35is vs 40stm?

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18861849
Couple of other things to consider:

1) 40mm is a different view. To me, it's more natural than 35mm and 50mm.
2) The 40mm STM images look more "rounded", to me. The 35mm USM IS images look kinda "flat" and 2-dimensional in comparison, to me.

The old EF 35mm f/2 version w/out IS delivers much more natural looking, "rounder" images than either of the above, for my taste.

I've owned the 35mm f/2 IS USM for several years. This is the first time I've heard of anyone favoring the older 35mm f/2 over it.

.

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18861849
.
The old EF 35mm f/2 version w/out IS delivers much more natural looking, "rounder" images than either of the above, for my taste.
.

.
Try as I might, I cannot imagine what you mean when you say, "rounder images".

Could you please explain what you mean by that?

Thanks

.

"Rounder" meaning more 3D-looking, less etched and flat. Images look more film-like and less digital.

.

KrankyKraut wrote in post #18862354
"Rounder" meaning more 3D-looking, less etched and flat. Images look more film-like and less digital.

.
Hmmm. . I've never thought of digital images as being prone to looking "flat" ..... nor of film images as being more 3-D than digital. . Lord knows, I've taken lots and lots of film images that looked very "flat" and "etched", and I've taken lots of digital images that had a lot of depth and dimension.

I guess to me that is one of those things that is more dependent on the subject matter, and not so much on the medium or gear being used.

In light of what you said about 35mm v1 images looking more 3-D than 35mm v2 images, it would be interesting to see someone shoot the same thing with both lenses, and post the results side by side. . Comparison shoots like that are very interesting to see.

.

I have the old and new Canon 35F2 lenses. I confess that I have used the new lens on crop and full frame, but have only used the older lens extensively on crop. You don’t see soft corners with the older lens on crop, and the older lens is very sharp.
There is one area where you can get large differences in image quality. I am not referring to IS, AF speed or other characteristics here. The older lens is not resistant to flare, and image quality suffers when shooting toward the sun. You get monstrous purple flare when shooting toward the sun, if you don’t use a hood. The newer lens has much better contrast and flare resistance. You can get away with not using the hood on the new IS version, but I always use the hood nonetheless.
The older lens is very sharp, but bokeh is not so hot unless the lens is wide open. The new IS version of the 35F2 has much smoother bokeh.
Image quality differences are related to the higher contrast that you often get with the new lens.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18861876
The 35/2 IS is the kind of lens that makes me wonder who was asleep over at Canon, because it smashes their normal price for performance stratification.

This^. I keep toying with trying the 35L (OG) and then thinking... why? The fact that the f/2 IS is that good, and as cheap as it is, is remarkable. Now if only that 24/2.8 IS was an f/2 I'd snag it as well...

bseitz234 wrote in post #18862817
This^. I keep toying with trying the 35L (OG) and then thinking... why? The fact that the f/2 IS is that good, and as cheap as it is, is remarkable. Now if only that 24/2.8 IS was an f/2 I'd snag it as well...

And from what I've heard (second-hand accounts only) they aren't nearly as good even aside from the smaller aperture. Now for the 35L, if you need or want that aperture, f/2 won't cut it.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #18862858
And from what I've heard (second-hand accounts only) they aren't nearly as good even aside from the smaller aperture. Now for the 35L, if you need or want that aperture, f/2 won't cut it.

It depends why you want the faster f/1.4 aperture of the 35mm L II. If it is strictly for the shallower DoF, then I agree. However, those considering it for the extra stop of light over the 35 f/2 will likely be disappointed. According to DXOMark, the EF 35mm f/2 IS has a light transmission tStop score of 2.0. it is fairly unusal for a lens to have a tStop equal to it's widest aperture, and speaks to the efficiency of light transmission of that lens. The 35L II with its f/1.4 aperture, however, has a tStop of 1.7. which means it will only transmit around 1/3 stop more light to the sensor than the 35mm f/2 IS. So, if that hoped for extra stop of light is a major reason for buying the 35L, it doesn't get you that much more light for all that extra cash.

I used to have both and i sold my 40mm.35mm is way better than 40mm

Jhap33 wrote in post #18863053
I used to have both and i sold my 40mm.35mm is way better han 40mm

Well I also prefer 35mm, but which is better comes down to personal choice. After all, the difference is only 5 mm.

I loved the size and convenience of the 40mm pancake and I took some great walk around shots with it on a trip to Japan, even if it was a little 'tight' in some situations on a crop (7dii).

But having unexpectedly won an eBay auction for one with an impulse lowball bid, I have found the 35 f/2 IS to be a much more versatile, better quality lens and it has literally replaced the whole trio of classic 'cheapies' (24 f/2.8, 40 f/f2.8 and 50 f/1.8) in my camera bag.

mwsilver wrote in post #18862888
It depends why you want the faster f/1.4 aperture of the 35mm L II. If it is strictly for the shallower DoF, then I agree. However, those considering it for the extra stop of light over the 35 f/2 will likely be disappointed. According to DXOMark, the EF 35mm f/2 IS has a light transmission tStop score of 2.0. it is fairly unusal for a lens to have a tStop equal to it's widest aperture, and speaks to the efficiency of light transmission of that lens. The 35L II with its f/1.4 aperture, however, has a tStop of 1.7. which means it will only transmit around 1/3 stop more light to the sensor than the 35mm f/2 IS. So, if that hoped for extra stop of light is a major reason for buying the 35L, it doesn't get you that much more light for all that extra cash.

Which focuses faster the f2is or the 1.4 ii? I keep thinking the 1.4 would be worth the money as it is one of the few lens that I rarely if ever see being sold used on BHPhoto or the other store sites. My understanding it is a near perfect lens.

kermit4u wrote in post #18865986
Which focuses faster the f2is or the 1.4 ii? I keep thinking the 1.4 would be worth the money as it is one of the few lens that I rarely if ever see being sold used on BHPhoto or the other store sites. My understanding it is a near perfect lens.

That's something I can't help you with.