EF35/2 vs EF35/2 IS

I've looked everywhere for a comparison of these two lenses but can't seem to find one.

I want to purchase a 35/2 but I would like to know if the ~$250 price difference is worth it. I know the older 35 without IS has 5 blades and is built cheaper, but I don't need IS and I don't think the 5 blades would affect me too much. I'm just looking for a lens that is decently sharp at f2 with nice color.

I apologize if I overlooked an existing thread on this topic.

Thanks!

The 35 IS is sharp @ f2 with great color and contrast.

Loxley wrote in post #16521483
I apologize if I overlooked an existing thread on this topic.

Couldn't be arsed to search the forum more like

Me having the 16-35mm 2.8 am wondering if there is any "real" benefit from having the 35mm IS F2 ??

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16521614
Me having the 16-35mm 2.8 am wondering if there is any "real" benefit from having the 35mm IS F2 ??

While the 16-35 2.8 II goes for $1,700 new, the 35/2.0 (older non-is) goes for $310 new.

That is my benefit But I am looking for some feedback on the performance of the older non-is version vs the newer one.

I have both versions of the 35F2 and both are sharp and useful at F2. I use them on the 60D and T2i. There are a few instances where I can point to better performance for the IS version:
Flare resistance is good on the IS lens and you don't really need to use the hood for anything but lens protection. The older lens really requires that you keep the hood on all the time. The older lens is compact, so this isn't a problem. Without the hood, the old lens can yield massive flare if shooting into the sun ...not bad of you don't mind purple. Get the Canon hood for it.
AF is silent and quicker on the new lens. I never had a problem with the AF on the old lens. It was my favorite until I got the IS lens.
If you want to shoot at 1/20 or 1/15 in a museum you can easily do this with IS. Generally, most museums and cathedrals have good light, but there are places in the Vatican and Louvre where IS would have been helpful.
If you just want a lens to shoot photos of family and friends at F2 and 1/50 or 1/60, either lens will be fine. If anything, indoor color (with artificial light) might be somewhat better on the older version. Both lenses are sharp corner to corner when stopped down. While the newer lens might be a hair sharper, I never was disappointed in the results I got with the older version, once I learned to avoid shooting into the sun and always used the hood. Background blur is smoother on the new lens.
The new lens is a "better" lens overall. Whether or not it is worth the extra money is your call. There is going to be copy variation with any of these lenses, just take a look at the LensRental review.
I have my old lens on the shelf and the new one mounted on my camera. However, you could be perfectly happy with the older lens. There are advantages to the new one. Is it worth an extra $250--probably. Was the lens worth $849...not to me.
I now have too many 35 mm lenses: the Tokina 35F2.8 macro, Canon 35 F2, and Canon 35F2 IS. The macro lens might get mounted on a camera for a trip to the gardens, but the IS lens gets my nod.
I should mention that after 3 years of heavy use with the older 35F2 I wore out the diaphragm and had to get it repaired for $109 by Canon service. It came back fine in about 10 days. I haven't read of any other instances of this, but the repair cost was not excessive.
I originally got the old lens for $260, right before the price hike. It was a good deal.

artyH wrote in post #16521719
I have both versions of the 35F2 and both are sharp and useful at F2. I use them on the 60D and T2i. There are a few instances where I can point to better performance for the IS version:
Flare resistance is good on the IS lens and you don't really need to use the hood for anything but lens protection. The older lens really requires that you keep the hood on all the time. The older lens is compact, so this isn't a problem. Without the hood, the old lens can yield massive flare if shooting into the sun ...not bad of you don't mind purple. Get the Canon hood for it.
AF is silent and quicker on the new lens. I never had a problem with the AF on the old lens. It was my favorite until I got the IS lens.
If you want to shoot at 1/20 or 1/15 in a museum you can easily do this with IS. Generally, most museums and cathedrals have good light, but there are places in the Vatican and Louvre where IS would have been helpful.
If you just want a lens to shoot photos of family and friends at F2 and 1/50 or 1/60, either lens will be fine. If anything, indoor color (with artificial light) might be somewhat better on the older version. Both lenses are sharp corner to corner when stopped down. While the newer lens might be a hair sharper, I never was disappointed in the results I got with the older version, once I learned to avoid shooting into the sun and always used the hood. Background blur is smoother on the new lens.
The new lens is a "better" lens overall. Whether or not it is worth the extra money is your call. There is going to be copy variation with any of these lenses, just take a look at the LensRental review.
I have my old lens on the shelf and the new one mounted on my camera. However, you could be perfectly happy with the older lens. There are advantages to the new one. Is it worth an extra $250--probably. Was the lens worth $849...not to me.
I now have too many 35 mm lenses: the Tokina 35F2.8 macro, Canon 35 F2, and Canon 35F2 IS. The macro lens might get mounted on a camera for a trip to the gardens, but the IS lens gets my nod.
I should mention that after 3 years of heavy use with the older 35F2 I wore out the diaphragm and had to get it repaired for $109 by Canon service. It came back fine in about 10 days. I haven't read of any other instances of this, but the repair cost was not excessive.
I originally got the old lens for $260, right before the price hike. It was a good deal.

Awesome! Thanks for the great feedback. What I gathered from this: If I can afford the extra $250 for the newer IS version it will be worth it in the long run. But if I can't, then I should be very happy with the older 35/2

There are some comparisons between these two lenses on this review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Heya,

If budget is a big factor, the 35mm F2 is a great way to go. $300 typically, sometimes less, even new, on Amazon. Very sharp, great lens. For $500, you get the latest version, with the latest coatings on the lens, slightly better glass, IS, etc. I had to weigh in on this myself too as I was in the same boat. Not looking for a zoom, regardless of L quality or anything, as I just don't want a zoom. I wanted prime. But didn't want to buy a $1500+ lens for the kind of work I do. After trying a few 30~35mm lenses, I ended up going with the 35mm F2 IS. After having used it a lot and I do a lot of night and low light shooting, I've come to find the IS very good. It handles glare/flare quite well too, even without a hood. So ultimately, with the performance at F2 and the speed of it's AF and the wonderful contrast/color, I'm very satisfied with the 35mm F2 IS. It's a lens I'm trusting to take photos of my latest newborn, which to me, is way more important than printed "tests" that are being compared by some. I like using real world results.

Very best,

I think that the IS version is worth the current price of admission, but the old lens is no slouch. You do need to learn work around it's limitations, namely flare (use the hood) and avoid shooting into the sun.
I should point out that IS improves practical sharpness, even when taking photos at 1/60 on a crop body.

shedberg wrote in post #16522146
There are some comparisons between these two lenses on this review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

And you can compare the sharpness between them here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

For $250 more than the old lens, definitely. Go for the IS version.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16521611
Couldn't be arsed to search the forum more like

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16521614
Me having the 16-35mm 2.8 am wondering if there is any "real" benefit from having the 35mm IS F2 ??

Didn't bother to search the forum?

I have the 17-40L and 24 f/2.8 IS. The benefit to me is the 24 is smaller and costs less. It also gives me f/2.8 for better indoor performance. The drawback is the lack of zoom. I'm not sure 24 will be wide enough for me.

In your case, you'll gain weight and cost savings but you'd lose all you wide angle performance.

this tool lets you compare both lenses at any full-stop; mouse over the image to see the non-IS version:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

timbop wrote in post #16523912
this tool lets you compare both lenses at any full-stop; mouse over the image to see the non-IS version:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Holy crappith, that is one awesome tool!

According to this tool, 35/2 IS is the a clear winner. Also according to this tool, I am totally purchasing a 5D to compliment my 7D for portraits! FF appears to be much more crisp and sharp!

Thanks you!