Affordable, compact FF lenses in the 35mm-ish range

I like the things this focal length allows on a full frame camera when used for street photography, but would like something a bit more portable than my 24-70L. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but sometimes I'm just going for a walk and I don't want to bring the red with me. So while the 24-70 will remain my workhorse when I'm serious - such as when I'm on some kind of trip in a faraway exotic land - I'm looking for something of a backup lens for everyday purposes. This means compact, sub-$500, and solid AF.

Just to be clear: I know the 35L is seven flavours of awesome, but it's way more than I'm willing to spend.

I've been looking at the Canon 35 f/2 but it seems it has basically the same AF as the 50 1.8, which I have found to be really lacking. The Sigma 35 1.4 is crop sensor only, so what are my other options and which would you recommend given my mission statement above?

35mm f/2 is a very good "old" lens, with an excellent sharpness. For me the problem is not really the AF (I've owned it, better in my opinion than 50 f/1.8's AF), but the number of diaph blades : 5! in the same league than the 50 f/1.8...). Ugly bokeh. A rumor announces in some month a 35 f/2 or 1.8 with IS, but the price will be not really affordable. You have still the solution of the 28mm f/1.8 USM, IQ less good than 35mm f/2 but with a correct number of blades & USM.

If manual focus is not an issue : Voigtlander 40mm f/2 is a very compact and useful lens, very well built.

Titi

Canon makes a 28mm prime - Sigma probably does too

50 1.4, but the AF sucks too.

Photography is all about compromises. You don't want to spend the big bucks, then the 35/2 is your best option. Optically it is a marvelous lens, the only down side is its AF, but that is a small compromise you have to make.

Not sure what you mean by "compact" but you might look for one of the older 28-105mm EF lenses that Canon made. There are three "flavors" as I recall and even though all are quite good, one is optically very good. Without taking mine out of its case I would guess it is about 3 to 3-1/2 inches long. It is heavy, but then it uses metal extensively as opposed to plastic. When I got my 60D I tested my 28-105mm and I'm amazed at the quality the 10-year old lens can deliver (although it hasn;t had hard use).

Have you considered researching some of the older vintage MF lenses ? Alot of folks myself included achieve great results with some of these compact lightweight lenses that will meet your stated objectives.

Regards, Ron

howiewu wrote in post #14041818
Photography is all about compromises. You don't want to spend the big bucks, then the 35/2 is your best option. Optically it is a marvelous lens, the only down side is its AF, but that is a small compromise you have to make.

What is the downside of the 35mm 2.0 AF?

In my experience it was better than the 50mm 1.8 and was both fast and accurate.

If you a real "sleeper" of a bargain FF walk around lens, check out the 35-135mm 4.0-5.6 USM for about $120.

It is cheap, compact, light, and has decent image quality.

Another vote for the 35/2. Especially when buying refurb from Canon USA.

The AF is loudly buzzy (louder than I was expecting), but, accurate. No full-time manual. *Really* small as in smaller than 50/1.8.

The AF is more accurate on the 35/2 than on the 50/1.8 (at least with my copies of the 35/2 and 50/1.8).

chardog wrote in post #14041780
50 1.4, but the AF sucks too.

Huh? Since when? Sure, it's a bit fragile, but virtually as quick, accurate and quiet as some of Canon's best. (To reduce risk of damage to the EF 50/1.4's AF, use the lens hood, both when shooting and reversed for storage... it protects the lens nicely. Also don't manually override AF, some think that accelerates wear in the AF mechanisms, even though the lens is supposedly FTM.)

If the Canon 50/1.4 is a concern, there's always the Sigma as an alternative. It seems better made, has slightly better IQ in some ways, but is considerably larger and heavier (though a lot more compact than the OP's 24-70).

OP, I'd suggest the EF 28/1.8... It's quite compact (even with it's matched lens hood), fast focusing, reasonably well made and capable of very nice images... There's a little corner softness wide open, but nothing too drastic. The 28/1.8 also is a USM lens, or if you prefer manual focus it has an actual focusing ring, both of which the 35/2 lacks.

The EF 28/1.8 makes for a really nice "street" lens. I use it on both FF and crop cameras.

I don't know if they still make it, but Sigma used to offer a 28/1.8 too (along with a 24/1.8 and a 20/1.8). It is/was a pretty large, heavy lens though... and doesn't have HSM (Sigma's version of USM).

p.s. It's the Sigma 30mm f1.4 that's "crop only". Sigma doesn't make a 35mm prime. I think Zeiss makes a fine 35/2 ZE, but it's way over your budget and manual focus only. Samyang/Rokinon/Bower offer a 35/1.4 that's within your budget, but is manual focus and manual aperture only. If considering something fully manual like that, there are also all kinds of vintage lenses that are easily adapted to fit EOS cameras... 35/2 Nikkors, Pentax, Zuikos, etc. etc.

On 35f2 inner tube extends for AF, for most of the distances it is traveling only few mm, and extends longer for close ups. This is why it is fast to focus in most common situations.
This is most compact lens with AF I ever seen.

Another vote for the 35mm f2. Sharp from f2 up, close focusing, pretty fast focusing, very accurate focusing and compact. Love mine!

just for the record you can still use the sigma 30, but crop tool is gonna be your best friend. =P

kf095 wrote in post #14043818
On 35f2 inner tube extends for AF, for most of the distances it is traveling only few mm, and extends longer for close ups. This is why it is fast to focus in most common situations. This is most compact lens with AF I ever seen.

Yes, all of these are very small and very light:

185g 67.4mm x 42.5mm EF 28mm 2.8
210g 67.4mm x 42.5mm EF 35mm 2.0
190g 67.4mm x 42.5mm EF 50mm 1.8
130g 68.2mm x 41.0mm EF 50mm 1.8 II