The new 35mm f2 IS. Anybody got one?

Hey everyone,

Calling all users of this lens or the 35 1.4L!

I am currently using a FF setup with the 5DIII and am considering a new purchase for a low key walk-around. I have been using the 50 1.8II for some time now and it has been a great lens. I have found that the AF speed (and noise) are lacking over the course of my use of it. I have not felt it was not sharp enough or that it lacked contrast. I DO feel like it is too tight at times.

Example. This lens would primarily be the one I put on before a family get together, friendly party(because family get togethers are not always friendly), walking around at the park etc. I have a 24-70 2.8 and it has been great when I am out shooting landscapes or if it is a wedding etc, but I don't always need the flexibility or the weight/size of a zoom. I feel like a 35mm will fit the bill.

The question is, which one? Have any of you had your hands on the both of them and can give a shout out of your opinion? I've read Bryan's reviews about both, but the more input the better. Personally, I would consider trading the IS for 1 stop of light just about equivocal based on what my uses will be, but let me hear your thoughts. Especially on the f2 IS and please post example images if you have them.

Thanks in advance,

Dave.

Dave,

I've never used it, but am confident the new 35mm is awesome. If you want something small how about the 40mm f/2.8?

Dave

No hand-on experience, but from the review it seems that if you don't need the f/1.4, then you might as well save money, accept the improved bokeh, and have a lens that will works nicely for video too (by having IS).

I've been looking at this focal length too. Getting very populated with some nice options. The other thing that has me considering the 35 f/2 IS over the Sigma 35 f/1.4 and Canon 35 f/1.4 L is the size (3.1 x 2.5", 3.1 x 3.4" and 3 x 3.7", respectively) and weight (335 g, 665 g and 580 g, respectively). Cheaper, shorter, much lighter, giving you IS, and great optics from f/2 on. That is tempting to me on a lot of levels (walk around, travel, as a second lens in the pack, etc). But, if I wanted to use this focal length to the utmost creatively, then I'd go with one of the f/1.4s.

In my view the size difference between the three 35mm primes is not a real issue, at least not for me. Yes, the 1.4L and the Sigma are both a bit bigger than the 2.0, but still compact. If size is a real issue for you, I´d go with the 40mm pancake.
Since you already have the 24-70 2.8, I honestly don´t believe you will use a 35mm f2.0 very much. I know I would not. I have the the 24-70 f2.8L II and the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the Sigma is being used because it gives you the extra aperture. I also like the shallower DOF and nice bokeh. The color and especially sharpness of that lens is also exceptionally good for the price. I normally have things moving in the images I use it for, which is pretty much what you describe what you do, so IS does not help me very much. But I don´t do video, which clearly would benefit from IS.

Good luck!
Eldar

I have the 35/1.4L and the 40/2.8 'pancake' and both make good 'walkaround' primes. The 35L allows more creativity, and on a FF camera, the AoV is wide enough that as long as you're not on top of your subject(s), the DoF even wide open is not razor-thin - thus, the amount of light let in at f/1.4 - f/2 makes it a great nighttime walkaround lens, and that's often how I use it. I got my 35L a couple of years ago...if I had to make the decision today between the 35L and the new Sigma 35/1.4, the Sigma might be my first 3rd party lens...

The 40/2.8 is a perfect 'extra' lens. I bring it when my primary lens is a white zoom, either the 70-200 II or 100-400. The 40/2.8 fits in a pocket, ready if I need it. It also doubles as a body cap. :)

Unless you need IS for video purposes, I think the Sigma is a better choice. I think Sigma finally has a real winner on their hands with the 35mm f/1.4.

I've been considering the purchase of a 35mm prime for a while now, and the Sigma's the one I'm saving up for.

Thanks for your input everyone. I had also been considering the Sigma though for some reason did not mention it in my first post. At this point. the shorty 40 is not on my list. If it was an f2 instead of a 2.8 maybe, but I don't want redundancy of both focal length AND aperture(plus I have played with one of these lenses, and the AF seemed a bit on the slow side). I just don't think the small/cuteness factor of that lens outweighs its repetition in other attributes.

The more I hear everyone's input into this, the more I think the real battle for which of these I get is going to be between the Sigma 1.4 and the Canon f2 IS.

As always, the more info the better; so if anyone has anything to add, please chime in.

Dave.