# ef 35L on crop - experiences?



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

I need a wider angle lens for my 18mp crop body, and am thinking about either one of the ef-s zooms or a fixed prime. Actually, I like primes since I bought a 100mm macro and *might* get a ff body sooner or later.

Since I want to buy a ultra wide, too, there actually is no need for 15/17mm, and neither for 70mm because my 70-300L starts to cover that. And the difference between 35-70 is bridgeable if I move towards the object or crop the hopefully sharp pictures of the 35L.

* Does anyone use the 35L on a crop body and can share some real world experiences (sharpness, af speed, dust/sand resistance due to missing weather sealing)? Do you think it's overkill to use this prime on a crop body, because it uses only part of its potential?

* There is talk of a replacement for this lens - I guess it would be clever to wait for it and then get a used copy of the older one? Or do you think because the 35L-II will be double the current price, the 35L-I won't go down?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2012)

The 35L is a great 'normal' lens on APS-C. 

I wouldn't count on prices dropping much if a MkII comes out - it didn't happen with the 70-200 II, and it doesn't seem to be happening with the 24-70 II.


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I need a wider angle lens for my 18mp crop body, and am thinking about either one of the ef-s zooms or a fixed prime. Actually, I like primes since I bought a 100mm macro and *might* get a ff body sooner or later.
> 
> Since I want to buy a ultra wide, too, there actually is no need for 15/17mm, and neither for 70mm because my 70-300L starts to cover that. And the difference between 35-70 is bridgeable if I move towards the object or crop the hopefully sharp pictures of the 35L.
> 
> ...



I picked up a 35mm f/2 for crop but later upgraded it to the 35mm f/1.4. I liked the 35mm f/2 on crop but based on your previous comments, I don't think you'd like it (it's like the 50mm f/1.4 but cheaper) 

I haven't tested the dust/sand resistance  AF is reasonably fast and very smooth (no lurching or hunting). Slight delay if you go from MFD to infinity, for normal shooting it feels fast. Compared to the other lenses I own (Sigma 85mm, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2), only the 135mm f/2 has AF performance in the same ballpark. It has plenty of "sharpness". It is quite sharp, see photozone reviews for some objective tests (even the cheaper 35mm f/2 is pretty sharp on APS-C) 

Whether or not it's an overkill -- well, what are the other options ? You have the Sigma 30mm (very soft in the corners), the Canon 35mm f/2 (sharp, but cheaper build, pentagon bokeh, ancient noisy AF) The 28mm f/1.8 is very soft at wider apertures. You could look at Zeiss's offerings (I know their reputation but haven't used them), but that will put you in a similar price ballpark and you lose AF. So I don't think it's an overkill -- if you don't want to live with the flaws of the budget lenses, you're looking at $1000 or more.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

elflord said:


> I picked up a 35mm f/2 for crop but later upgraded it to the 35mm f/1.4. I liked the 35mm f/2 on crop but based on your previous comments, I don't think you'd like it (it's like the 50mm f/1.4 but cheaper)



Thanks for the information! And you're correct: I had the 28/2.8, the 50/1.8 (which broke after the first hit it took) and would only touch the old lenses from this series if forced at gunpoint. The af is horrible, the build-quality does not only feel cheap but since my 50mm broke and I had a look inside: it *is* cheap.

I did like pentagon bokeh, though  - actually, I got some really artistic shots out of it, you just shouldn't expect it to be "blurry"...


----------



## Crapking (Mar 18, 2012)

010 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

f2.5 1/1000, ISO 3200

Even with indoor lighting, this lens focuses quickly on a 7D
Depending on distance to subject, the bokeh can be much better than here, I stopped down to 2.5 to compare with my 17-35 (2.8) but can't find my compoaison shot, sorry.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2012)

The 35mmL is a great lens no matter what camera its on


----------



## keithfullermusic (Mar 18, 2012)

you can always think about the 20 2.8. its roughly the same aspect as 35 on FF.

i have it, and i love it on the 50D. it is super sharp, 2.8, and i got it for 200 bucks used.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 18, 2012)

You will not question a decision to purchase the 35L. We'll all agree on that point. Based on your comments, I'd suggest looking at the 24L - not sure if mkII will be needed on a crop - for the weather sealing. Or for the EF-S zoom, the 17-55 F2.8 - L in every thing other than name. I too purchased the 35/2 lens as a first prime, and have done rental 35L and 24L when it was needed.

Any of these 3 lenses will make you really happy, and most can be purchased used, kept for a year and sold for the same price if you decide to change it up.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 18, 2012)

Love the 35L on the crop body. AF is decently fast and is accurate. It is not weather sealed (doesn't have the rear gasket). Overall, AF performance is much better than the 50 f/1.4. I find the images sharper from the 35L than from either 24L II or 50 f/1.4. The optical design is getting a little long in the tooth (new Zeiss 35 is sharper wide open according to TDP). I'm sure the 35L II will fix many of version I's flaws (including weather sealing) and will be a bit sharper toward the edges, but the 35L already delivers very good IQ, and given Canon's recently pricing strategy, the 35L II will cost much more than the 35L.

When I move to FF, I'm hoping that I can still use the 35L as much as I use it on the crop body because from the reviews I've read and my experiences with the 50 f/1.4, the Canon 50mm lenses have a lot more tradeoffs than the 35L. I've found the 50 f/1.4 soft wide open and the 50/1.2L has focus shift...


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> Or for the EF-S zoom, the 17-55 F2.8 - L in every thing other than name.



... and build quality. Having smashed two plastic lenses during the last year, I have decided to use either cheap plastic lenses or expensive sturdy lenses, but *not* the worst combination: expensive plastic lenses. And I'm still hesitant to get my first ef-s lens since my current gear is ff compatible, and I'm not that much into buying lenses when I already know I'll sell them later on.



Random Orbits said:


> When I move to FF, I'm hoping that I can still use the 35L as much as I use it on the crop body because from the reviews I've read and my experiences with the 50 f/1.4, the Canon 50mm lenses have a lot more tradeoffs than the 35L. I've found the 50 f/1.4 soft wide open and the 50/1.2L has focus shift...



Thanks, I guess it's the 35L for me then sooner or later, because I find Canon's 50mm offerings either horrible build- or iq-wise or much too expensive or combinations of these. The 24L isn't really my range: It's not a real wide angle on ff, neither is it a normal replacement on crop - and it's even more expensive than the 35L.

If I ever get a ff camera, I'm likely to keep my crop 60D for tele range, it's a perfect combination with the 70-300L - so it's nice if all my lenses would be useful on either body.

But if anyone else has some experiences - or esp. drawbacks - to share, I'd be thankful.


----------



## elflord (Mar 18, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks, I guess it's the 35L for me then sooner or later, because I find Canon's 50mm offerings either horrible build- or iq-wise or much too expensive or combinations of these. The 24L isn't really my range: It's not a real wide angle on ff, neither is it a normal replacement on crop - and it's even more expensive than the 35L.
> 
> If I ever get a ff camera, I'm likely to keep my crop 60D for tele range, it's a perfect combination with the 70-300L - so it's nice if all my lenses would be useful on either body.
> 
> But if anyone else has some experiences - or esp. drawbacks - to share, I'd be thankful.



If you have the two bodies, you get a very good range of effective focal lengths with a couple of prime lenses. For example, a 35/85 pair gives you 35/56/85/135 -- that gives you really good coverage of the mid to short tele range. If you only have a full frame body (as I do), you need a 50mm and 135mm to get the same range.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 18, 2012)

Definitely not overkill, it's actually the perfect walk around prime for an APS-C camera, it's just slightly longer than 50mm. I use it with a 7D for video all the time and it's an excellent combination.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Mar 18, 2012)

The 35L really is one of the most versatile primes in my experience. With FF and crop, it is one of my most mounted. I understand the dislike for the Canon 50s, that's why i went with the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 and I couldn't have asked for better! As long as you don't mind the lack of AF, IQ is superb.

As said many times before me, the 35L is great on a crop sensor as well as FF. I have used it on a 60D as well as a 5D mk ll, and it truly is my go-to lens. I wouldn't worry about the "replacement". It's a killer lens that will deliver results that are wonderful. I shoot indoor (close) concerts of local bands for promotions, and more often than not there is minimal light aside from my flashes. For lowlight high IQ, it's the way to go.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 18, 2012)

Leopard Lupus said:


> For lowlight high IQ, it's the way to go.



Thanks for the information, esp. since I've got a 60d, too!



Axilrod said:


> I use it with a 7D for video all the time and it's an excellent combination.



I thought this is an optimal lens *except* for video since it's lacking IS (a 35 with is is rumored to be around the door...).


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 19, 2012)

Im also considering buying a 35mm lens to use for music/concert (right up at the stage) photography. Im wary about canon's 50mm lenses, I was gonna buy the 50mm 1.4 lens but heard about the AF and MF dying quickly and constantly needed to be replaced.

Anyone know if its confirmed that canon _are_ making a mkii of the 35mmL?


----------



## koolman (Mar 19, 2012)

As you can see in my gear list I use a 35L on my 550d as a "normal" lens. It was my most expensive lens purchase as of yet, and I chose it over the 24L since it can be used as a semi portrait lens taking into account its crop magnification of 35 x 1.6 = 56mm.

The lens focuses very fast and is VERY sharp even wide open. You need some extra skill and patience to nail focus wide open at 1.4.

I can tell you, that this lens, creates awesome images, used properly. I also own the 35mm f/2, and the 35L is another league.

The only drawback I can think of for you to consider is its weight, which is significantly more then the f/2. I use the 35mm f/2 as a walkaround lens when I want to travel light and easy.


----------



## marcosv (Mar 19, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ... and build quality. Having smashed two plastic lenses during the last year, I have decided to use either cheap plastic lenses or expensive sturdy lenses, but *not* the worst combination: expensive plastic lenses.



You smashed two plastic lens??? As in impact damage that damaged the lens housing??? (I'm guessing this is the case because the optics itself isn't cheap plastic).

If you are avoiding plastic, stay away from a number of L glass like the 70-200/4.0L IS or 100/2.8L macro.

I can see avoiding EF-s lens if you are trying to minimize incompatible glass when you make the jump to full frame, but, the 17-55 IS and/or 15-85 IS plus a 10-22 are excellent crop sensor lens that are extremely useful. Never had a problem with build quality/image quality and at times I enjoy the lighter weight.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 19, 2012)

marcosv said:


> You smashed two plastic lens??? As in impact damage that damaged the lens housing??? (I'm guessing this is the case because the optics itself isn't cheap plastic).



Um, yes, I'm outdoors a lot. The really crappy 50/1.8 fell down while the front was extended and the whole lens fell apart. I glued it together again, but at the same time decided that the af, iq and bokeh is so bad anyway I don't want to use it anymore.

The other victim was my good ol' legacy "golden ring" 28-105 USM, it fell out of a bike bag while hurling my bike through the woods. It isn't really broken, but a little shaky and if I press it together when shooting it works as before. I'll just have to get a very little screwdriver to repair it myself.

But I learned from these experiences: full plastic lenses = not for me, "golden ring" quality = ok, "red ring" quality like my new 70-300L and unlike the 100macro L = what I want. This is a very rough separation, because the ring color does not show the quality of a lens but where Canon marketing wants to put it in their lineup. 

Last not least, I'd really would like to have the 70-300L as a black, non-red-ring version - while at first it's a tremendous ego-boost, I've grown tired of the attention very fast.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 20, 2012)

The 35L is great on a crop, and it performs very well wide open. Its AF is fast and accurate, rarely misses. I used mine on a 50D for a few years, but now I am waiting for my 5D3. I also have the 50L; the 35L yields a higher keeper rate when both are used wide open.

Problem with the 35L on a crop and using it as a _normal_ lens is you retain the wide angle perspective of the 35mm.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 20, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> Problem with the 35L on a crop and using it as a _normal_ lens is you retain the wide angle perspective of the 35mm.



I never thought of that, but just assumed it would be the same as a 50mm ... is the effect so strong that it's very different from the "normal" perspective? Otherwise it could be corrected in postprocessing without anyone noticing and look like a "real" normal if needed.


----------

