Canon 35mm f/2

[Dave Throgmartin]

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:


2011_08_29_2597 by dthrog00, on Flickr


2011_09_17_3024 by dthrog00, on Flickr


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

[ahab1372]

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

[M_Six]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[andnowimbroke]

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

[ham]

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.

[Dr Croubie]

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...

[M_Six]

35mm F2 with a 12mm extension tube.



Crop

[M_Six]

From this morning. Full shot, reduced for posting.



100% Crop from center. No reduction.




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

[Dave Throgmartin]

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