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 28 Mar 2016 (Monday) 16:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 35 f2 IS vs 35L v1

 
BallerStatus
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Gallery: 338 photos
Likes: 1223
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post edited over 3 years ago by BallerStatus.
     
Mar 28, 2016 16:23 |  #1

Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!


2 6D - 35 f1.4L, 135 f2L, 50 f1.8 STM, 85 f1.8
EOS M and M5 - 11-22 f4-5.6 IS, 22 f2
AE-1 Program - FD 50 f1.8
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sourcehill
Senior Member
Avatar
481 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 80
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Boston
     
Mar 28, 2016 20:14 |  #2

I've owned two copies of both.

The 35L has better build quality, goes to 1.4 and has that sexy red ring.

The 35 f2 IS has a modern optical formula, has IS and is cheaper.

Do you find yourself ever needing the 1.4? Both lenses are just as sharp at f2. Pixel peeping, I may give the edge to the new 35 IS.

Colors were a little better from the 35L but nothing you can't tweak in post. Again, totally subjective.

If I was needing another 35mm, I'd probably go with the 35 IS. Just a great lens. Both copies of the 35 IS I bought were brand new and were spot on right out of the box. I bought a 35L used on Craigslist and I had to do some tweaking to get it perfect and my other copy came from Canon refurbished. That copy was PERFECT.


I like gear and I have too much.
Check out my current work on Instagram @immichaelcarmen
redwoodandrye.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,235 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3603
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Mar 28, 2016 20:20 |  #3

I've never used the 35L and probably never will. I have the 35 IS and the 16-35L f4. Happy as a clam.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
Post edited over 3 years ago by vengence.
     
Mar 28, 2016 20:30 |  #4

I have the f/2 IS and have a friend who has the Sigma Art. I can't see taking a mark i over the f/2 unless I was only ever going to shoot at 1.4 because you did nightclub photography or something unique. At anything other than 1.4, the f/2 is equal or better, smaller, cheaper, and built quite well. For low light, static photography, the f/2 is roughly 3 stops faster than the 1.4 with far better DoF because of the IS. If you really want 1.4, buy the Sigma, not the canon. Close in price and far superior in pretty much everything.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,283 posts
Gallery: 1696 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10666
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 28, 2016 21:06 |  #5

BallerStatus wrote in post #17952231 (external link)
Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!

Heya,

I use the 35 F2 IS on 5Dc, 1Dc, 1D2, 7D, T4i, etc, all kinds of cameras. I thought I wanted F1.4, but really, F2 is enough for me, because mainly, I wanted the micro-contrast look of the 35 F2 IS (it's sharper than the 35L MKI and has better micro-contrast than the 35L MKI), and also for the IS. The IS is crazy good. I can hand hold 2 seconds comfortably. I've squeaked out 4 seconds just as a novelty "hey it can be done!" type thing. In reality though, real world, getting a 1/5s or 1 second handheld image inside of something really dark is crazy useful if you don't have the ISO performance to compensate or a tripod. So I had to choose... F1.4, or IS. Frankly, IS gives you way more low light potential than F1.4 does in most situations. The 1 stop difference isn't enough to matter to me in terms of depth of field if you feel like you need thin depth of field from a wide lens...

Here's some quick examples of the 35 F2 IS on a 5Dc:

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1526/25022118319_36912dba04_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E87U​26  (external link) IMG_1369 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7298/16542322412_0a3e7cff09_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rcMJ​8o  (external link) IMG_2377 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

35 F2 IS on a 1Dc:

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5699/22188938414_9e60ce5677_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG  (external link) 225H7332_mark (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5807/22577249567_63a0374545_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ap5i​Hz  (external link) 225H7534 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

35 F IS on a 650D:

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/712/22704523402_effc9bc13d_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AAjB​N3  (external link) IMG_9321 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2834/12757534324_9005cdbcbc_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/krkG​um  (external link) DPP_0642 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Flare performance:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3856/14721786828_c710753ba9_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oqV1​jQ  (external link) DPP_0868_tonemapped_ma​rked (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,283 posts
Gallery: 1696 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10666
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Mar 28, 2016 21:12 |  #6

Heya,

Lastly, stress testing the IS of the 35 F2 IS completely hand held of course.

Note, these are not useful in real life unless you're in a dark static place, like inside a church. The point was just to see... how good is the IS?

EXIF on both, but will label for simplicity.

I wanted to stress how well the IS worked, by just simply doing some hand held shots. Achieving 1 and 2 seconds was not hard. If you brace well, you can manage 2 seconds pretty quickly with some good bracing and breathing technique.

Achieving 4 seconds hand held took more work. It was all the breathing though. Totally impractical, but hey, the point was to stress the IS and how well it works as long as I was not the reason it was unable to do it's job.

2.5 seconds:

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/716/22427197624_9182a02a4e_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AaPf​v7  (external link) IMG_5890 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

4 seconds:

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1656/25606982406_565e4517ea_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F1Nt​JE  (external link) IMG_1719 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Again, zero practical use unless you stumble upon auroras often or something, or spend time in dark museum and churches, or can't shoot at super high ISO. The point was just to see... how good is the IS? They advertise 4 stops after all.

Very best,

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BallerStatus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Gallery: 338 photos
Likes: 1223
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Mar 29, 2016 11:34 |  #7

Thank you guys for the feedback! Thanks for all the detail Wise!

I think I will probably go from the 35 f2 IS for now. Yes, the 35L has that sexy red ring, but I really want the best IQ with the quiet USM AF. Sounds like I will be ordering a 35 IS soon!


2 6D - 35 f1.4L, 135 f2L, 50 f1.8 STM, 85 f1.8
EOS M and M5 - 11-22 f4-5.6 IS, 22 f2
AE-1 Program - FD 50 f1.8
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BallerStatus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Gallery: 338 photos
Likes: 1223
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Mar 29, 2016 11:37 |  #8

sourcehill wrote in post #17952625 (external link)
I've owned two copies of both.

The 35L has better build quality, goes to 1.4 and has that sexy red ring.

The 35 f2 IS has a modern optical formula, has IS and is cheaper.

Do you find yourself ever needing the 1.4? Both lenses are just as sharp at f2. Pixel peeping, I may give the edge to the new 35 IS.

Colors were a little better from the 35L but nothing you can't tweak in post. Again, totally subjective.

If I was needing another 35mm, I'd probably go with the 35 IS. Just a great lens. Both copies of the 35 IS I bought were brand new and were spot on right out of the box. I bought a 35L used on Craigslist and I had to do some tweaking to get it perfect and my other copy came from Canon refurbished. That copy was PERFECT.

Thanks for this, exactly what I needed to hear. I am thinking that doing close portraits, f2 would be enough. I might get into that situation at f1.4 where one eye becomes blurred if it isn't perfectly on plane. I also like that the 35 IS is about the same size as my 85 1.8. Easily packable and keeps the camera small. I love the short, stocky look and feel to that lens too.


2 6D - 35 f1.4L, 135 f2L, 50 f1.8 STM, 85 f1.8
EOS M and M5 - 11-22 f4-5.6 IS, 22 f2
AE-1 Program - FD 50 f1.8
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Monkey ­ moss
Senior Member
Avatar
999 posts
Likes: 673
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Bristol, England
     
Mar 29, 2016 12:15 as a reply to  @ BallerStatus's post |  #9

Hi. If you love the size and look of the 85 1.8 then you'll probably like the 35 F2 more. I have both of these and I think the 35 is subtly but noticeably better made and feels / looks better ☺


Jon :cool::oops::D:cry::confused::(:lol:
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BallerStatus
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Gallery: 338 photos
Likes: 1223
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Mar 29, 2016 14:02 |  #10

Cool, thanks for the input!


2 6D - 35 f1.4L, 135 f2L, 50 f1.8 STM, 85 f1.8
EOS M and M5 - 11-22 f4-5.6 IS, 22 f2
AE-1 Program - FD 50 f1.8
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asr10user
Member
166 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2016
     
Mar 29, 2016 16:42 |  #11

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17952633 (external link)
I've never used the 35L and probably never will. I have the 35 IS and the 16-35L f4. Happy as a clam.

Question.......... I am looking to replace my Sigma 35mm with something. Was actually thinking of just going for the 16-35 f4. How is the IQ of the 16-35 f4 and the 35mm f2 IS at lets say 5.6 ?

My Sigma 35mm is great, however I was looking at getting something like the 16-35 f4 to replace it, then getting another fast prime.


6D, 50mm Art
G7, 14-42mm, 25mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,889 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 3 years ago by mwsilver.
     
Mar 30, 2016 15:53 |  #12

BallerStatus wrote in post #17952231 (external link)
Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!

On a 5D the 35mm f/2 IS is sharper and has much less chromatic aberration than the 35mm f/1.4 L Mk 1. It also has a light transmission Tstop of f/2. The 35 f/1.4 has a Tstop of F/1.6. So, even though the f/1.4 will give you a shallower depth of field, it will only give you 2/3 stop more light. And, of course there is the 4 stops of IS. Incredibly useful for very low light static subjects.

I've attached a link to the DXOMark comparison between these 2 lenses and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. You can select the camera body you wish to use for the comparison.

http://www.dxomark.com …797_176_1056_17​6_1086_176 (external link)

And finally, the f/2 IS can be had for $549 new. The f/1.4 L costs almost double at $999. Unless you need f/1.4 or the L build, I think it's a no brainier.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,235 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3603
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
Post edited over 3 years ago by FarmerTed1971.
     
Mar 30, 2016 20:37 as a reply to  @ asr10user's post |  #13

What do you like to shoot? I personally think you cannot go wrong with the 16-35 f4 unless you absolutely need to shoot wider apertures. The lens is absolutely stunning. If you do need 2.8 then wait about a year as the new lens just might be out soon... but it will not be cheap.

At 5.6 both lenses are killer.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JennB
GoldLurker
Avatar
1,130 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 208
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Virginia, USA
     
Nov 09, 2016 16:15 |  #14

BallerStatus wrote in post #17953387 (external link)
Thank you guys for the feedback! Thanks for all the detail Wise!

I think I will probably go from the 35 f2 IS for now. Yes, the 35L has that sexy red ring, but I really want the best IQ with the quiet USM AF. Sounds like I will be ordering a 35 IS soon!


Baller, how do you like the 35 f/2 IS? I'm contemplating on purchasing a 35, just don't know which one, yet. Been reading up on both on these forums, but haven't completely decided. -?


~ Jenn ~
"Raise the bar to a level only you can jump!"
{Gear List & Market Feedback}

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rittrato
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Likes: 26
Joined May 2010
Post edited over 2 years ago by Rittrato.
     
Nov 09, 2016 20:08 |  #15

I have to vouch for the 35 F/2 is and this is coming from an L lens fan boy, so to speak. I prefer the IQ of the newer element on the 35 F2 IS, great contrast.




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

9,775 views & 23 likes for this thread
Canon 35 f2 IS vs 35L v1
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 Klein Bobbie
990 guests, 287 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.