Canon 35 f2 IS vs 35L v1

Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!

I've owned two copies of both.

The 35L has better build quality, goes to 1.4 and has that sexy red ring.

The 35 f2 IS has a modern optical formula, has IS and is cheaper.

Do you find yourself ever needing the 1.4? Both lenses are just as sharp at f2. Pixel peeping, I may give the edge to the new 35 IS.

Colors were a little better from the 35L but nothing you can't tweak in post. Again, totally subjective.

If I was needing another 35mm, I'd probably go with the 35 IS. Just a great lens. Both copies of the 35 IS I bought were brand new and were spot on right out of the box. I bought a 35L used on Craigslist and I had to do some tweaking to get it perfect and my other copy came from Canon refurbished. That copy was PERFECT.

I've never used the 35L and probably never will. I have the 35 IS and the 16-35L f4. Happy as a clam.

I have the f/2 IS and have a friend who has the Sigma Art. I can't see taking a mark i over the f/2 unless I was only ever going to shoot at 1.4 because you did nightclub photography or something unique. At anything other than 1.4, the f/2 is equal or better, smaller, cheaper, and built quite well. For low light, static photography, the f/2 is roughly 3 stops faster than the 1.4 with far better DoF because of the IS. If you really want 1.4, buy the Sigma, not the canon. Close in price and far superior in pretty much everything.

BallerStatus wrote in post #17952231
Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!

Heya,

I use the 35 F2 IS on 5Dc, 1Dc, 1D2, 7D, T4i, etc, all kinds of cameras. I thought I wanted F1.4, but really, F2 is enough for me, because mainly, I wanted the micro-contrast look of the 35 F2 IS (it's sharper than the 35L MKI and has better micro-contrast than the 35L MKI), and also for the IS. The IS is crazy good. I can hand hold 2 seconds comfortably. I've squeaked out 4 seconds just as a novelty "hey it can be done!" type thing. In reality though, real world, getting a 1/5s or 1 second handheld image inside of something really dark is crazy useful if you don't have the ISO performance to compensate or a tripod. So I had to choose... F1.4, or IS. Frankly, IS gives you way more low light potential than F1.4 does in most situations. The 1 stop difference isn't enough to matter to me in terms of depth of field if you feel like you need thin depth of field from a wide lens...

Here's some quick examples of the 35 F2 IS on a 5Dc:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E87U​26

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rcMJ​8o

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ap5i​Hz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AAjB​N3

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/krkG​um

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oqV1​jQ

Heya,

Lastly, stress testing the IS of the 35 F2 IS completely hand held of course.

Note, these are not useful in real life unless you're in a dark static place, like inside a church. The point was just to see... how good is the IS?

EXIF on both, but will label for simplicity.

I wanted to stress how well the IS worked, by just simply doing some hand held shots. Achieving 1 and 2 seconds was not hard. If you brace well, you can manage 2 seconds pretty quickly with some good bracing and breathing technique.

Achieving 4 seconds hand held took more work. It was all the breathing though. Totally impractical, but hey, the point was to stress the IS and how well it works as long as I was not the reason it was unable to do it's job.

2.5 seconds:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AaPf​v7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/F1Nt​JE

Thank you guys for the feedback! Thanks for all the detail Wise!

I think I will probably go from the 35 f2 IS for now. Yes, the 35L has that sexy red ring, but I really want the best IQ with the quiet USM AF. Sounds like I will be ordering a 35 IS soon!

sourcehill wrote in post #17952625
I've owned two copies of both.

The 35L has better build quality, goes to 1.4 and has that sexy red ring.

The 35 f2 IS has a modern optical formula, has IS and is cheaper.

Do you find yourself ever needing the 1.4? Both lenses are just as sharp at f2. Pixel peeping, I may give the edge to the new 35 IS.

Colors were a little better from the 35L but nothing you can't tweak in post. Again, totally subjective.

If I was needing another 35mm, I'd probably go with the 35 IS. Just a great lens. Both copies of the 35 IS I bought were brand new and were spot on right out of the box. I bought a 35L used on Craigslist and I had to do some tweaking to get it perfect and my other copy came from Canon refurbished. That copy was PERFECT.

Thanks for this, exactly what I needed to hear. I am thinking that doing close portraits, f2 would be enough. I might get into that situation at f1.4 where one eye becomes blurred if it isn't perfectly on plane. I also like that the 35 IS is about the same size as my 85 1.8. Easily packable and keeps the camera small. I love the short, stocky look and feel to that lens too.

Hi. If you love the size and look of the 85 1.8 then you'll probably like the 35 F2 more. I have both of these and I think the 35 is subtly but noticeably better made and feels / looks better ☺

Cool, thanks for the input!

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17952633
I've never used the 35L and probably never will. I have the 35 IS and the 16-35L f4. Happy as a clam.

Question.......... I am looking to replace my Sigma 35mm with something. Was actually thinking of just going for the 16-35 f4. How is the IQ of the 16-35 f4 and the 35mm f2 IS at lets say 5.6 ?

My Sigma 35mm is great, however I was looking at getting something like the 16-35 f4 to replace it, then getting another fast prime.

BallerStatus wrote in post #17952231
Hey guys. I have been lusting over the 35L for a while now and about ready to upgrade my old micro drive 35mm f2. I am torn between the 35 f2 IS and going for a used 35L v1. I have the 135L and love the colors, sharpness, bokeh, etc. The old 35 I have doesn't compare in color, contrast, and sharpness. Not to mention the loud AF. I think I would be pretty happy with either lens, but looking for people who have owned both and if the 35L is worth the extra money. I shoot a little bit of everything - cars, portraits, weddings, event work, food. My 35 is my go to indoor lens, so it will be used a lot. This would be used on a full frame 5D mark 1. Not interested in the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, would like to keep it in the Canon family. Thanks in advance!

On a 5D the 35mm f/2 IS is sharper and has much less chromatic aberration than the 35mm f/1.4 L Mk 1. It also has a light transmission Tstop of f/2. The 35 f/1.4 has a Tstop of F/1.6. So, even though the f/1.4 will give you a shallower depth of field, it will only give you 2/3 stop more light. And, of course there is the 4 stops of IS. Incredibly useful for very low light static subjects.

I've attached a link to the DXOMark comparison between these 2 lenses and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. You can select the camera body you wish to use for the comparison.

http://www.dxomark.com …797_176_1056_17​6_1086_176

And finally, the f/2 IS can be had for $549 new. The f/1.4 L costs almost double at $999. Unless you need f/1.4 or the L build, I think it's a no brainier.

What do you like to shoot? I personally think you cannot go wrong with the 16-35 f4 unless you absolutely need to shoot wider apertures. The lens is absolutely stunning. If you do need 2.8 then wait about a year as the new lens just might be out soon... but it will not be cheap.

At 5.6 both lenses are killer.

BallerStatus wrote in post #17953387
Thank you guys for the feedback! Thanks for all the detail Wise!

I think I will probably go from the 35 f2 IS for now. Yes, the 35L has that sexy red ring, but I really want the best IQ with the quiet USM AF. Sounds like I will be ordering a 35 IS soon!

Baller, how do you like the 35 f/2 IS? I'm contemplating on purchasing a 35, just don't know which one, yet. Been reading up on both on these forums, but haven't completely decided.

I have to vouch for the 35 F/2 is and this is coming from an L lens fan boy, so to speak. I prefer the IQ of the newer element on the 35 F2 IS, great contrast.