First Looks at Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens Image Quality

[neuroanatomist]

Bryan has posted ISO 12233 crops for the new EF 35mm f/2 IS. In his News post, he states:

The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens results are remarkably better than the results from the replaced Canon EF 35mm f/2 Lens in the mid and peripheral (corner) areas of the image circle. Results in the center appear slightly better in the IS lens, but the differences are very slight - not surprising as the old lens was very sharp in the center...Here is a Canon 35 IS vs. 35 non-IS comparison (use the mouseover feature to see the differences).

Also of interest to me is the Canon 35 IS vs. 35/1.4L comparison - wide open (which, granted, is a stop wider for the L lens), the 35 IS appears to produce a sharper image all across the frame, with less CA as well. Even with the 35L stopped down to f/2, the new non-L is a fair match for sharpness across the frame, and the L lens still has more CA.

I hope this spurs Canon to come out with a 35L II sooner rather than later...

[HDNitehawk]

I really don't think the linked 35 IS vs 35mm L is a good comparison. The 35mm L shot wide open is not that good at all and if you are shooting the 35mm f/1.4L at f/1.4 continually your pictures IQ will suffer. Stopping down just slightly really helps.

At f/2.8 and the 35mm L and compare. The 35mm L is much better.

It is due an upgrade, one of the biggest helps this lens will get is that it predates the current coatings they use. The new version will no doubt produce better color. If Canon's recent releases are any indication the corners will be much sharper.

Since this lens is a work horse prime for many with FF cameras if Canon releases the fabled huge MP camera next year the 35mm L II will be released in advance.

This is one I would pre-order.

[Kayaker72]

I had pre-ordered this lens, but canceled instead deciding to wait on reviews . But, this is impressive. Here is the 35 f/2 IS @ f/2 and the 35 f/1.4 L @ f/2:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2

Then again, both @ f/2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=3

Personally, I give the center to the "L" and the mid-frame and edges to the non-L. But it is really close. IMO, close is a win for the non-L. Maybe the rumors are true and we'll see a new 35 L on Tuesday. I am not holding my breadth, but considering the competition from the new Sigma and the new f/2.0 IS, it would make a lot of sense for Canon to release one.

[HDNitehawk]

You know that no matter how bad the IQ of a picture looks with the 35mm f/1.4L when shot at f/1.4, the picture is still better than a picture with the 35mm f/2 shot at f1/4.

[Sean Setters]

You know that no matter how bad the IQ of a picture looks with the 35mm f/1.4L when shot at f/1.4, the picture is still better than a picture with the 35mm f/2 shot at f1/4.

Lol...So true!

I must say, I'm surprised no one is throwing a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 comparison in there yet...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Dr Croubie]

Lol...So true!

I must say, I'm surprised no one is throwing a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 comparison in there yet...

Well, I was going to say something about the samyang, but i'm too lazy and busy...

[Busted Knuckles]

Lol...So true!

I must say, I'm surprised no one is throwing a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 comparison in there yet...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

It the risk of sounding argumentative.... 35/1.4 ISO 100 vs. 35/2.0 ISO 200 on a full frame???? or heavens to betsy on a crop? the idea that we can even have this debate is wonderful for the consumer - either iso or lens debate...