35 f2 non-IS?

I recently bought a Yongnuo 35mm f/2 for my 70D for personal use. I love the focal length, but the Yongnuo is way too soft. I have zooms that cover that focal length, but I wanted something smaller and simpler for street. I'm completely shocked that there's nothing reasonable available for less than $600.

So I've been looking at used Canon 35/2's on ebay for around $240. Is this a reasonably sharp and quick/reliable focusing lens? If not, then I guess I'll stick with my 17-55, because it's just not worth it to me to spend $600 for a 35/2IS or Tamron 35/1.8.

If there's a sample thread for the 35/2 non-IS I'd appreciate the link.

35 f/2 IS - Canon refurb for $479.

Sigma 30 1.4 Art. Rent one to try out if possible. $449 retail. I rented one and thought it was awesome. That was my first experience with an Art lens. Very pleasing bokeh.

here's the sample thread:
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=14131​7&page=104

it doesn't get a ton of action recently, but the lens is a good little lens...is small decently sharp, and cheap

other option aside from suggested above is the original 30mm f1.4 from sigma..you should be able to find that one on ebay for $250 or less

as for your yongnuo, i know i've seen at least one thread where they forget to pull off a plastic piece, and sharpness improved after that...i think there were two plastic pieces covering the lens, and they removed one but didn't realize there was another one

Yeah, I read that thread too. It was the guy who broke his Canon and got a Yongnuo to replace it. But I definitely removed both pieces of plastic.

I'll do some searching on ebay and see what I can turn up. At least the Sigma 30A is a bit more affordable.

I'm pretty sure sigma sells refurbs of the 30A, which would make it even more affordable. That lens does have pretty bad CA, and the focus won't be quite as reliable as the canon, but I think overall it's worth considering. Focus should be better than the canon 35 f/2 non-is (that old micro motor is... um...not the pinnacle of autofocus technology).

When I want small, simple, and street, I go with a manual focus prime. Different mindset and different satisfaction from a good shot. YMMV, but 35mm was not wide enough for me on a crop camera. I tried different focal lengths and ended up really liking a Nikon 20mm f/3.5 manual focus. With no electronics, f stop and focus is preset on the lens (my default is f/8 and 10ft to give me focus from ~5 ft to infinity), EC set on the camera in AV mode (each lens behaves differently), and even if the camera is off, I know I can just turn it on and boom take the shot.

Of course if you plan on needing AF and a thinner DOF, then not really relevant for you, but just to give you something to think about.

A EF-s 22mm f/2 pancake would be nice

I should look into the CA behavior of the 30A... mine seems to do a lot better than my 85 f1.8 (which needs mfa that my cameras don't have).

The 30A lacks the full frame image and IS of the 35. Otherwise mine is just a great lens.

Between my old eyes and modern focus screens, manual focus isn't really an option.

I don't really need IS. Of course I say that now and will probably be proven wrong the first time I go out shooting.

It seems the Yongnuo that you have now has similar performance to the older Canon 35mm f2. I could be wrong.

Perhaps you have a bad copy of the Yongnuo or something else could be causing bad results?

bumpintheroad wrote in post #17917707
I don't really need IS. Of course I say that now and will probably be proven wrong the first time I go out shooting.

Correct me, forum members, if I am wrong about this (or if I am putting it too simply), but, when someone says they don't need IS, it always occurs to me to think (and sometimes say - right or wrong) that, whatever shutter speed you can handle without IS, there will always be a slower shutter speed that you can handle with IS.

Now, I do recognize that many will say, "well I never need to go below 1/30 or one full second or whatever I can currently hand-hold without IS", and I understand that, but is my statement above reasonably correct?

I have the IS version and it's extremely sharp at 1/40 second!

Eastport wrote in post #17917841
Correct me, forum members, if I am wrong about this (or if I am putting it too simply), but, when someone says they don't need IS, it always occurs to me to think (and sometimes say - right or wrong) that, whatever shutter speed you can handle without IS, there will always be a slower shutter speed that you can handle with IS.

Now, I do recognize that many will say, "well I never need to go below 1/30 or one full second or whatever I can currently hand-hold without IS", and I understand that, but is my statement above reasonably correct?

I'm sure that IS is effective at slower shutter speeds. I expect that Canon wouldn't waste time putting it on lenses for no benefit.

I know that, empirically, I can handhold a 35mm lens at 1/25th. Even on a crop body. I also know that, if necessary, I seldom have complaint about shooting at ISO 6400. So f/2 at 1/25th and 6400 is somewhere around 1 EV. That's pretty darn dark, and pretty much the limit at which my 70D can focus. If it's going to be darker than that I have several tripods, flashes and LED lighting that I'm not adverse to using. Obviously, I can't predict all future situations, but I would be very comfortable trading IS in exchange for $300 worth of savings, particularly on a short focal length lens with reasonable fast aperture.

I would agree that yes, if you can handhold at a given shutter speed and get sharp images of static subjects, IS will allow you to get sharp images at even longer shutter speeds. However, subject motion adds into that "I can handhold at 1/30 and never need to go slower". In this case, where the main intended use is street, I assume subjects are largely people, and largely moving at least a little bit. For this case, gaining the ability to handhold at 1/4 second isn't probably all that useful...