EF 35mm f/2. Should I?

I really want to pull the trigger on the 35 f/2. Talk me out of it, make me feel good about it, tell me there's something else I should be looking at!

Here's why I want it (in order of importance)

1. I want a small prime for those situations where I want to travel light.

2. I want a prime that is well-suited for street photography.

3. I want something that is good in low-light. For me, on the 6D, f/2.8 is usually good enough.

3. I don't want to spend a ton of money (I'm waiting for someone to tell me to go for the 40/2.8 STM instead)

Sounds like the 35 f/2 is perfect for what you're looking for.

Are you talking about the older non-IS version? I had it. Loved it on my 60D, hated it on my 6D. On the 6D I thought the corners looked atrocious, just too soft.

Yea, you were right. I'd go for the 40mm 2.8. For some reason, that's the opposite of the 35mm for me. Love it on full frame, hate it on crop.

Heya,

I have both the 35 F2 IS and the 40 F2.8.

The 35 F2 IS is better in every way, except size, it's sharpness is another level. It's a larger lens obviously, and with a lens hood, takes up space and no longer is as discrete. The 40 is small. No hood needed (the hood you can get is not even a hood really, what is that thing?). So discreet you look like anyone else with some P&S walking around and you get ignored.

So it comes down to what you want most.

Personally for the image quality and aperture and 4 stop IS, I really enjoy my 35 F2 IS as my all around, walk around, travel, you name it lens. Something about slightly wide, 35, on full frame, with F2 is just appealing. Wide enough for some general landscape. Great for portrait, great for group, street, etc.

I'm not as put off by size, because even though the 40 is smaller, the camera is not, so you're still walking with a bag of some kind, and a gripped 6D (or any dSLR) is big enough that frankly a small lens doesn't make a big difference. I have two bodies currently and the 40 lives on one of them, it's a funny look (big gripped body with a 40 attached). My other body usually has the 35 F2 IS, or a telephoto attached.

Very best,

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16883937
Are you talking about the older non-IS version

I am referring to the 35 f/2 IS version.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16883977
Heya,

I have both the 35 F2 IS and the 40 F2.8.

The 35 F2 IS is better in every way, except size, it's sharpness is another level. It's a larger lens obviously, and with a lens hood, takes up space and no longer is as discrete. The 40 is small. No hood needed (the hood you can get is not even a hood really, what is that thing?). So discreet you look like anyone else with some P&S walking around and you get ignored.

So it comes down to what you want most.

Personally for the image quality and aperture and 4 stop IS, I really enjoy my 35 F2 IS as my all around, walk around, travel, you name it lens. Something about slightly wide, 35, on full frame, with F2 is just appealing. Wide enough for some general landscape. Great for portrait, great for group, street, etc.

I'm not as put off by size, because even though the 40 is smaller, the camera is not, so you're still walking with a bag of some kind, and a gripped 6D (or any dSLR) is big enough that frankly a small lens doesn't make a big difference. I have two bodies currently and the 40 lives on one of them, it's a funny look (big gripped body with a 40 attached). My other body usually has the 35 F2 IS, or a telephoto attached.

Very best,

I guess *small* is relative, and I am looking for small as compared to the 24-70. Looking at the size/weight comparisons on the-digital-picture.com, the Art series lenses, while fabulous pieces of optics, are no longer small in my mind. Also, not really looking to spend almost $1k.

Oh, well I'm considering that lens too. It's $549 with rebate right now right? At that price it definitely seems to tick all your boxes.

How is the build quality of the 35/2 IS? Is it going to hold up reasonably well? Or will it crumble like a 50/1.8?

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16884018
Oh, well I'm considering that lens too. It's $549 with rebate right now right? At that price it definitely seems to tick all your boxes.

Yup, $549 after $50 instant rebate on B&H right now.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16883702
I really want to pull the trigger on the 35 f/2. Talk me out of it, make me feel good about it, tell me there's something else I should be looking at!

Here's why I want it (in order of importance)

1. I want a small prime for those situations where I want to travel light.

2. I want a prime that is well-suited for street photography.

3. I want something that is good in low-light. For me, on the 6D, f/2.8 is usually good enough.

3. I don't want to spend a ton of money (I'm waiting for someone to tell me to go for the 40/2.8 STM instead)

the little EF 35mm f/2 is perfect your stated purposes. forget the IS - the old AF might sound like a wind-up toy, but it works just fine. I love this lens on FF.

I also have the pancake EF 40 f/2.8 STM- which I find myself using - more often - as a longish-normal compact lens on my 60D. talk about a light rig.

I love prime lenses for street. but, between the two of us, my last trip to manhattan was with a single lens, the (imho, underrated) EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM on a 5D. I highly recommend this lens for street use - amazingly. leave it in your hotel at night, but otherwise - with the 5D, the images were awesome. full disclosure - next trip, heresy of heresies (street photography with zooms - ugh), I plan to add the ef 17-40mm f/4L (with a black lensband over that damn red ring) - as the 28mm wide end wasn't enough in canyon land.

back to your original question: yes, the 35mm f/2 is maybe THE prototypical street lens (on the cheaper side of zeiss distagons & the like). stop it down to circa f/4-5.6 - to avoid razor thin DOF (unless intended). I'd much prefer the little f/2 to it's big brother f/1.4 where one nostril is in focus and the other OOF. ugh. not to mention that my better half, CFO and occasional sherpa find the f/2 to be a friendly and agreeable companion.

it's logical companion - for a two lens street kit - is the old, non-L, 85mm f/1.8. small, compact, affordable, fast, sharp, sharp, sharp & a very fine portrait lens. what's not to love.

not all great or worthy lenses need break your budget.

enjoy your images.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16884019
How is the build quality of the 35/2 IS? Is it going to hold up reasonably well? Or will it crumble like a 50/1.8?

I've only had mine since christmas, and it is a dandy of a lens. Seems well built, and is very compact compared to lenses like the 24-70. It has very favorable IQ compared to the L's as well.

get it. it's not too expensive and is very handy when you want to go lightweight

daleg wrote in post #16884098
...
it's logical companion - for a two lens street kit - is the old, non-L, 85mm f/1.8. small, compact, affordable, fast, sharp, sharp, sharp & a very fine portrait lens. what's not to love.

not all great or worthy lenses need break your budget.

enjoy your images.

agreed; I like that exact combo on my ungripped 5d3 for a compact travel kit

Wow, thanks for the responses. Sure sounds like this is a well-liked lens around here. Do you think IQ wise and with the 1 stop advantage that the 35 is worth $400 over the 40/2.8?

yes, but that is just my opinion. It is actually more than 1 stop due to IS

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16884235
Wow, thanks for the responses. Sure sounds like this is a well-liked lens around here. Do you think IQ wise and with the 1 stop advantage that the 35 is worth $400 over the 40/2.8?

I agree with timbop - yes it is. Noticeably better sharpness, 1 stop aperture advantage, AND 4 stop IS advantage. Yes, it is worth $400 more - at least it would be to me. But keep in mind a (the) tiny 40mm f/2.8 never thrilled me. If I didn't have the 35L already, I'd go for the 35IS.

Here is one:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1376045