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 29 Jan 2018 (Monday) 08:45
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

35is vs 40stm?

 
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,916 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 500
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited 9 months ago by mwsilver.
     
May 15, 2019 21:54 |  #31

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18861849 (external link)
Couple of other things to consider:

1) 40mm is a different view. To me, it's more natural than 35mm and 50mm.
2) The 40mm STM images look more "rounded", to me. The 35mm USM IS images look kinda "flat" and 2-dimensional in comparison, to me.

The old EF 35mm f/2 version w/out IS delivers much more natural looking, "rounder" images than either of the above, for my taste.

I've owned the 35mm f/2 IS USM for several years. This is the first time I've heard of anyone favoring the older 35mm f/2 over it.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,517 posts
Gallery: 154 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4566
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 16, 2019 11:02 |  #32

.

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18861849 (external link)
.
The old EF 35mm f/2 version w/out IS delivers much more natural looking, "rounder" images than either of the above, for my taste.
.

.
Try as I might, I cannot imagine what you mean when you say, "rounder images".

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Thanks

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KrankyKraut
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Oct 2009
     
May 16, 2019 11:28 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #33

"Rounder" meaning more 3D-looking, less etched and flat. Images look more film-like and less digital.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,517 posts
Gallery: 154 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4566
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
May 16, 2019 11:42 |  #34

.

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18862354 (external link)
"Rounder" meaning more 3D-looking, less etched and flat. Images look more film-like and less digital.

.
Hmmm. . I've never thought of digital images as being prone to looking "flat" ..... nor of film images as being more 3-D than digital. . Lord knows, I've taken lots and lots of film images that looked very "flat" and "etched", and I've taken lots of digital images that had a lot of depth and dimension.

I guess to me that is one of those things that is more dependent on the subject matter, and not so much on the medium or gear being used.

In light of what you said about 35mm v1 images looking more 3-D than 35mm v2 images, it would be interesting to see someone shoot the same thing with both lenses, and post the results side by side. . Comparison shoots like that are very interesting to see.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,108 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2009
     
May 17, 2019 09:38 as a reply to  @ Tom Reichner's post |  #35

I have the old and new Canon 35F2 lenses. I confess that I have used the new lens on crop and full frame, but have only used the older lens extensively on crop. You don’t see soft corners with the older lens on crop, and the older lens is very sharp.
There is one area where you can get large differences in image quality. I am not referring to IS, AF speed or other characteristics here. The older lens is not resistant to flare, and image quality suffers when shooting toward the sun. You get monstrous purple flare when shooting toward the sun, if you don’t use a hood. The newer lens has much better contrast and flare resistance. You can get away with not using the hood on the new IS version, but I always use the hood nonetheless.
The older lens is very sharp, but bokeh is not so hot unless the lens is wide open. The new IS version of the 35F2 has much smoother bokeh.
Image quality differences are related to the higher contrast that you often get with the new lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bseitz234
Senior Member
Avatar
520 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 201
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Watertown, MA, USA
     
May 17, 2019 10:30 |  #36

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18861876 (external link)
The 35/2 IS is the kind of lens that makes me wonder who was asleep over at Canon, because it smashes their normal price for performance stratification.

This^. I keep toying with trying the 35L (OG) and then thinking... why? The fact that the f/2 IS is that good, and as cheap as it is, is remarkable. Now if only that 24/2.8 IS was an f/2 I'd snag it as well...



-Brian
5 EOS bodies, and constantly growing lens selection.
IG @bseitz234

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
1,482 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 986
Joined Oct 2014
     
May 17, 2019 12:23 |  #37

bseitz234 wrote in post #18862817 (external link)
This^. I keep toying with trying the 35L (OG) and then thinking... why? The fact that the f/2 IS is that good, and as cheap as it is, is remarkable. Now if only that 24/2.8 IS was an f/2 I'd snag it as well...

And from what I've heard (second-hand accounts only) they aren't nearly as good even aside from the smaller aperture. Now for the 35L, if you need or want that aperture, f/2 won't cut it.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127590681@N03/ (external link)
I love a like, but feedback (including CC) is even better!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,916 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 500
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited 9 months ago by mwsilver. (4 edits in all)
     
May 17, 2019 13:06 |  #38

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18862858 (external link)
And from what I've heard (second-hand accounts only) they aren't nearly as good even aside from the smaller aperture. Now for the 35L, if you need or want that aperture, f/2 won't cut it.

It depends why you want the faster f/1.4 aperture of the 35mm L II. If it is strictly for the shallower DoF, then I agree. However, those considering it for the extra stop of light over the 35 f/2 will likely be disappointed. According to DXOMark, the EF 35mm f/2 IS has a light transmission tStop score of 2.0. it is fairly unusal for a lens to have a tStop equal to it's widest aperture, and speaks to the efficiency of light transmission of that lens. The 35L II with its f/1.4 aperture, however, has a tStop of 1.7. which means it will only transmit around 1/3 stop more light to the sensor than the 35mm f/2 IS. So, if that hoped for extra stop of light is a major reason for buying the 35L, it doesn't get you that much more light for all that extra cash.


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
Jhap33
Senior Member
Avatar
591 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 64
Joined May 2009
Location: New JerZ
Post edited 9 months ago by Jhap33.
     
May 17, 2019 18:18 |  #39

I used to have both and i sold my 40mm.35mm is way better than 40mm


EOS R *EF 24-105 f4 * 70-200 f2.8 II L* 35 f2 IS * 40 f2.8 * 85 f1.8 * 100 f2.8 L *
-=6DII *5D2* 6D* 60D* T2i*24-105 f4 II L *24-70 f2.8 L * 35L * ∑ 17-50 f2.8 OS * Canon 50 f1.4* ∑ 50 f1.4 Sold *=-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,916 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 500
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
May 17, 2019 20:31 |  #40

Jhap33 wrote in post #18863053 (external link)
I used to have both and i sold my 40mm.35mm is way better han 40mm

Well I also prefer 35mm, but which is better comes down to personal choice. After all, the difference is only 5 mm.


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
Doctor ­ Mabuse
Junior Member
27 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2014
Post edited 9 months ago by Doctor Mabuse. (2 edits in all)
     
May 21, 2019 02:29 |  #41

I loved the size and convenience of the 40mm pancake and I took some great walk around shots with it on a trip to Japan, even if it was a little 'tight' in some situations on a crop (7dii).

But having unexpectedly won an eBay auction for one with an impulse lowball bid, I have found the 35 f/2 IS to be a much more versatile, better quality lens and it has literally replaced the whole trio of classic 'cheapies' (24 f/2.8, 40 f/f2.8 and 50 f/1.8) in my camera bag.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kermit4u
Senior Member
Avatar
853 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 387
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Hartsville, SC
     
May 23, 2019 06:20 |  #42

mwsilver wrote in post #18862888 (external link)
It depends why you want the faster f/1.4 aperture of the 35mm L II. If it is strictly for the shallower DoF, then I agree. However, those considering it for the extra stop of light over the 35 f/2 will likely be disappointed. According to DXOMark, the EF 35mm f/2 IS has a light transmission tStop score of 2.0. it is fairly unusal for a lens to have a tStop equal to it's widest aperture, and speaks to the efficiency of light transmission of that lens. The 35L II with its f/1.4 aperture, however, has a tStop of 1.7. which means it will only transmit around 1/3 stop more light to the sensor than the 35mm f/2 IS. So, if that hoped for extra stop of light is a major reason for buying the 35L, it doesn't get you that much more light for all that extra cash.


Which focuses faster the f2is or the 1.4 ii? I keep thinking the 1.4 would be worth the money as it is one of the few lens that I rarely if ever see being sold used on BHPhoto or the other store sites. My understanding it is a near perfect lens.


]6Dmkii.gripped|7Dmkii gripped|5DC gripped|7Dmkii gripped|Canonet QL17 Giii|too many yet not enough lenses https://www.jeffowenph​otography.com/ (external link)
https://www.instagram.​com/jeffowenphotograph​y/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,916 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 500
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
May 23, 2019 06:46 |  #43

kermit4u wrote in post #18865986 (external link)
Which focuses faster the f2is or the 1.4 ii? I keep thinking the 1.4 would be worth the money as it is one of the few lens that I rarely if ever see being sold used on BHPhoto or the other store sites. My understanding it is a near perfect lens.

That's something I can't help you with.


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

6,173 views & 19 likes for this thread
35is vs 40stm?
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 brservices
1005 guests, 360 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.