First Impressions: Canon 35mm f/2

Daan37 wrote in post #13992196
The 35/2 is very close to the 35L for IQ. In fact, my 35/2 was better in the fringing / CA department. AF is snappy and accurate. And yes, it is small and light. Only real downsides to the 35/2 are it's built quality and crappy MF ring/operation.

But its around the $300 mark, I can live with it, If it takes a hit and gets broken, Shrug and buy another!

The little bubble front element makes me nervous, I tend to chuck my camera + lens in my bag with no lens cap on (To have one less thing to fumble with if i go to grab and shoot) Usually i have a hood to protect it..ill just have to order a hood.. not a big deal

I started typing this a while ago and ended up getting sidetracked doing stuff lol... But i did go shoot some more with the 35/2, Realllly liking the contrast

1Tanker wrote in post #13992336
Nice vid (minus iPhone quality ). I just viewed it after commenting on your "Prime nuts" thread. How do you find the bokeh compared to the 28 1.8? I know you said the 28 needs 2.8 to get good, but if you were to get a decent shot at 1.8..vs the 35 @ 2.. which do you think is creamier?

Focus noise, and to some extent..speed on it wouldn't be a big concern for me, i'm more interested in IQ.....and the price is definitely right.

Hoo boy..thats a good question actually, I really rarely used my 28mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 because it was really soft.. I guess if im being honest at f/1.8, the 28mm f/1.8 is creamier, But the entire image is creamier as well.. Not to mention having a lot of CA/Purple fringing...

The "look" i love is to have my subject, or whatever i want in focus to be tack sharp and in focus so it pops, with everything i dont care about melted away into nothingness... The 28 f/1.8 could do that, but i needed f/2.8 to really the in focus bits sharp... Also the color and such on the 28mm f/1.8 kinda stunk when you werent at f/2.8...

To me, in my opinion, the 28mm f/1.8 just isnt worth the extra dough for an APS-C shooter, its really not a BETTER lens overall, The only thing it really has in my opinion is the USM motor... the difference between f/2 and f/1.8 in shooting isnt HUGE...

highergr0und wrote in post #13992900
I had the 35 f2 and returned it for the sigma 30.

The 35 was super sharp at f2. AF was louder but pretty quick. It would only be annoying if you really needed quiet. The lens is tiny but pretty solid feeling. Not super quality, but way better than the nifty. The f2 just felt limiting. I would still need a flash a good bit in the house.

But I just couldn't get the sigma out of my head. That extra stop and different bokeh just kept calling my name. All the threads about its greatness despite its calibration issues swayed me. The first copy was terrible. I sent the second copy in with my t3i and it came back looking great. Plenty sharp at 1.4, gives me more options, and seemingly right on par with the 35 at f2, although I need a bit more testing

I'm still on the fence about which will have been better in the long run (no current plans for a FF). I have only been able to get a few pics with the 30 since it came back. The 35 may win in edge to edge sharpness at wider apertures but who knows.....

I tried a copy of the Sigma 30 before either the 28 or the 35, I got one that basically got 1 in 20 shots in focus outside... and it wasnt just a -little- off, it was more like vaseline rubbed over your front element off...

For me, f/2 is enough 90% of the time, in fact my Sigmalux spends its life at f/2 for depth of field reasons (Its a small difference..but its a difference i need!)

pkilla wrote in post #13992944
congrats nice pics and nice lens

Thank you!

i'd be mad at my friend if they chose the 35f2 over the sigma

hopefully this one works out for you...

I am happy with mine. The lens is small enough that you can keep the hood on at all times to protect the front element. I do.
The lens is fine at f2 and AF is reasonably fast and accurate.

It's a good lens. Others may be faster, have quiet AF, more aperture blades, etc, but the 35 f/2 is tiny, weighs nothing, is dead reliable, and sharp at all apertures.

KenjiS wrote in post #13993096
I tried a copy of the Sigma 30 before either the 28 or the 35, I got one that basically got 1 in 20 shots in focus outside... and it wasnt just a -little- off, it was more like vaseline rubbed over your front element off...

For me, f/2 is enough 90% of the time, in fact my Sigmalux spends its life at f/2 for depth of field reasons (Its a small difference..but its a difference i need!)
Thank you!

Your sigma sounds like my first copy....

I know I wanted one super fast lens, and the 30 made sense because the DOF isn't too crazy from most realistic working distances. I agree that a 50 or longer wide open starts to get a bit on the thin side. I'm just looking forward to the weekend so I can take this thing outside.

Now I'm actually thinking of going with the canon 50 1.4 for my next lens..... or maybe the 60mm macro. If I kept the 35 f2 I probably would snag the sigmalux

^- IMHO when it comes to a 50, the Sigmalux has no rival in the price bracket

Might wanna check out the Tamron 60 if you're considering the EF-S 60mm, the Tammy is f/2 which makes it a nice hybrid

I like 35F2. Not as sharp as my 100F2, but still sharp enough at f2. Corners are very soft on my copy if wide open.
F2.2 on 5Dc.

Before i go to bed here are some i took with the lens earlier (I swear i made this post!)

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​796972638/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​796972658/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​943086887/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​943086905/

I'm a European car guy but those G8's are the bee's knees.

KenjiS wrote in post #13993045
But its around the $300 mark, I can live with it, If it takes a hit and gets broken, Shrug and buy another!

The little bubble front element makes me nervous, I tend to chuck my camera + lens in my bag with no lens cap on (To have one less thing to fumble with if i go to grab and shoot) Usually i have a hood to protect it..ill just have to order a hood.. not a big deal

I started typing this a while ago and ended up getting sidetracked doing stuff lol... But i did go shoot some more with the 35/2, Realllly liking the contrast

To me it isn't so much about the price, but rather if it will survive heavy usage. But if you use the 35/2 for normal everyday use, it's built quality is just fine.

And like I said, in the color / contrast department the 35/2 and 25L are too close to call. If you can life with the f/2, the 35/2 is a lot of bang for the buck. Enjoy

DreDaze wrote in post #13993240
i'd be mad at my friend if they chose the 35f2 over the sigma

hopefully this one works out for you...

Ditto -The Sigma 30 is about the only thing I miss since going FF. Luckily, I have the incredible Sigma 50 and am enjoying the comfortably wide 35 f2 on FF!

Stir Fry A Lot wrote in post #13995515
I'm a European car guy but those G8's are the bee's knees.

Indeed, Such a great car that was fairly affordable and practical to boot.. Sadly it came way too late

They also very sadly didnt bring it over to Chevy and replace the %%^#@ Impala with it, or make it the next Impala, because honestly, that woulda been awesome

the 35 f/2 is a fantastic lens, I try to rotate my usage between it and the sigma 50 1.4 on a monthly basis.
great quality wide open, small and light to carry around. AF is not that loud.

^- Pretty much how i've been feeling about it...cheap, good focus, sharp, nice colors, contrasty, and has a nice "look" to everything

Also the MFD is REALLY fun on it!