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 16 Oct 2016 (Sunday) 12:10
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35L (ver I) vs. 35mm f/2 IS

 
PFDarkside
Senior Member
265 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Illinois
     
Oct 16, 2016 12:10 |  #1

I currently have 35mm double covered (17-40mm, 24-70mm) but only at f/4. Great for travel and landscape, not as much for chasing kids. I'm looking for a wider aperture prime for this focal length. I think I can justify the version 1 35mm f/1.4 L or the 35mm f/2 IS.

I'll be using it on a 5D2 for indoor low light, chasing kids and general family PJ. Which of the two would perform better for me, with an eye specifically on auto focus speed and accuracy and low light performance?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Oct 16, 2016 13:30 |  #2

Not sure any lens is good if you're actually running after kids, but for all your other applications, I'd prefer the 35mm f2 IS. I'll take the IS over the 1.4 for low light family shots. Plus the f2 lens is lighter and costs less.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marfot
Hatchling
6 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Poland
     
Oct 16, 2016 13:48 as a reply to  @ nightcat's post |  #3

I use C35/2IS as the supplement to f/4 zoom in low light conditions. It is lightweight, small, has quick and very accurate AF.
As for C35L - very narrow DOF by f/1.4 is not compatible with chasing kids.


5DII, C16-35/4L IS, C35/2IS, C70-300L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,279 posts
Gallery: 1694 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10652
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Oct 16, 2016 14:32 |  #4

Heya,

I use the 35 F2 IS for this specifically in my house with my family. I don't find IS all that useful for someone moving around in a dark house. But the lens is deadly sharp wide open and fast to focus. It's sharper than the 35L (MK I).

First, natural light is pretty much a bear in a house unless you have tons of windows. Having a fast aperture is helpful, but doesn't solve the problem. I try to use fill flash or bounce flash virtually always. I keep my flash setup on a camera with the 35mm ready to go at all times so that I can capture a moment about as fast as someone with a cellphone, but much better looking. I'll take flash indoors over any lens any day. It makes the most difference. The other issue is fast aperture isn't ideal with moving kids, if you're close (like with a 35mm) as depth of field gets pretty thin pretty fast and if they're moving, you'll get out of focus shots.

Even at F2, at closer range, I can get out of focus shots. Especially with the AF system of the 5D2 (which is the same one in the 5D classic, same AF system, same -0.5 EV capability on center point). Thin depth of field with these old AF systems just isn't ideal. I'd rather have more depth of field and get a sharp in focus memory than a bunch of potential misses. So I generally like to be at F2.8 a lot and I use flash. I do use it at F2 when light is decent like during the day with enough window light to get a good focus grab, otherwise, F2.8 is a lot safer. Regardless of any of it, flash is the biggest difference and the real money maker indoors.

Recent examples of 35 F2 IS indoors with bounced flash. F2 gives plenty of light, soft enough backgrounds, and focuses really fast.

IMAGE: https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5699/22188938414_9e60ce5677_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG  (external link) 225H7332_mark (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1526/25022118319_36912dba04_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E87U​26  (external link) IMG_1369 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7445/27974273866_932b1f5f29_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JBZt​1E  (external link) IMG_7078 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5785/29706047243_64daa60b39_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Mg2f​Uk  (external link) IMG_7484 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,231 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3599
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Oct 16, 2016 14:35 |  #5

That 3rd one is just amazing Mal.

The 35 f2 is an absolutely stunning lens. I'm selling my 40 STM because I just don't use it anymore after getting the 35.
The size and weight reductions alone are worth it over the L IMHO. You will not be dissapointed.


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
artyH
Goldmember
2,107 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2009
     
Oct 17, 2016 09:36 |  #6

The 35F2IS is my favorite low light, people lens. It is fine on a crop and outstanding on full frame. I haven't used the Mark II, but it never misses focus on my cameras - even at F2. You may not get the depth of field you want at F2 if close and there are multiple people in the photo, but I love the lens.
AF is very fast and accurate. If you miss, it may because the subject has moved and focus has therefore failed.
I use the lens wide open, and IS can help when you need to hold the camera with one hand. The only other of my prime lenses that competes for people photos would be the 85F1.8. This does require more room, and it can be a very narrow view when you are indoors trying to capture photos of a moving child. It works well when there is lots of space and you can get higher shutter speeds than you need with the 35mm focal length.
Mal's photos are nice, but I would hate to think about bath water in the mouth...kids can do gross stuff.
It is a nice photo, though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Oct 17, 2016 09:58 |  #7

PFDarkside wrote in post #18158373 (external link)
I currently have 35mm double covered (17-40mm, 24-70mm) but only at f/4. Great for travel and landscape, not as much for chasing kids. I'm looking for a wider aperture prime for this focal length. I think I can justify the version 1 35mm f/1.4 L or the 35mm f/2 IS.

I'll be using it on a 5D2 for indoor low light, chasing kids and general family PJ. Which of the two would perform better for me, with an eye specifically on auto focus speed and accuracy and low light performance?

A bigger problem than which lens to use presents itself.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Oct 17, 2016 10:37 |  #8

For a 5D2 bounce a speedlight off the ceiling and shoot at f/4 with one of your other lenses. You'll get far better results than you will in bad lighting and shallow DoF.

If you still want to pick up a lens, I have, use, and enjoy the 35 f/2 IS. The IS is useless for moving kids of course, but handy in lots of other situations.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hokie ­ Jim
Member
130 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 27
Joined Jan 2016
Location: Hillsborough, NC
     
Oct 19, 2016 00:19 as a reply to  @ FarmerTed1971's post |  #9

This is good to hear, as I'm sort of in the same boat; I've had the 35IS for a year now, recently picked up the 16-35 f4 for a trip (and loved it), but I had this nagging feeling like I had two great lenses unnecessarily at the same focal length.


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,231 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3599
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Oct 19, 2016 07:58 |  #10

I have both. I'm good with that. They are different tools.

The 16-35 is on my 7D2 a lot and the 35 IS is always on the 6D.


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
The ­ Dark ­ Knight
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2012
     
Oct 19, 2016 17:43 |  #11

Just to jump in, I too am considering one of these lenses. I've had the 35mm f2 IS a few years ago, and liked it. Never used the 1.4.

To those that have owned both, for everyday usage, how big a factor was the size difference? Obviously the 1.4 is a larger lens, but wondering if it was a very noticeable factor when shooting. This alone may tilt my choice towards the smaller f2 as this would probably be a general use walkaround type lens and I would value compactness.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Oct 19, 2016 19:54 |  #12

The Dark Knight wrote in post #18161459 (external link)
Just to jump in, I too am considering one of these lenses. I've had the 35mm f2 IS a few years ago, and liked it. Never used the 1.4.

To those that have owned both, for everyday usage, how big a factor was the size difference? Obviously the 1.4 is a larger lens, but wondering if it was a very noticeable factor when shooting. This alone may tilt my choice towards the smaller f2 as this would probably be a general use walkaround type lens and I would value compactness.

It always comes back to what a person think's is normal. Is your normal lens a 200 f/2? Anything will be compact by comparison. Do you normally shoot a 40 pancake? The 35 f/2 IS will be far to heavy and bulky for you then.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Dark ­ Knight
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2012
     
Oct 19, 2016 20:35 |  #13

vengence wrote in post #18161562 (external link)
It always comes back to what a person think's is normal. Is your normal lens a 200 f/2? Anything will be compact by comparison. Do you normally shoot a 40 pancake? The 35 f/2 IS will be far to heavy and bulky for you then.

Uhh, not really. I'm asking for a direct comparison between 2 specific lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Oct 19, 2016 20:40 |  #14

The Dark Knight wrote in post #18161590 (external link)
Uhh, not really. I'm asking for a direct comparison between 2 specific lenses.

I'm sorry you can't understand there is answer bias in the question you've asked.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Dark ­ Knight
Goldmember
1,187 posts
Likes: 48
Joined Apr 2012
     
Oct 19, 2016 21:15 |  #15

vengence wrote in post #18161595 (external link)
I'm sorry you can't understand there is answer bias in the question you've asked.

Don't be an ****.




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

6,531 views & 5 likes for this thread
35L (ver I) vs. 35mm f/2 IS
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 dm19dm
1595 guests, 294 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.