Wide Angle EF 35mm f/2.0 Autofocus Lens

I am considering this lense, (Wide Angle EF 35mm f/2.0 Autofocus Lens) but would like other's opinions on it as well as what I have already researched.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 prime and usually keep it on my camera, but find myself always needing to back up and not always having the room to do so.

So, what are your opionins or experiences with this particular lense? Would it be a good "walk-around" lense? What about portraits?

Thanks,

Sarah

What body?

I'd suggest that you read the --.perspective sticky<-- as you seem to be willing to base your shooting distance on your focal length (i.e. "foot zooming"), and not the reverse, meaning that you are not taking control of the perspective in your shots.

one thing for sure about that lens is...
its the noisiest lens ive ever heard

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …2748/0?keyword=​35#7297103

SnlpeR wrote in post #8301482
one thing for sure about that lens is...
its the noisiest lens ive ever heard

The 50/1.8 MkI that everyone loves to rave about is the same.

It's small, noisy, cheap, and has good optics. It can work on both APS-C and 35mm as a walkaround prime, it just depends on how you "see" and how much working distance you want.

Hello Sarah,

I have done things the opposite way to you... the 35 f2 was my first prime and I have just bought a 50 f1.4. I took the 50 to a museum yesterday and guess what? I found myself having to back up all the time This is on a crop body BTW.

I'll stick up for the 35... the focusing is noisier than the 50, but not too noisy at all. I also considered the 28 f1.8 and the sigma 30 f1.4 but ruled them out. It seems like the 28 only gets sharp from f2.8 and the sigma is supposedly soft in the corners, even if it's a good one. The 35 f2 has a reputation for being good wide open and excellent stopped down a little. It is smaller than your 50 and very unobtrusive. I think mine is good value.

Do read the perspective post though... if you used the 35 for a portrait you would probably get quite close... and then your subject has a big nose!

I have a 20D currently. I will read the before mentioned posts. The noise as far as focusing will not bother me as usually I am not in a quiet environment anyway. We show our dogs and don't always have a lot of wiggle room to get a good view of all dogs in a class or the track when we weight pull.

MintMark, I did consider the 28 f1.8 but it didn't seem to get as many good reviews as the 35 f2.0

I have never shot with a wide angle so maybe I need to rent one first before seriously considering the purchase and try it out.

Thanks

Moccadoke wrote in post #8302771
I have a 20D currently. I will read the before mentioned posts. The noise as far as focusing will not bother me as usually I am not in a quiet environment anyway. We show our dogs and don't always have a lot of wiggle room to get a good view of all dogs in a class or the track when we weight pull.

MintMark, I did consider the 28 f1.8 but it didn't seem to get as many good reviews as the 35 f2.0

I have never shot with a wide angle so maybe I need to rent one first before seriously considering the purchase and try it out.

Thanks

Hi Sarah,

Despite reports to the contrary, I found the 28 F/1.8 to be very good indeed. It is expensive compared to the 35 F/2, and that is due mainly to the fact that it is, for FF, a real WA lens, has USM and FTM, and a somewhat better build.

You could also consider the 28 F/2.8, which has a similar build to the 35 F/2, and sees 25 % more than the 35 does in all directions.

A lot of people like the Sigma 30 F/1.4, which is in the same price range as the Canon 28 F/1.8, and is closer to a standard lens on APS-C than the 35 is. Do note that unlike the other lenses, the Sigma is designed for APS-C specifically.

Kind regards, Wim

Moccadoke wrote in post #8302771
I have never shot with a wide angle so maybe I need to rent one first before seriously considering the purchase and try it out.

Thanks

On a 20D, 35mm and 28mm are not wide angle at all. They are normal primes. 35mm was barely wide angle on 35mm (FF) in my opinion, anyway. It will be a bit wider than your 50mm, but it is not what I think most would call wide. Do you have another lens, like the 18-55 kit zoom? If so, put that on your camera and try out the different focal lengths. 28mm on your zoom will look the same as 28mm on the prime lens.

Are you shooting in the dark at f1.4 and f2 a lot? If so, then maybe the Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be more appropriate. At current pricing, I think it is a much better buy than the 35mm f2. It is sharper wide open, it goes to f1.4 and it has quiet HSM AF with full time manual.

If you are able to shoot at f2.8 or higher, then I might recommend a good f2.8 standard zoom, like the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (or Canon 17-55 IS if you can spend more).