2 IS, but that would cannibalize my 28mm f1.8
Still waiting for the new 35mm L (hope they could go bigger with 1.2!)

Heya,

I wouldn't wait for a 35 F1.2. Probably won't happen. It's easier on longer focal lengths, because it takes larger diameter glass to get that ratio. 85 F1.2 is possible because 85/1.2 as a ratio tells you the diameter required at that focal length to have that ratio (71mm, hence it's so big and wide, nearly the same size wide as long). 50mm F1.2 requires 42mm for that ratio, which is also why it's so big, and so wide. 35 F1.2 would require 30mm diameter, literally the shape of a box nearly as it's almost as wide as long with very little wiggle room, making it phsyically very hard to make, if not impossible (maybe it is, but maybe not for these sensor sizes or mount, not sure as I'm not an engineer; there are 40mm F0.85s now).

HandeVision released a 40mm F0.85 for the EOS-M (APS-C). Pretty crazy. But it's a giant long bulky manual focus only lens (probably too heavy for a mechanism to move the glass). It weighs 2.65 lbs on it's own (1.2kg) or twice as much as a 24-70 F2.8 lens nearly. Basically 65mm FOV in FF equivalent. So there's some interesting engineering going on here. Probably due to the size sensor it allows them to use smaller glass making this possible. Hence it doesn't exist for full frame size sensors.

@Hermelin,

Lovely. Hope you enjoy it. It's a fantastic lens and a great focal length on APS-C & full frame. A staple.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,987 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Likes: 771
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Aug 26, 2014 16:13 |  #23

The 35 f/2 IS is an excellent lens- fast accurate AF, very sharp wide open, light weight with IS, priced right... Very happy with mine.

A recent shot from a senior portrait session at f/2-

IMAGE: http://www.twiceasnicephotos.com/img/s5/v123/p41425227-6.jpg

Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tony_Stark
Shellhead
Avatar
4,287 posts
Likes: 344
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 26, 2014 21:01 |  #24

Thanks for the responses guys. Im just looking to see if the 35 f2 is would be just as fast to focus as the Sigma 35 or 35L. Im more worried in lower light with moving subjects (I know IS doest impact this). I am looking to get a speed light with AF assist grid to help my camera focus faster when light is low. Shots look great from the 35 IS and am confident to get it. Just need that last push :)


Nikon D810 | 24-70/2.8G | 58/1.4G
EOS M | 22 f/2 STM

Website (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,987 posts
Gallery: 78 photos
Likes: 771
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Aug 26, 2014 21:59 |  #25

^AF speed is very fast. The 35 f/2 IS seems to focus just as fast any Canon lens, probably as good as the L and a little better than the Sigma.


Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Avatar
4,037 posts
Gallery: 592 photos
Likes: 3505
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 26, 2014 22:23 |  #26

jrscls wrote in post #17119978 (external link)
^AF speed is very fast. The 35 f/2 IS seems to focus just as fast any Canon lens, probably as good as the L and a little better than the Sigma.

That depends on if you get a copy of the Sigma that doesn't have AF issues :-P


Sony Alpha A7III - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 - Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 - Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS -
Canon EOS M5 - Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 - Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 - Canon EF 11-22mm f/4-5.6 STM

Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Dark ­ Knight
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2012
     
Aug 26, 2014 22:24 |  #27

This lens is wicked sharp wide open, my wife actually isn't much of a fan because of all the little facial details that come through in the images.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dlee13
Goldmember
Avatar
4,037 posts
Gallery: 592 photos
Likes: 3505
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Aug 26, 2014 23:20 |  #28

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17120001 (external link)
This lens is wicked sharp wide open, my wife actually isn't much of a fan because of all the little facial details that come through in the images.

Haha I can definitely relate to that, after getting this and the 100L I had to learn how to touch up skin properly to hide all the unwanted details


Sony Alpha A7III - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 - Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 - Canon EF 16-35mm f4L IS -
Canon EOS M5 - Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 - Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 - Canon EF 11-22mm f/4-5.6 STM

Blog (external link) | Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ocjohn
Member
87 posts
Joined Feb 2010
     
Aug 28, 2014 02:30 |  #29

Hermelin wrote in post #17118034 (external link)
Nice pics and responses :)

I would like to hear more from crop users

I just got mine today. I have a 40D and plan on upgrading to the 6D so I'm selling off most of my crop lenses. This is replacing my Sigma 30, which will be up for sale soon. It is about the same size as the Sigma 30 but significantly lighter. Of course the Sigma is a F1.4 lens with a lot of glass. I'm going to shoot at Disneyland with the new lens.




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

3,585 views & 0 likes for this thread
Just ordered Canon EF 35 f/2 IS USM
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 Constantin
834 guests, 213 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.