Canon 35mm f/2 (non-IS) on 60D: worth it?

Hi guys,

Is it worth getting the old Canon EF 35mm f/2 (non-IS) to use on a 60D body? I read rather good reviews about the image quality on Full Frame, but how does it fare on crop body? I'm not too concerned about corner sharpness, but I do expect center sharpness to be good. I'll probably shoot wide open most of the time.

Build-wise, I understand it's made of plastic and the AF has no FTM ring, but how does it compare with other "budget" lenses? I hope it's a step above the nifty fifty. How about vs the Tamron 17-50 or the Canon 55-250mm. I consider the later two to be acceptable in both build and AF (for the price paid at least).

Ideally, I would go for the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Art, but I'm getting less and less pleased with the weight of my equipment and considering lightweight primes as an alternative. Saving extra bucks is nice too.

By the way, I mostly shoot portrait, environmental portrait & street photography. No sport, no action.

Thx

My impression of it is that the IQ is very nice, except for the bokeh in some situations.

Build-wise it is very similar to the 50/1.8 Mk I (the metal mount version), which makes it not great, but not horrible either. Definitely quite a bit better than the 50/1.8 Mk II (plastic mount).

I don't know about the Tamron, but compared to the 55-250, the quality of the plastic and the tolerances are about the same (the 35 is better in that it has a metal mount and a proper distance scale behind a window).

AF-wise I have no idea since I have not used it, but I imagine it is fine, if a bit slow and noisy.

However, if you're getting to the point where a 400g lens is starting to be too heavy for your needs, why don't you look at m4/3 or the Fuji ILC systems? They would save you a lot of weight whilst not sacrificing much, if any, IQ. I know that if weight was one of my top concerns, I would ditch DSLRs completely and go for an Olympus OM-D.

It's only going to buy you a stop at 35mm vs the 17-50 you have. You might not even notice much difference in subject isolation.

I'd strongly recommend the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's got better looking bokeh, fast ring type AF and it gives you 2 full stops over your zoom. If you are on a budget, the original version is quite cheap on the used market now that the new "ART" model is out.

I agree about the weight comments, none of the options in this category are heavy.

it's a nice little lens...with the price of the older sigma 30mm f1.4 on the used market though, I think i'd almost sway that way...they are going pretty cheap now

bokeh is going to have the pentagons in the highlights if you stop down a bit

build wise Tom is right on...it's pretty much exactly the same build as the 50mm MKI, i have to actually look to see which one i'm grabbing out of the bag they are so similar.

Sirrith wrote in post #16079568
However, if you're getting to the point where a 400g lens is starting to be too heavy for your needs, why don't you look at m4/3 or the Fuji ILC systems? They would save you a lot of weight whilst not sacrificing much, if any, IQ. I know that if weight was one of my top concerns, I would ditch DSLRs completely and go for an Olympus OM-D.

I actually considered m43, and the OM D in particular, after reading about how good olympus sensors are (apparently, the IQ is better than my 60D). Paired with their fast prime offering, i can also get similar depth of field despite the smaller sensor.

It looks really tempting, but then I would have to go through the hassle of selling all my equipment and buy new. How much could I realistically get from my current gear? USD 1100+? That would barely allow me to buy an OM D with no lens...

At this time, I'm not sure what the best long(er) term decision is: switch to m43 or stick to Canon... I've been disappointed with Canon offerings over the past few years: they either cater for pro/rich or entry level. Nothing in between. On the other end, I heard rumors m43 manufacturers aren't doing well and their days are counted... Anyone with a crystal ball wanna chip in?

I'm not sure about the 60D and the flash, but your 100 macro could go for around $400, the 17-50 for around $300, the 55-250 maybe $140 and the 50/1.8 around $70.

No idea about the future of m4/3, but I wouldn't really bother trying to predict that.

I have the 35/2 and on crop it's my favorite lens. The AF is fast (but loud) and accurate and it's a super light weight lens. If I could go back in time though, I'd have bought the EF 28/1.8 because I prefer that FL on FF.

As for the future thing... who cares what's in the future? Lenses maintain their value pretty well, and bodies don't drop that much over the course of 2-3 years either most of the time. Buy what you need/want for today and sell it later if things change. In the past year I've bought and sold several lenses and a body (T2i) and all together I've only really lost at most a couple hundred bucks.

tkbslc wrote in post #16079729
It's only going to buy you a stop at 35mm vs the 17-50 you have. You might not even notice much difference in subject isolation.

I hope to notice some improvement there and keeping it wide open to avoid the pentagon bokeh It's certainly not going to be dramatic, but I can compromise.

I would use that lens for walk around / street photography. Wanting to be as lightweight as possible. With the heat and humidity we have here in south east asia, walking around with heavy gear is a pain. Even a 400-500g lens over the course of a day starts to spoil the fun.

tkbslc wrote in post #16079729
I'd strongly recommend the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's got better looking bokeh, fast ring type AF and it gives you 2 full stops over your zoom. If you are on a budget, the original version is quite cheap on the used market now that the new "ART" model is out.

IQ-wise, it's a no brainer. Nothing beats these two Sigma. I'm just hoping to find something extra light. But would the compromise be worth it? I would need hand on experience with each option, or someone who has and can relate.

tkbslc wrote in post #16079729
I agree about the weight comments, none of the options in this category are heavy.

Well, it's all relative. I'm amazed at m43 manufacturers who manage to make great glass at just over 100g (e.g. pana 20mm 1.7 - 100g, oly 45mm f/1.8 - 115g).

the total difference is like 200g. If that bothers you, take a few credit cards out of your wallet before going out!

tkbslc wrote in post #16079793
the total difference is like 200g. If that bothers you, take a few credit cards out of your wallet before going out!

That's like 40 credit cards (yes, I checked :P)

I wouldn't really worry about the hexagon bokeh, you only really see it when stopped down beyond F/4.

Here's an example at f/2.5 from my old T2i (I don't have anything that shows the bokeh better at a lower f/stop on a crop sensor, but I do from the 6D if you're interested)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

cedm wrote in post #16079807
That's like 40 credit cards (yes, I checked :P)

leave wallet at home, take one credit card?

tkbslc wrote in post #16079819
leave wallet at home, take one credit card?

I only have 1 credit card. Any better idea?

cedm wrote in post #16079825
I only have 1 credit card. Any better idea?

no seriously, I think you'll find the difference to be insignificant. That's all I am saying. The heavy part is the camera.

I have it on a 60D (weel, had it...taken to canon for repair now) and I can say I love that little cheap lens. It's small, light, AF is fast (noisy). I can bring my 60D always with me without having something bulky in my bag. This was taken with the 35mm, wide open:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/lucasano/906577​4432/