# 35mm f2 IS for city photography at night?



## Saffier (Feb 17, 2014)

September this year we're going to the US for a four week holiday. It's our first visit to the US. After a 2,5 day stopover in New York, we will be flying to Denver. From thereon we will be traveling by car. Besides several national parks we'll spend time in Las Vegas, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. 

I would love to take pictures in these cities at night and therefore I am thinking of buying the 35mm f2 IS. My current gear: 6D, 16-35 f2.8 II, 24-105 f4, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II. My wife has the SL1, 18-55 IS STM and the 55-250 IS STM. We will both take our gear with us. The Lowepro roller will be in trunk of the car and for every daytrip I will select two lenses max to take with me in the shoulder bag.

Why the 35? It offers me IS and 1 stop of light compared to the 16-35 and it offers me 2 stops of light compared to the 24-105. Since we will be walking around a lot, I don't think I will be carying a tripod with me. Finally the 35 can also be a nice low-light addition to my wife's set of lenses, but that will not be the decisive argument. 

What do you think? Does this make sense to you? Or shall I stick to the 24-105 and use high ISO settings? Looking forward to your comments.


----------



## wayno (Feb 17, 2014)

Concur. Sounds like a decent set up.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 17, 2014)

If your just shooting stills, have you give any thought to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art? You lose IS of course, but you gain a full stop of nighttime low-light-grabbing-capability and softer bokeh, along with what is arguably the sharpest 35mm lens on the planet...


----------



## MLfan3 (Feb 17, 2014)

it is a very practical lens , I love it, I much prefer this lens to the Sigma overrated 35mm f1.4.
for hnadheld night photography, there is no better lens than this one. with the Sigma , Canon or the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , you cannot shoot at extremely slow shutter speed with decent DOF even in extreme lowlight(of course you can always use a tripod but for street work it does not work).
so I think the Sigma Zeiss 35mm f1.4 lenses are way too overrated , they are not very practical in real world where you can't or do not want to use a tripod.

not many of us love uselessly thin only one eye in focus kind of DOF, in fact, in most of scenes we need decently deep DOF, say f2.8-5.6 at least to get good photos.
f1.4 , f1.2 primes are always overrated , they are not really sharp at f1.2 or f1.4 and most of times we do not want that super shallow DOF.


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 17, 2014)

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...

Now for _my_ style of shooting, sharpness is everything... The Sigma at 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the Canon at 2.0 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. With both lenses at 2.0, the Sigma left the Canon in the dust http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2.

Don't get me wrong, I like image stabilization as much as the next guy, but for me 35mm is easily wide enough so that IS isn't _really_ necessary. But to each his own...


----------



## sdsr (Feb 17, 2014)

A couple of observations: 

First, all the lenses you currently own work really well in cities at night on 6d, with its superb low light performance, including the 24-105. Sure, if you want to keep the ISO as low as possible or want to freeze action, something faster is nice, but otherwise I'm not so sure. It would be helpful on the SL1, though.

Second, as for the Sigma 35 1.4 vs Canon 35mm IS, I think those digital picture charts show that they are in fact quite similar in terms of sharpness (that was my experience, anyway), and if you were going to use them in bright daylight, I might suggest you toss a coin. As for cities at night, each has an advantage the other lacks: while IS is nice to have if your shutter speeds get slow, city lights provide ample opportunities for coma (distant street lights near edges and corners, for instance); and if that bothers you (it does me), the Sigma is the better choice - it has the best coma performance of any fast lens I've used: it's only slight wide open and only a little stopping down makes it disappear altogether, whereas the Canon starts off much worse and takes longer to go away as you stop down, which rather defeats the purpose of using a fast lens (that's one reason why I like the 24-105 so much - coma isn't a significant problem with slowish zooms). This won't be an issue on the SL1. Check out the lenstip reviews - they address coma better than anyone else's I've seen.


----------



## ahab1372 (Feb 17, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...
> 
> Now for _my_ style of shooting, sharpness is everything... The Sigma at 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the Canon at 2.0 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0. With both lenses at 2.0, the Sigma left the Canon in the dust http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like image stabilization as much as the next guy, but for me 35mm is easily wide enough so that IS isn't _really_ necessary. But to each his own...



Maybe in the center, but in the corners the Canon 35mm f/2 IS looks a bit sharper to me than the sigma, both at f/2 - I wonder if the difference is visible in real life landscape shots
note: there was an extra . at the end of the URL which caused the link to fail


----------



## wopbv4 (Feb 17, 2014)

I have a good keeper rate at 1/15 s, the IS does it's job.


----------



## Mathias (Feb 17, 2014)

In theory a four stop IS with f/2 should give you eight times as much light as f/1.4 without IS. So for not moving subjects the 35mm f/2 IS should be the perfect low light lens.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 17, 2014)

I bought the Canon 35 f/2 IS for low light and video work. It's a great little lens.
It's smaller and lighter than the 1.4 lenses, which is important to me, and it has IS, which, apart from low light, is great for:

-Video
-Anytime you want deep DOF handheld in less than bright light. 

It's a sharp lens with good contrast and color


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 18, 2014)

depends how much the IS will benefit you and size/weight

what will you shoot mostly if its people then the sigma will be better because it is razor sharp wide open at 1.4 so you can get double the shutter speed of the f2 lens and the IS is going to do nothing for any subject movement

but if you are shooting static scenes alot then the IS is gonna be awesome

also in the f2 IS favour is it is ALOT smaller and lighter which makes it a bette travel option too


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2014)

Sigma Art lenses are only overrated if you are so blinded by brand loyalty. This past week had seen CR being filled with Brand Loyalists to Canon who are desperate to find logic without experience. Time will tell has been the latest crock of shiite. BS, images NOW tell the story.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 18, 2014)

slclick said:


> Sigma Art lenses are only overrated if you are so blinded by brand loyalty. This past week had seen CR being filled with Brand Loyalists to Canon who are desperate to find logic without experience. Time will tell has been the latest crock of shiite. BS, images NOW tell the story.



Both the Sigma 1.4 Art and Canon 35 f/2 IS are terrific lenses and have pros and cons when compared. I don't think you have to be a Canon or Sigma fan boy to favor one over the other.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 18, 2014)

Saffier said:


> September this year we're going to the US for a four week holiday. It's our first visit to the US. After a 2,5 day stopover in New York, we will be flying to Denver. From thereon we will be traveling by car. Besides several national parks we'll spend time in Las Vegas, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.
> 
> I would love to take pictures in these cities at night and therefore I am thinking of buying the 35mm f2 IS. My current gear: 6D, 16-35 f2.8 II, 24-105 f4, 85 f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS II. My wife has the SL1, 18-55 IS STM and the 55-250 IS STM. We will both take our gear with us. The Lowepro roller will be in trunk of the car and for every daytrip I will select two lenses max to take with me in the shoulder bag.
> 
> ...


The Canon 35mm f2IS is 'slower?' than the Sigma and in terms of sharpness are close with slight advantage on the Sigma but, if you want to walk light, don't need ultra thin DOF and aren't planning to shot fast moving subjects you can benefit with the Canon IS and get sharp pictures at 1/5 second. Other than that it also balance well in your small SL1.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 18, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> JustMeOregon said:
> 
> 
> > Different strokes for different folks I guess, but I found the Sigma 35 Art to be a game changer. Before I bought it I rented both the Sigma & the cheaper Canon at the same time to compare and to my eyes at least it wasn't even close...
> ...



I don't own either of these lenses, but am considering adding a 35mm prime at some point. I previously owned the Canon 35 L and was generally pleased with it. However, I realize now both of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and Canon 35mm f/2 IS are superior. 

Looking at the TDP crops in the link above, the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is slightly sharper in the center, but the Canon 35 f/2 IS is sharper by a similar amount at mid frame and corner to my eyes. So, I would consider them equally sharp at f/2.

Of course, sharpness is just one evaluation characteristic. AF speed, accuracy and precision, bokeh, transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas, build quality, handling, weight, size, and of course IS are other considerations. I plan to rent both to try side-by-side before making my final decision.


----------



## IsaacImage (Feb 18, 2014)

Have both.
Both are great lenses.

1 - Canon : faster AF, IS, more lighter and invisible.
2 - Sigma 1.4, bit sharper. 

Need 1.4 buy Sigma


----------



## mwh1964 (Feb 18, 2014)

I use the Canon 35 IS for low light shooting in NY. And it is a very good lens for that purpose as well as in general. Compared you to the 24-105 you will gain in IQ and handiness but of course loose some flexibility. I would probably just stay with the 24-105 for your travel.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 18, 2014)

If I understood the TO correctly, he is fully aware of the theoretical tradeoff between F/1.4 and F/2 IS. What I think he really inquired about where the practical implications for night city photography:

How good is the IS of Canon's new 35 in practice? What are the longest exposure times people use for free hand shooting?
What are reasonable exposure times for night city shots that don't incur subject motion blur? If IS allows you to shoot at 1/5s, does that give you a practical advantage or will you shoot at 1/30s anyway?
What are expected exposure parameters in US cities at night? What ISO range will one need at F/2 and 1/10s? If the answer is ISO 102400+, that extra lens may not be worth the effort. Same thing if the answer is ISO 800, he might as well use his 24-105 and ISO 3200


----------



## Saffier (Feb 18, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> If I understood the TO correctly, he is fully aware of the theoretical tradeoff between F/1.4 and F/2 IS. What I think he really inquired about where the practical implications for night city photography:
> 
> How good is the IS of Canon's new 35 in practice? What are the longest exposure times people use for free hand shooting?
> What are reasonable exposure times for night city shots that don't incur subject motion blur? If IS allows you to shoot at 1/5s, does that give you a practical advantage or will you shoot at 1/30s anyway?
> What are expected exposure parameters in US cities at night? What ISO range will one need at F/2 and 1/10s? If the answer is ISO 102400+, that extra lens may not be worth the effort. Same thing if the answer is ISO 800, he might as well use his 24-105 and ISO 3200



First of all, being a newbee on this forum, I am very happy with all your tips and thoughts. Thank you! 
I am especially interested in the answers related to your third question. Perhaps anyone can share his of her experiences?


----------



## e17paul (Feb 18, 2014)

I have recently invested in a 24/2.8 IS, and tried handheld night scenes using the maximum benefit of IS. In warm and dry conditions (indoors looking out), I can often manage to hold a steady shot at 1s, and exceptionally 2s. It helps to use the 2 second timer. Outdoors in the wind, when cold, wet and sometimes shivering, I have understandably had less success but still achieved a 2 stop improvement over rule of thumb. In conclusion, I would still expect the 35/2 IS to give you more advantage in night conditions than the extra stop of the 35/1.4L.

None of this is is as good as some form of tripod (or even monopod), but the IS does give opportunities to take photos when support is not an issue.


----------



## Longexposure (Feb 18, 2014)

Personally, I'd get the sigma. And if I were you I'd consider adding an extender to your 70-200 because you're going to want the extra reach in the national parks especially if you're shooting ff.
Alex


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 18, 2014)

Saffier said:


> Why the 35? It offers me IS and 1 stop of light compared to the 16-35 and it offers me 2 stops of light compared to the 24-105. ... Finally the 35 can also be a nice low-light addition to my wife's set of lenses, but that will not be the decisive argument.



I don't quite understand this reasoning (plus that of the following posters), unless the intention is to always use the lens at maximum aperture, i.e. wide open. I mean, once you're "stopping down" the lens, all that extra "stops of light" just goes _poof!_ and whether you're using an f/1.4 or an f/2 or an f/2.8 or an f/5.6 lens becomes irrelevant. ???


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 18, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I don't quite understand this reasoning (plus that of the following posters), unless the intention is to always use the lens at maximum aperture, i.e. wide open. I mean, once you're "stopping down" the lens, all that extra "stops of light" just goes _poof!_ and whether you're using an f/1.4 or an f/2 or an f/2.8 or an f/5.6 lens becomes irrelevant. ???



That is correct, but two things will still hold
[list type=decimal]
[*]at night and hand held, you will shoot open aperture or you won't get the shot, period. That's where large aperture and IS are a real benefit, not on a sunny summer day around noon.
[*]If you have to stop down to 5.6 for whatever reason (DOF, sharpness), IS will still help you get sharp images with the resulting longer exposure times.
[/list]


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2014)

I have and will use most of my lenses at most apertures at various times for various scenes and lighting requirements. 
The logic that if I mostly shot landscapes I wouldn't need any fast glass is absurd. And the converse stated in the previous posts as well.


----------



## RavePixel (Feb 18, 2014)

This picture was taken at dusk with a Canon 35mm F/2 IS on a Canon 6D in NYC.

Also I think the 35mm f/2 IS and 16-35mm f/2.8 II is a great combo for night city shooting. Maybe also throw the 85mm f/1.8 in the bag in case you want to do any night portraits?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 18, 2014)

The 35/2 IS is by far the cheapest yet most versatile lens in my bag. 

If you need the DOF of 1.4 and can find a good copy to marry with your 6d, can't go wrong with the Sigma.

However, based on what you have said, for $599, the Canon can't be beat. It performs quite well at f/2 and the IS is superb. I routinely shoot at 1/10 in less than optimal lighting conditions and I don't consider myself to have very steady hands.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 19, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> That is correct, but two things will still hold
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]at night and hand held, you will shoot open aperture or you won't get the shot, period. That's where large aperture and IS are a real benefit, not on a sunny summer day around noon.
> [*]If you have to stop down to 5.6 for whatever reason (DOF, sharpness), IS will still help you get sharp images with the resulting longer exposure times.
> [/list]



Precisely. In my reasoning, if you do "low-light" photography, then IS and high ISO are your friends; not aperture.


----------



## Frodo (Feb 19, 2014)

I bought the 35 f/2 IS a month ago and used it with success in DC. It is very sharp wide open and I have no hesitation shooting at f/2 for a nice shallow depth of field. The Sigma would be better, but that lens is much larger and heavier. It is much smaller and lighter and less conspicuous than the 24-105 and I find walking around with the 35mm to be a revelation and this is a big plus when travelling. I'm considering getting an 85mm f/1.8 to match it. The IS seems better than on the 24-105, but I haven't tested it. I took some nice longish exposures of waves handheld, so its also a good waterscape lens. However, coma is an issue. I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable. My Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is much, much better. If you need night lights near the edge of the frame and are critical, then this lens is not for you.
But I'm very happy with my purchase.


----------



## Saffier (Feb 19, 2014)

Frodo said:


> However, coma is an issue. I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.


Is it possible for you to post this picture? I took a look at lenstip.com but I'm interested in a real life example of this coma issue at F2.0. That would really help in the decision I want to make.


----------



## e17paul (Feb 19, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite understand this reasoning (plus that of the following posters), unless the intention is to always use the lens at maximum aperture, i.e. wide open. I mean, once you're "stopping down" the lens, all that extra "stops of light" just goes _poof!_ and whether you're using an f/1.4 or an f/2 or an f/2.8 or an f/5.6 lens becomes irrelevant. ???
> ...



+1

Another thought: The 24-70/4L IS may be a good option. It covers the 35mm focal length, has IS, and gives the flexibility of a zoom. It's obviously more expensive than the 35/2 IS, but weather sealed and comparable in price to the 35/1.4L

Personally, I prefer a depth of field scale for stopping down, so I'm saving up for a 35/2 IS as a companion to my 24/2.8 IS. A modern full frame sensor in combination with IS means that wide apertures only come into play for selective focus.

I was tempted by the zoom option with the red ring, but decided against it.


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Plus it's one of the next best things to a Macro lens in a pinch.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 19, 2014)

e17paul said:


> Another thought: The 24-70/4L IS may be a good option. It covers the 35mm focal length, has IS, and gives the flexibility of a zoom. It's obviously more expensive than the 35/2 IS, but weather sealed and comparable in price to the 35/1.4L



The TO has the 24-105 F/4 IS, so adding the 24-70 F/4 IS to his kit would be a bit redundant ...


----------



## sdsr (Feb 19, 2014)

Rudeofus said:


> e17paul said:
> 
> 
> > Another thought: The 24-70/4L IS may be a good option. It covers the 35mm focal length, has IS, and gives the flexibility of a zoom. It's obviously more expensive than the 35/2 IS, but weather sealed and comparable in price to the 35/1.4L
> ...



Right, especially in low light where any slight improvement in corner sharpness etc. the newer lens might have will surely get lost. As for whether slow apertures are a hinderance at night when you're not trying to freeze action, a couple of months ago I posted some photos I took on a snowy dusk/night in NY with the 70-300L (which has IS, of course) attached to my 5DIII - so no fast apertures and pretty high ISOs and, if I remember right, I didn't apply any noise reduction when converting the RAW files. If interested, you can go here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=285.msg347693#msg347693


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 19, 2014)

I suspect that although f2 is not always necessary, the OP would like to have it available to him/his wife when they want it. Personally, I have never been fond of having an f4 max normal'ish focal length lens to use as a general purpose walk around. 

The 35/2 IS is the fastest normal FL lens with IS that Canon offers currently which makes it very unique in it's qualities.

The OP also mentioned that the lens may/will be added to his wife's bag at some point. We have no idea how she will be using it. However, I suspect that having an f2 vs f4 probably gives her much more utility as she already has slow zooms in her bag.

OP already has 24-105 so the 24-70/4 would be absolutely redundant. The only real additional features would be slightly better IQ and a .74 magnification for macro (all at f4 max) at $1500 which is absurd. Even at 1000-1200, I'd say that the OP would be doing much better at $599 for a much faster prime with IS.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Feb 19, 2014)

This lens is wonderful for static pictures at night! And even moved objects, if you don't have problems with it. (car light stripes etc).
1/4sec is nearly 100% possible, 1/3 or 1/2 you have to try 2-3 times, but it works. So you don't have to use always f/2.0, you can use 5.6 (with ISO800) or so for deeper DOF, because handheld ISO100 at night isn't needed in all cases. ;-) 

I love this lens very much.


----------



## Frodo (Feb 19, 2014)

Saffier said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > However, coma is an issue. I took a milky way shot and coma from city lights at the bottom edge (portrait format) was very noticeable.
> ...



Here you are. I took this quickly off a table top tripod. Details 5DmkII, 35mmf/2IS, 15 sec @ f2, ISO 1600. The max aperture of f/2 allowed me to shoot at 15 seconds avoiding star trails. However, you can see the coma in the lights on the bottom left and stars in the top. Stars are sharp and coma free in the centre of the photo.


----------



## Saffier (Feb 19, 2014)

@ frodo: thanks a lot. Coma is indeed an issue at f2.0
@ sdsr: I looked at your pictures. I love the "winter-ish" look and feel. You showed me that f4 isn't an obstacle for hand-held night pictures. 
@ davidcl0nel: Looked at flickr. Great pictures. Compliments.
@ Ravepixel: your suggestion of taking the 85 f1.8 on the streets for night portraits has been noted, thanks for that.
@ all others: thanks for your comments and suggestions. I have no experience with Sigma and have some reservations for the unknown...

Time for me to wrap-up: My 24-105 should be able to do the job with ISO up to approx. 8000. However, the 35 f2 IS is a very capable and sharp lens which several of you love for city pictures at night. I think it is going to serve me well. My conclusion is that the 35 will be a nice addition to my set, but that I have to be aware of possible coma-issues at 2.0. In that case the 24-105 comes into place. And last but not least, my wife cannot wait to put the 35 on her SL1


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 19, 2014)

Frodo said:


> Saffier said:
> 
> 
> > Frodo said:
> ...



Wow! That coma is really bad! I had no idea...


----------

