Canon 35mm f/2

[FastGass]

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.



100% crop from above.



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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[Agilulfo]

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:

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[Agilulfo]

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.

[Sean Setters]

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.

[Agilulfo]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[ham]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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