Canon EF 35 IS vs. Canon EF 40: Can't decide!

Hello,

I've bought the Canon EF 35 2.0 IS and the Canon EF 40 2.8 Pancake.

Both are a wonderful lenses. But I can't decide, which to use and send back.

What is your favorite? And what are your arguments?

EF 35 2.0 IS:
+ IS
+ f/2.0
+ universal
+ better on the Canon 6D by low light

EF 40 2.8:
+ small
+ cheap
+ sharper
- slow AF

really is a tough call- the 35 is compelling.

but- I went with the 40 for now and saving for L prime...
the 40 really is surprisingly good.

aquabone.

The comparison for me is like apples and oranges. Regarding the 40mm, it's inexpensive which is a plus and it is sharp but the drawback for me is it's slow. Size and weight is a non issue for me. I'd rather have my old 35F2. But I'm using it on a 60D.

The new 35 IS is 3 times the price and for that you get F2 (a stop faster), great IS and sharpness. What's not to like? Unless money is the issue?

I just picked up a 40 for the holidays, in between getting all new lenses and had nothing. I shoot mostly outside and on the move, so the 40's size and build carries major upsides ... the price doesn't hurt either.
It's a great little lens, sharp all the way to 2.8. For $139 @ B&H, how can you not? That's knocking on the door of the Nifty Fifty/Lego Lens! I'm more a results shooter, and it more than carries it's weight there. But the cost, size, build, make it something I think I'll always have in my pocket.
Regarding the speed in low light, I wouldn't make it my choice lens, the alternatives are going to be a serious price adjustment. Is it worth $200 to get from 2.8 to 2.0? Is the 35 at the top of it's game at 2.0? Never had one, but I'd seriously look at those questions.
Good luck!

I went for the 35 IS. It is more money, but a stop faster and IS. I use it on FF and APSc. If you are looking for a low-light lens, the 35 f/2 IS has to be near the top of the list. Aperture counts when you are pumping the ISO.

Depends on whether you are able/willing to spend the extra cash. Based on technical capability, it's not even a contest. 35/2 by a landslide. I debated between it and the Sigma 35/1.4 before getting it. Haven't regretted it one bit - performance is spectacular.

is the 40mm sharper than the 35 at f2.8?

i think the main things going for the 40mm are size, and cost...it's a slow prime...

DreDaze wrote in post #16569344
is the 40mm sharper than the 35 at f2.8?

i think the main things going for the 40mm are size, and cost...it's a slow prime...

According to photozone, the 35 IS is sharper in the center at any given aperture than the 40. In the corners and edges, the 40 is a bit sharper. For me, it is a tad too long (so is the 35, I can't afford a 24L II), and the f/2.8 is a killer when you are looking for fast glass.

http://www.photozone.d​e …6-canon35f2isapsc?start=​1
http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_40_28_apsc?start​=1

35/2is is still pretty small (compared to its faster big brother L). The speed and IS seem (to me) worth the extra (~triple+) cost over the 40. I have a 40 (bought on a whim - refurb @ 50% off) which certainly gets use, but I also have a 35L which gets more use, although very rarely wider than f/2. 35/2is seems like a reasonable compromise between the others' comparative assets of size and speed.

if you do video the IS is going to be an advantage

Unless money is an issue, this is a no-brainer. Keep the 35IS.

Thanks to all! I keep the Canon 35 IS!

For the cost of the 40 keep em both
Dave

ps I would keep the 35 is

Never used the 35, but for under $150 the 40 is Something I would consider to be a crime not to have. It takes really sharp photos and is so small, your camera becomes like a pen camera.

Bjoernyy wrote in post #16569036
Hello,

I've bought the Canon EF 35 2.0 IS and the Canon EF 40 2.8 Pancake.

Both are a wonderful lenses. But I can't decide, which to use and send back.

What is your favorite? And what are your arguments?

EF 35 2.0 IS:
+ IS
+ f/2.0
+ universal
+ better on the Canon 6D by low light

EF 40 2.8:
+ small
+ cheap
+ sharper
- slow AF

I have the 40mm f/2.8 and I'm thinking of selling it and get the 35 f/2.0 IS because of speed, more practical focal length (espically on crop body which I have), and the benifit of IS.