I'm Torn on that 35mm f/2 IS

I am not going to get rid of my 35F2 for this one. The price is a bit steep for me, and I like my 35F2. It does what I want, so I won't rush to fork over $850 for another lens with the same focal length and max aperture.
If the price were $400 or $450, I would be tempted.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #15212543
IS vs 1.4 ... imagine group shots or DOF needed for food shots (without using up your ISO)

Group shots at below 1/30 shutter speed? Good luck, with or without IS.

I'm not in the market for a 35mm lens, but even if I were, I'd probably skip this unless my goal was to travel light (i.e. without tripod) and get the extra stops for stationary stuff.

Sirrith wrote in post #15212394
I say forget it and get the new sigma 35 1.4 instead when it comes out

I'd get the Sigma over an overpriced Canon any day. 1.4 with IS will be amazing.

tkbslc wrote in post #15215222
Group shots at below 1/30 shutter speed? Good luck, with or without IS.

Yeh forget keeping the camera steady...you'll have to worry about your subjects moving at those speeds.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #15212543
IS vs 1.4 ... imagine group shots or DOF needed for food shots (without using up your ISO)

I use f/2 on both my 28mm f/1.8 and my 50mm f/1.4.. on the 28mm f/1.8 because it reduces the CA a bit and sharpens the lens up quite nicely (I say it "crisps" it a bit) for a small tradeoff in speed... On the 50mm f/1.4 because the slight extra bit of DOF seems to be helpful.... f/1.4 is nice sometimes, I wont lie, but in general they spend their lives at f/2-f/2.8

frugivore wrote in post #15215254
I'm not in the market for a 35mm lens, but even if I were, I'd probably skip this unless my goal was to travel light (i.e. without tripod) and get the extra stops for stationary stuff.

Lawl, I rarely use a tripod, So for me, IS is never a detriment, and this is a walkaround lens for me (It goes on my 7D, my 7D goes in my go-everywhere bag) No problems taking my Sigmalux or 15-85 around with me all the time mind you, but I do prefer the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/2 on there because of size (Otherwise theres not much space in there if i say, buy something and wanna toss it in there)

---

Chief complaints on the 28mm f/1.8 are CA, flare, and yeah i concede its not the sharpest lens in my bag where I use it most often, Also the aperture is not rounded which means my bokeh balls usually end up not so ball-ish... good lens that grew on me though

Complaints on the 35mm f/2 are basically the bokeh can be VERY distracting when I shoot food and that.. it goes all nasty and double visioned looking....overall the lens itself I did like, and if i shot more distant subjects id take the 35mm f/2, but for what i tend to do the 28mm f/1.8 works better for me..

The Sigma 30 has a poor MFD which is why i returned it, Great optically however

As for the 35L I hear great things, its just the price thats kept me away, A few hundred difference is still a difference you know

No real complaints on my Sigmalux though, I love that thing... its just 50mm, and for food, 28-35 is more comfortable on my 7D

Its unfortunate canon has their head up their rear.

If canon developed a Canon 50 f/1.4 mk2 it would sell like hotcakes instead of a 35 f/2 is.

I wouldn't think twice for a 35 f/2 IS. 35L is a total no brainer. The high ISO performance of camera's these days will probably appreciate faster glass vs image stabilization.

Hogloff wrote in post #15215341
I'd get the Sigma over an overpriced Canon any day. 1.4 with IS will be amazing.

who's got that one coming out?


I think if this lens is intended for anyone out there....it's you Kenji..and seriously the price in comparison to the other releases isn't nearly as bad...i'm sure this will be a good lens, I just wonder if they are discontinuing all the primes that they're coming out with IS lenses...if that's the case, I'm a bit scared for myself

AlanU wrote in post #15215410
Its unfortunate canon has their head up their rear.

If canon developed a Canon 50 f/1.4 mk2 it would sell like hotcakes instead of a 35 f/2 is.

according to canonrumors that should be slated for next year(initially the thought it was being announced now) but it's a 50mm f1.4IS

AlanU wrote in post #15215410
Its unfortunate canon has their head up their rear.

If canon developed a Canon 50 f/1.4 mk2 it would sell like hotcakes instead of a 35 f/2 is.

I wouldn't think twice for a 35 f/2 IS. 35L is a total no brainer. The high ISO performance of camera's these days will probably appreciate faster glass vs image stabilization.

Actually..wouldnt the better ISO performance say IS and a smaller aperture is better than a larger aperture since you dont need a large aperture to get the shot anymore? and stopping down to a smaller aperture results in higher sharpness which is a massive benefit to modern high density sensors?

KenjiS wrote in post #15215421
Actually..wouldnt the better ISO performance say IS and a smaller aperture is better than a larger aperture since you dont need a large aperture to get the shot anymore? and stopping down to a smaller aperture results in higher sharpness which is a massive benefit to modern high density sensors?

Thats one way to look at it. However if the subject moves IS wont give you faster shutter speeds to stop motion.

I guess put a redring around it and people will buy it LOL!!

DreDaze wrote in post #15215418
I think if this lens is intended for anyone out there....it's you Kenji..and seriously the price in comparison to the other releases isn't nearly as bad...i'm sure this will be a good lens, I just wonder if they are discontinuing all the primes that they're coming out with IS lenses...if that's the case, I'm a bit scared for myself

See thats the hilarity of this announcement, The 35mm f/2 and 24-70 f/4L IS are two lenses RIGHT up my alley, I adore both lenses when you take the price out of the equation... the 24-70 would find its way in my bag almost guaranteed alongside a FF DSLR actually (.7x Macro Zoom! )

But then i put the price in the equation and I start sighing... Simply put, Nikon has a better deal out there, Sure theres no AF-S 35mm f/2 right now (I bet you one is coming soon however) and the 35mm f/2D has the same bokeh problems as the Canon 35 f/2 i have now (According to photozone at least.. they mentioned "double visioned bokeh" so yeah..) Nikon has its own Pseudo-macro Zoom in the new 70-200 f/4 VR which also claims improved VR performance (5 stops) which again, is very appealing...

Right now I'd have to come up with a good $2000 out of pocket to buy a 5D Mark III, The 6D doesnt appeal to me for the simple fact of ergonomics and I somehow feel I'm giving up more getting a 5D II than I'm really gaining (Could be wrong..)

On the other hand I could trade everything off and get a D600 and a full compliment of lenses for very little to nothing out of pocket..

yeah, except for the price, i was actually waiting for a new FF kit lens. (didn't want to buy the 24-105)

-0-

without IS, i need 1/125 to keep my hand shake from affecting the shot.
with IS, i can push that down to 1/60, good enough for people shots.

Clearly Canon are going for IS on all their prime lenses.

In principal an upgraded 35mm f/2 makes sense if the image quality is there but the focus ring looks no better than the one on the current f/2.

AlanU wrote in post #15215410
If canon developed a Canon 50 f/1.4 mk2 it would sell like hotcakes instead of a 35 f/2 is.

Even a 50/1.4 Mark II with an $800 price tag?

Echo Johnson wrote in post #15215618
Even a 50/1.4 Mark II with an $800 price tag?

Pentax does it

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ephoto_55mm_f_1​_4_DA.html