First Impressions: Canon 35mm f/2

I liked it better on a crop rather than a FF.

Thanks for the review. I was considering this lens or the sigma 30mm but I took my chances with the sigma, so far so good.

I guess i should amend my original post now that i've essentially come to a final verdict on the lens:

Pros:

-Sharp wide open at f/2

-Good bokeh wide open at f/2

-Very good color and contrast wide open

-AF is very quick and sure of itself

-The close MFD is really fun to play with!

-The build is pretty good for what you pay, No wobbly bits, it feels solid in the hand and doesnt feel like its about to come apart at the seams or anything

Cons:

-The Bokeh can be a bit weird with some backgrounds if you stop it down due to the 5 bladed aperture

-The AF does make noise, Though most reviews exaggerate how loud it is.. Its also so fast that the noise isnt there very long...

-For me i found the extending front element something i forgot about and had the edge of it bump into the edge of a table.. Now i wont be forgetting that again

-Lightroom doesnt have corrections for this lens in it... Dont know why

----

Vs the 28mm f/1.8:

-Quite a bit cheaper

-At f/2 its a far superior lens, The 28mm f/1.8 needs f/2.8 to get CLOSE to as good as this lens is at f/2

-It also has far better bokeh at f/2 than the 28mm f/1.8, it also from my experience has less of a tendency to have very weird bokeh for no reason (Something about the 28's optics, Im not the only one who noted the strange tendency of the 28's bokeh to look really strange)

-Almost no CA or purple fringing compared to the 28 which has horrible PF problems even for websized shots and NOT pixel peeping

-The AF speed and accuracy is actually very close, Im really not sure either one is "Better" than the other, except the 28 is silent and has instant manual override...

-Build really isnt that different.. Honestly, both are solid lenses... I really cant say the 28 is built any better...

------

Between the two, on APS-C get the 35mm f/2, pocket the extra cash..

I dont want to comment VS the Sigma because I didnt own a good copy of it, and i didnt own it long enough or take enough shots with it to really give it a fair evaluation...

Thanks for the update on your thoughts!

No problem I write this stuff to help others who are looking..

Kenji, how is the lens working for you since it's been a few more weeks?

I've been thinking about either the 35 f/2 or 24 2.8. My 100 f/2 has been very sharp for me, which caused me to think about the 35 f/2.

I need a wider lens than my 50 1.8, but I also still want to be able to use it in low-light conditions for sports. Does anyone have experience with both the 35 f/2 and 24 2.8?

Man that af buzz is irritating. lol.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #14113914
I've been thinking about either the 35 f/2 or 24 2.8. My 100 f/2 has been very sharp for me, which caused me to think about the 35 f/2.

I need a wider lens than my 50 1.8, but I also still want to be able to use it in low-light conditions for sports. Does anyone have experience with both the 35 f/2 and 24 2.8?

Can you shoot your 50 at 2.0 with success during these sporting events? What about at 2.8? Now step back some to simulate the FOV of both those lenses. Still like what you see?

mickeyb105 wrote in post #14113914
I've been thinking about either the 35 f/2 or 24 2.8. My 100 f/2 has been very sharp for me, which caused me to think about the 35 f/2.

I need a wider lens than my 50 1.8, but I also still want to be able to use it in low-light conditions for sports. Does anyone have experience with both the 35 f/2 and 24 2.8?

My 100F2 is razor sharp, but 35F2 is just sharp prime. Plus it is not wide enough on my 500D.

KenjiS wrote in post #14017463
I guess i should amend my original post now that i've essentially come to a final verdict on the lens:

Pros:

-Sharp wide open at f/2

-Good bokeh wide open at f/2

-Very good color and contrast wide open

-AF is very quick and sure of itself

-The close MFD is really fun to play with!

-The build is pretty good for what you pay, No wobbly bits, it feels solid in the hand and doesnt feel like its about to come apart at the seams or anything

Cons:

-The Bokeh can be a bit weird with some backgrounds if you stop it down due to the 5 bladed aperture

-The AF does make noise, Though most reviews exaggerate how loud it is.. Its also so fast that the noise isnt there very long...

-For me i found the extending front element something i forgot about and had the edge of it bump into the edge of a table.. Now i wont be forgetting that again

-Lightroom doesnt have corrections for this lens in it... Dont know why

----

Vs the 28mm f/1.8:

-Quite a bit cheaper

-At f/2 its a far superior lens, The 28mm f/1.8 needs f/2.8 to get CLOSE to as good as this lens is at f/2

-It also has far better bokeh at f/2 than the 28mm f/1.8, it also from my experience has less of a tendency to have very weird bokeh for no reason (Something about the 28's optics, Im not the only one who noted the strange tendency of the 28's bokeh to look really strange)

-Almost no CA or purple fringing compared to the 28 which has horrible PF problems even for websized shots and NOT pixel peeping

-The AF speed and accuracy is actually very close, Im really not sure either one is "Better" than the other, except the 28 is silent and has instant manual override...

-Build really isnt that different.. Honestly, both are solid lenses... I really cant say the 28 is built any better...

------

Between the two, on APS-C get the 35mm f/2, pocket the extra cash..

I dont want to comment VS the Sigma because I didnt own a good copy of it, and i didnt own it long enough or take enough shots with it to really give it a fair evaluation...

Kenji,

I'm not sure that you've owned a good copy of the 28. :/

The things you're reporting, massive PF and flaring, softness til f/2.8 and weird bokeh are things I have NOT experienced with 2 copies of this lens.

Ian

PS - Did you use a filter on the 28?

kf095 wrote in post #14115814
My 100F2 is razor sharp, but 35F2 is just shap prime. Plus it is not wide enough on my 500D.

Thanks kf, that was pretty much what I needed to know.

worrptangl wrote in post #14109320
Kenji, how is the lens working for you since it's been a few more weeks?

So far, So good, Great little lens and im loving using it.. I've found a few more negatives (I should amend the list) The AF can fail sometimes, and the Bokeh can get..really strange in some situations..

But the weird Bokeh occurs less frequently than on the 28

miguelr wrote in post #14115709
Man that af buzz is irritating. lol.

Its a lot LOT less loud in reality.. trust me

twoshadows wrote in post #14116051
Kenji,

I'm not sure that you've owned a good copy of the 28. :/

The things you're reporting, massive PF and flaring, softness til f/2.8 and weird bokeh are things I have NOT experienced with 2 copies of this lens.

Ian

PS - Did you use a filter on the 28?

No filter on my 28 no, I dont use filters... As for the flare and fringing, Yeah, my copy is pretty bad at that, and its not "soft" wider than f/2.8, just not as sharp as i want, Optically it simply just wasnt as good as my other lenses... As for the weird bokeh, other reviewers pointed it out as well (In fact other reviewers pointed all of that out..)

Its not a terrible lens, I just disliked it and found its shortcomings annoying... I threw out so many shots from the 28 because the bokeh went weird or the image just wasnt sharp...im not having those issues with the 35...

heres some more from the 35mm f/2

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​837707050/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/6​808686726/