Quote Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin View Post
[...]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.).