# DXOMark Reviews the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/dxomark-reviews-the-ef-35mm-f2-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/dxomark-reviews-the-ef-35mm-f2-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From DXOMark

</strong>The folks at DXOMark have completed their review of the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS</a>.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark</strong>

“<em>Attached to a Canon EOS 5D MKII it ranks 4th overall and 2nd for wide-angle primes, just behind the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM</a>, which at a similar cost offers the same focal length, a wider f/1.4 maximum aperture but no Image Stabilization.</em></p>
<p><em>A Sharpness Score of 17 P-Mpix for the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, compared to 15M-Pix for its predecessor, is an improvement of +15% and crucially it performs much better in the corners of the frame, which was the weakest aspect of the original. It’s not the widest Canon prime available with the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM and Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM available at a similar price point and although they don’t quite achieve the dizzying heights of the 35mm they put in a very good performance, too.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-A-fast-wide-angle-prime-for-the-21st-Century" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Buy the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS for $849</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 7, 2013)

Being interested, I opened up lightroom and looked at the number of images I take with my 35mm at wider than f2. I was suprised to find it was 43.7%.

I guess I shouldn't have been suprised, I mostly use my primes in very low light and a zoom in good light. I do manage with the 135mm f/2 though, so that new lens might be a good deal.

I'd just get a 24-70 mk II, but f/2.8 would call for even slower shutter speeds. This lens is really for video, IS isn't usually needed for stills, where subject motion determines the minimum shutter speed.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Feb 7, 2013)

I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.



Agreed, for the same reasons- compact, fast(ish) and light for travel, useful IS for low light and video, should be a nice standard lens on crop. I hope photozone gives it a review at some point, and then will wait a while for it to slowly drop in price assuming it performs well!


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 7, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.


+1. That is an outstanding score on DxO, better than some very fine lenses. And the size & weight make it very attractive.


----------



## perperub (Feb 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Being interested, I opened up lightroom and looked at the number of images I take with my 35mm at wider than f2. I was suprised to find it was 43.7%.


How do you get that info from LR?


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Being interested, I opened up lightroom and looked at the number of images I take with my 35mm at wider than f2. I was suprised to find it was 43.7%.
> 
> I guess I shouldn't have been suprised, I mostly use my primes in very low light and a zoom in good light. I do manage with the 135mm f/2 though, so that new lens might be a good deal.
> 
> I'd just get a 24-70 mk II, but f/2.8 would call for even slower shutter speeds. This lens is really for video, IS isn't usually needed for stills, where subject motion determines the minimum shutter speed.



Errr.....you are joking ?

What happens if you want to use a moderate aperture and low ISO hand held ?

I'm attaching a picture that I took for English Heritage. We'd agreed we wanted an evening shot, I arrived on location as the sun was going down, I literally had five minutes before the sun was below the horizon. This picture was taken on a 24-105 at about 35mm, f8 hand held at 15th of a second with the IS no. I'm a shaky old git and can't hand hold 60th with a 35mm totally shake free. 

This picture is sharp enough. It's in the visitor centre at 1m across. I've included a 100% from part of one of the frames as recorded in raw.

Now I know you're going to say I should have used a tripod, and you'd be right. But I literally didn't have time to set up. It's happened to me before but I wont bore you with all the examples. Yes this picture would have been sharper if I had shot from a tripod with a better lens, but I wouldn't have got the shot.

Looks like this 35 IS will be a very interesting lens ( once the price has come down to earth )


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 8, 2013)

Good marks on DXO, front page on CR


----------



## Zv (Feb 8, 2013)

On a crop sensor the IS will really come in handy in those low level situations that would otherwise have you pushing the ISO to 3200 etc. don't like going that high on my 7D so this may be the solution for poorly lit restaurants and nightclubs. Hope the price comes down fairly soon, I could really use this lens!


----------



## Plamen (Feb 8, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd just get a 24-70 mk II, but f/2.8 would call for even slower shutter speeds. This lens is really for video, IS isn't usually needed for stills, where subject motion determines the minimum shutter speed.


Very often, the motion you need to stop is that of your shaky hand.


----------



## Area256 (Feb 8, 2013)

Plamen said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just get a 24-70 mk II, but f/2.8 would call for even slower shutter speeds. This lens is really for video, IS isn't usually needed for stills, where subject motion determines the minimum shutter speed.
> ...



Depends highly on what you are shooting. If you are shooting moving people, than yeah, it doesn't help much. But if you are shooting static scenes, and don't want to carry a tripod, or want some motion blur in your image, IS is great for stills, even at wide angles with fast glass.

I'm seriously considering this lens for the size and IS over the excellent Sigma f/1.4, now that I see it performs quite well optically.


----------



## Abraxx (Feb 8, 2013)

I will likely add this lense to my gear set.
But it needs to drop 20% from listprice.
Around 35mm is my favorite focal length and IS comes in handy for low light. My hands are not as steady anymore as they were several years ago.  
The reviews are promising.


----------



## Admin US West (Feb 8, 2013)

perperub said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Being interested, I opened up lightroom and looked at the number of images I take with my 35mm at wider than f2. I was suprised to find it was 43.7%.
> ...




The basic premise behind the Lightroom Catalog is that its a database, and you can search for many different terms and parameters.


1. In the Library menu, first highlight the top directory that has all of your images, it should have a big number after it. Lightroom will then search thru all your images. You can also search a subset.


2. Make sure the Library Filter is displayed at the top of the center panel. (view/filter bar)


3. Click the metadata tag and it will open up four levels of filters. You can set each of them to show the file meta data that interests you. 


4. Click on the lens you want to view data for in the third panel and change the fourth panel to display aperture.


At that point, you can see the number of images taken at that date range with all or certain cameras for all or a selected lens at various apertures. This is one of the very powerful Lightroom Features.


Buy a book on Lightroom and read it cover to cover. You may be missing out on some very useful features if you just use trial and error to discover how it works.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.




I have the Sigma and it is one of my favorite lenses. If this 35 drops to the level the 28mm IS was a few days ago ([email protected]), I may just pick one up for the same reasons. I almost grabbed the 28 IS as a replacement for my EF28 f1.8, but 2.8 isn't quite fast enough. Unlike some around here, I would like to have IS on ALL of my lenses...


----------



## Zv (Feb 11, 2013)

brad-man said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I do like this lens, looks like a solid performer that I'm thinking of adding to my spread sooner or later  Prefer this over the Sigma 1.4 for size and weight + travel.
> ...



I'm considering the Sigma, would you say it's worth the cash? Also, what camera are u pairing it up with?


----------



## dswatson83 (Feb 12, 2013)

I put this lens up against the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and it's not that the Canon is a bad lens, it just felt and performed like a $300 lens with IS...not worthy of the outrageously high price tag. The Sigma was clearly in another league while technically the same price. 

Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens


----------



## sdsr (Feb 12, 2013)

brad-man said:


> I have the Sigma and it is one of my favorite lenses. If this 35 drops to the level the 28mm IS was a few days ago ([email protected]), I may just pick one up for the same reasons. I almost grabbed the 28 IS as a replacement for my EF28 f1.8, but 2.8 isn't quite fast enough. Unlike some around here, I would like to have IS on ALL of my lenses...



I recently rented the Sigma and bought the new Canon, used them mostly outdoors at night in very low light, and am very impressed by the image quality generated by both of them. 

There is, however, one area where the Sigma plainly trumps the Canon, and that is coma. In the photos I took it was negligible on the Sigma wide open and completely gone by c. f2; and where it *was* visible, it didn't extend all that far into the image. I didn't try either lens on a crop sensor camera, but I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't show up at all when paired with such a camera. On the Canon it's not only much more noticeable, but extends farther into the image (though it's not as bad as the 28mm 1.8 or Nikon's 50mm 1.8D, where it covers all but a tiny patch in the middle) and would likely affect images created by a crop sensor. I suppose I should note that it's a rather superior sort of coma: the "sails" or "wings" (or whatever you call them) are crisply defined, not amorphous smears. 

In any event, if you find coma as annoying as I do and take photos in situations likely to generate it, you'll want the Sigma, which not only trumps the Canon IS in that regard but (as far as I can tell) just about any other fast, wide prime. (I won't be keeping the Canon.)


----------

