Canon 35mm f/2

What does everyone think of the Canon 35mm f/2 on an ASP-C body?

Brian's review is fairly positive and the ISO crops look fairly good -- center is ok at f/2.2 getting really good by f/2.8, midrange (edges on ASP-C) is good by f/4. Photozone's review from a sharpness point of view was very good although they noted the bokeh isn't great and there's considerable vignetting at f/2. Kirk Tuck seems to love his:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com...enses-who.html

Down sides I've seen are that people generally dislike the AF buzzing, flare is a problem when shooting at the sun, and there's some CA.

I've fallen in love with the 135mm f/2 and have concluded primes are more up my ally than zooms. The purpose of getting a "normal" focal length would be for general indoor low light work, shots of people, creative efforts, and landscapes where appropriate with that focal length.

24mm would probably be a more ideal focal length, but there does not appear to be many fast good performers. The only decent prime option at 24mm appears to be the very expensive 24mm L II or the discontinued 24mm L I which is still pretty expensive.

Others I've taken a look at online are:

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 -- Seems to be ok, but again it is only f/2.8. I'd likely be better off with a zoom.
Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 -- Center is good, but corners are not.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 -- By all accounts it is similar to the 28 f/1.8. I've seen Sean has had great luck with this lens, but I'm concerned about AF with a 3rd party.

Some landscape types of shots I've taken with my slower 18-135 that I could see this replacing are:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7176/6...5a03b83596.jpg
2011_08_29_2597 by dthrog00, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7069/6...4d464904c9.jpg
2011_09_17_3024 by dthrog00, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7036/6...d7246c1133.jpg
2011_10_14_0025 by dthrog00, on Flickr

I'm unsure how room is available for improvement to those type of shots based off the lens used. Any help is appreciated.

Dave

Good question, the web is full of discussions and question about the Canon 28 vs. the Sigma 30. I would be very interested in what folks here at TDP say about that. Sooner or later I will have to make up my mind about which one to choose.

Arnt

I have a 35mm F2 and both my bodies are APS-C. It's a useful lens. It *loves* the Sunny 16 rule. Set it and forget on a nice day. The buzzing is not that bad because it focuses quickly. It also makes for a decent macro lens when paired with an extension tube.

I've been reading David duChemin and he suggests using one lens exclusively for a week or so to really become familiar with it. I've been thinking that this would be a good way to see if the 35mm F2 can grab images my 24-105 cannot. I'll be using only the 35mm F2 this week. I'll post some images in this thread.

I don't think the options for a wide angle APS-C prime shooter are very good at all.

Number of wide-to-normal angle fast primes made for Canon APS-C: 1 Sigma, zero additional if you include adapters.
Number of wide-to-normal angle fast primes made for Canon full frame: dozens of Canon, half-dozen Sigma, and *hundreds* of others if you include adapters.

So on the one hand you have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and on the other you have dozens or hundreds of options. I really think your best option is to upgrade to full frame. If you want to shoot fast and wide/normal primes, it's really the only option. If you want to shoot narrow f-numbers at wide angle, then APS-C is fine. If you want to shoot wide f-numbers at telephoto, then APS-C is fine. It's only when you want to combine the two that APS-C becomes a significant limitation. And here's why:

Making wide angle SLR lenses is expensive. There are downsides. When you buy a fast wide angle full-frame lens and then don't use it as a wide angle, but a normal, you are getting the worst of both worlds. You get the low quality and/or high expense of a fast wide-angle, without the benefit of actually being wide angle.

If you set out to make a "normal" lens for APS-C (35mm), you can make it fast (f/1.8), sharp, *and* cheap. Like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for just $200. You can do the same thing for full frame, like the EF 50mm f/1.8 for $120 (which goes a little too far on the "cheap" side of things when it comes to mechanics, but stop it down to f/2.8 and it's sharp as a tack).

Of course, Canon could copy Nikon and come out with an EF-S 35mm f/1.8 that is sharp and cheap. Or maybe one that is more around $500 and *really* nice. But they haven't, so there isn't really any *good* choice -- just a bunch of mediocre ones.

The good news is that plenty of original 5D bodies are still ticking away, and the 5D3 release should only push their value that much lower.

You guys just missed the refurb 5d2 for $1500. Then your lens choice opens up. Things are getting pretty tempting.

I hope Canon realise this is part of their range which is really lacking. I still can't decide between these lenses for indoor low-light stuff and when I want more OOF than the f/4.? of my 15-85mm.

You mention macro with an extender, that's not something I'd thought of, is that an option that's available with all the "EF-S normal" primes? Or just the 35mm? That might sway the decision as a cheap way to have some macrofun.

Unfortunately Dan is right, Nikon and Sigma have at least realised that a 30-35 f/1.4-2.0 ish lenses in really a requirement in any decent aps-c lens kit.

It's weird how canon marketing thinks. They know they make the most of their money from low end xxxD and xxxxD, but then just 'presume' that those same people are happy with slow kit zooms. Yes, there's an eventual upgrade-path to FF, but there's 2 more price-points to go past, xxD and 7D, before you get to a FF camera.
Or they presume that if you can't afford an FF camera, you don't care about IQ that much and you'll be happy with 20-year old designs in the 35/2 and 28/1.8.
Or they really don't mind you going the other option, getting a cheap 2nd-hand 5D or 5D2, but then canon don't see any of that money, maybe only a little if you buy a 50/1.8 or 50/1.4.
Or they think that you can't afford a 5D/5D2 with 50/1.8, but you're happy paying for and lugging a (relatively) huge 35/1.4L.

They really do need to come out with a) a really really cheap FF (like 60D-priced) then we get to use 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 as fast normal primes, or b) proper aps-c fast normal primes in the range of 28-35 f/1.4-1.8, with IQ better than what they could do in the 80s (even if build quality is 50/1.8-esque, i'll buy on IQ first). I'd say b is more likely, but we're still not seeing anything...

35mm F2 with a 12mm extension tube.

http://www.bimmermail.com/mobo01-sm.jpg

Crop

http://www.bimmermail.com/mobo-crop3.jpg

From this morning. Full shot, reduced for posting.

http://bimmermail.com/harvest/bolt01-sm.jpg

100% Crop from center. No reduction.

http://bimmermail.com/harvest/bolt01-crop.jpg


I'm pretty happy with the IQ of this lens considering the price.

Guys I appreciate the suggestion of the 5D Mark II and think you could certainly be on to something, but it appears that is the beginning of some pretty significant camera spending.

Let's say I got the 5D. Ok, now I need CF memory cards. Then the only lens I have that is compatible is 135L. The 35mm f/2 I just mentioned that appears to be ok on APS-C has poor corners in full frame that likely cannot be overcome without stopping down the lens past where it has a purpose in the first place or cropping. So instead now I need the 35L instead.

Maybe in the long term I can consider it, but even at $1,500 for the 5D Mark II that would be way too much cash going out to consider given I'd need other lenses.

I think I may give the 35 f/2 a try or just stick with what I have for a while. If I wanted to play around I could get the nifty fifty for not that expensive "closer to normal" perspective than the 135 gives me now.

M_Six's results look good! Thank for sharing.

Dave

Dave,

if you consider a 35mm on APS-C but change to FF instead, you would need a 50mm instead for a similar FOV. I think the 50mm f/1.4 performs better than the 35 f/2

Arnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahab1372

Dave,

if you consider a 35mm on APS-C but change to FF instead, you would need a 50mm instead for a similar FOV. I think the 50mm f/1.4 performs better than the 35 f/2

Arnt

---

I own both and I agree absolutely. The 50mm F1.4 is far sharper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M_Six

I own both and I agree absolutely. The 50mm F1.4 is far sharper.

---

Which confirms what Daniel said if (if I understand all this correctly):
If you look for a normal focal length prime (50ish FF equivalent), you have a lot of options on a FF camera, but on aps-c you have the Sigma 30, or older EF lenses that don't perform well on the aps-c sensors with their smaller pixels. The new EF 28 should be much better even on aps-c, but it is not available yet and will be more expensive.

Looks like the Sigma is the best option if you get a copy that focuses well on your particular body.

Arnt

I have the 35mm f/2 and it is an ok lens for the 7D. It was beautiful on the XSi I had, but think the 7D and it don't agree very well. I have always been underwhelmed by it. Maybe that's just me. I would rather use my 2.8 zooms since it is only a stop better and really doesn't get super sharp until it is in the zoom range anyway. Now when I get the 35mm L or if canon comes out with something for APS-C, I am going to be one happy customer. I love the focal length on my cropper.

Jayson, if it worked well on the XSi, I'd say you just need to use the AF microadjustment to fix it for your 7D.

When I compare the 35L vs 35 f/2 using Bryan's ISO charts I find:

35L center is sharper, 35L @ f/2 and non-L @ f/2.2 are roughly equivalent in the center, the non-L needs f/2.8 to have mid-frame equivalent to 35L @ f/2.

35L is awesome all the way around by f/2.8. The non-L mid-range is a stop behind and is very good by f/4. By f/5.6 the lenses are getting close to a push.

I guess I'm not seeing why the 35mm f/2 isn't looked at more favorably. Am I missing something?

I rented the 50mm f/1.4 reference above and enjoyed it. Some of my pics from it are below.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7183/6...0240942006.jpg
2011_10_02_3656 by dthrog00, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/6...818f204644.jpg
2011_10_02_3623 by dthrog00, on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7177/6...95e799eee0.jpg
2011_10_01_3358 by dthrog00, on Flickr

I like the 35mm F2. Mine seems to work ok with my 7D, although I've taken very few shots with it. That's why it's glued on my camera this whole week. Time to see what it can (or cannot) do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

[...]the non-L needs f/2.8 to have mid-frame equivalent to 35L @ f/2. [...] The non-L mid-range is a stop behind and is very good by f/4. By f/5.6 the lenses are getting close to a push.

I guess I'm not seeing why the 35mm f/2 isn't looked at more favorably. Am I missing something?

---

Would you still say the same thing if Canon had an EF-S 35mm f/2 that was half the price and twice as sharp? That matched the 35L at f/2 and even beat it in some ways? That's the story with Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 - it pretty much mops the floor with their full-frame 35mm f/2 and comes very close to matching their $1700 35mm f/1.4 in overlapping f-numbers.

As good (or bad) as the EF35 f/2 is, it could be *much* better (for the same price) if it were made specifically for EF-S. It's the same way with all wide angle SLR lenses. Try comparing the $800 17-40 with the $500 17-50 lenses. The latter have a *huge* advantage in resolution and contrast at f/4, despite being both a full stop faster and much cheaper.

But of course, none of that helps the OP, because he needs to buy a real life lens, not a figment of my imagination. :)

Another way to answer your question is to consider the reason why someone is buying the lens. If it's to have a fast and cheap "normal" for APS-C, there really isn't much choice so it doesn't matter how poor the 35mm f/2 is. But if it's only going to be used at f/2.8 where it has good resolution and contrast, then it should be said that it wont be any better than one of the 17-50 f/2.8 zooms. That said, the prime would probably still have advantages in flare, distortion, weight, and cost. So a landscape shooter might still prefer the prime over the zoom.

In short, sharpness is not a good reason to buy the 35mm f/2. But there are good reasons (wide aperture, less distortion, less weight, lower cost, etc.).

Here's a few shots from today taken with my 35mm f2 wide open. Maybe not L quality sharpness, but still looking fine to me.

http://bimmermail.com/tree-bloom/tree-bloom01-sm.jpg

http://bimmermail.com/tree-bloom/tree-bloom02-sm.jpg

Thanks for sharing! Both pictures show good detail.

Dave

I have the FD 35mm f/2.0 S.S.C converted to MD mount (weird eh!) and I think the sharpness is quite good wide open, I don't know how it is stopped down as it does not stop down after I converted it. But I am sure it's very good, as all primes are. I'm pretty sure not much has changed with the EF version of this lens.

Here is a sample.

http://community.the-digital-picture...5&d=1333068737

100% crop from above.

http://community.the-digital-picture...4&d=1333068733

The forums upload method softens the image quite a bit. Do I need to host the image somewhere else or is there a walkaround?

I think the biggest problem with this lens is the bokeh, it's not bad just not outstanding. In less busy backgrounds it's not a problem, although if you had a better lens I think you would still tell a difference.

Cheers,
John.

I decided to make my move and bought the Canon 28mm f/1.8 prior to the rebate ending.

Key points that influenced my decision:

a) I think I over played the "soft" corner issue in my initial post. Landscape type images should sharpen up suitably by f/4 for my use.
b) Ring type USM silent and accurate focusing with full time manual focus is a huge plus.
c) 28mm is a plus versus 35mm. I was concerned 35mm wasn't wide enough.

As with everything I've researched this to death and I think I'll be very happy with the decision. I'm very excited!

Dave

Hi Dave

Most of the times, the best way to take better pictures isn't buying more and expensier gear, but trying to improve ourselves as photographers. I'm sure that, if my pictures are not better, it isn't because of my camera or lenses but because of me.

Differences in sharpness, distortion and so on between lenses are negligible unless you are going to print large pictures. An ordinary monitor is a low resolution device so lenses doesn't matter, assuming that you don't take pictures to post 100% crops in a forum.

The main difference between a good and a no so good photographer is how they compose the picture. The best lens in the world can't make a good picture if we fail framing. With all due respect, here are some suggestions about your pictures. If you think that what I said make any sense, this information would be useful:

Attachment 1100Attachment 1101Attachment 1102

My 35mm f/2 seems pretty soft compared to all of these...

The focusing is by far the weak-point of the lens. It's slow, noisy, and hunts a bit.

The lens has a very cinematic quality to it which I can't quite put my finger on. Perhaps something it does to the colours.

I'll be upgrading it next time I've got some cash to burn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agilulfo

The main difference between a good and a no so good photographer is how they compose the picture. The best lens in the world can't make a good picture if we fail framing. With all due respect, here are some suggestions about your pictures.

---

Breaking out the "with all due respect" is never a good sign! Whether you say with all due respect or not basically what you're getting at with 3 paragraphs that I think I can sum up in one sentence is: "I think your pictures stink with whatever gear you happen to use and if you follow my link your pictures will be better".

I appreciate your suggestion, but respectfully disagree. I'll give you the picture of the lighthouse, lake and sky maybe isn't a very dynamic photo. The sun flower picture and the bridge photo were both carefully thought out and framed with the sky / ground in 1/3s. The sun flower photo I bent down to achieve a 2/3 sun flower and 1/3 sky point of view. The bridge is the opposite, 2/3 sky with the clouds and 1/3 bridge and river. Are either magazine covers? No, but they are decent for that day.

The primary point of a fast prime for me is to open up new doors with the ability to shoot fast without a flash. If it had some capability to also be used for sharper landscape photos that would be great too.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agilulfo

The main difference between a good and a no so good photographer is how they compose the picture. The best lens in the world can't make a good picture if we fail framing.

---

I don't think the main difference in a good photographer and an average photographer is framing. When you look at pictures that have a "professional" look to them, it's the photographer's understanding of light (whether natural or man-made) that makes a photo eye-catching. It could be the intensity, color, or harshness/softness of light as it highlights the subject that captivates the viewer. It all begins and ends with lighting. Good lighting can overcome mediocre framing--but it doesn't usually work the other way around.

Honestly when I read the critical post this morning I was really caught off guard. My comment last evening to a 2-month old thread that I had started was simply expressing that I had made a decision to get the 28mm f/1.8 and that I was excited about. That was it, no more and no less.

My initial response to it may have been inviting a discussion on the posted landscape pictures, but as I sit and think about it I'm not really that interested in dissecting them. They were just snaps...

Dave

Dave,
I think Agilulfo's post, while it may have some true general statements, was definitely in the wrong thread, to the wrong audience. I don't think that any of his advice was new to you, neither do I think you needed it. I actually appreciate it that you started the thread and updated it with your decision.

Arnt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

Breaking out the "with all due respect" is never a good sign!

---

As you probably notice, my English is far from fluent. I didn't mean nothing more than this words said (no sarcasm, no condescendence). From now I will use "respectfully" as you did.

[QUOTE=I think I can sum up in one sentence is: "I think your pictures stink with whatever gear you happen to use and if you follow my link your pictures will be better".[/QUOTE]

No, I would never use the verb "stink" (I understand that is quite rude). Yes, I think this pictures could be better. And yes, I think the way to improve is moving slightly the camera, instead of using a different lens.

It isn't criticism, It's opinion. I though that someone who post a picture it's open for opinions. I was certainly wrong.

Of course, lighting is the other thing you have to do to obtain a good result. Speaking about landscapes, It's clear that whit exactly the same framing, the difference between a good and a not so good picture it's simply wait for the sunset.

Both are equally important, framing it's what and lighting it's how.

Agilulfo, I took your original comment as more of an attack than constructive and ultimately took it personally. Apologies. Dave