Canon 35mm f/2

[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

[M_Six]

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.

[ahab1372]

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

[Jayson]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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.


2011_10_02_3656 by dthrog00, on Flickr


2011_10_02_3623 by dthrog00, on Flickr


2011_10_01_3358 by dthrog00, on Flickr

[M_Six]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

[...]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.).

[M_Six]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Thanks for sharing! Both pictures show good detail.

Dave