# Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review



## dswatson83 (Dec 28, 2012)

New review of the Canon 35mm f/2. 

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review

Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review


----------



## BruinBear (Dec 28, 2012)

Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 28, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> New review of the Canon 35mm f/2.
> 
> http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review
> 
> Canon 35mm f/2 IS Review



Thanks for the post. I just bought the Siggy 35, but still interesting to watch this. He makes a strong argument for the video shooters (of which I am not one of). Apart from the vignetting issue at F2.0,... Am I the only one that thought that the bokeh did not look particularly good on this lens?


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 29, 2012)

Its a fluff review. Technically flawed.. .. and too much price ranting


----------



## JoeDavid (Dec 29, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop



Just because he can buy a lens doesn't make him a reviewer; it doesn't even make him a photographer :


----------



## barracuda (Dec 29, 2012)

BruinBear said:


> Does it bother anyone else that he thinks f2.0-f/2.8 is 3/4 of a stop and f/1.8 to f/2.8 is a full stop



It sure does damage his credibility. The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 29, 2012)

barracuda said:


> The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.


Why would price not be a valid part of a review, especially for a non-L lens. The price is the first thing that happens when you buy a lens and open the box so that would obviously be the first thing you would talk about. If you are going to produce a lens 2-3 times that of the original 35mm f/2, it better be awesome. The review was also based on a bunch of tests later on and not just his random opinion so i'm not sure how biased it can be.


----------



## Zv (Dec 29, 2012)

Hmmm .... Not the best review in the world. I think he mentioned the price about 15 times, we got it mate!!! Though where I live the Canon 35 f/2 IS is about $100 cheaper than the Sigma. He also talked a lot about the vignetting, then went on to say it can easily fixed in post. So why mention it over and over? That is a known issue with all wide lenses. Also I didn't like his bokeh test, what the heck was that? Surely this time of year there are Christmas lights all over the place?? 

???


----------



## barracuda (Dec 29, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> barracuda said:
> 
> 
> > The review starts with an overall bias against the lens due to the cost of it, and he seems unable to do an objective review.
> ...



Point well taken. Of course price should always be an integral part of any lens review, but I just felt that price had a disproportionate weighting in this case. I prefer reviews that concentrate on the merits of the lens, leaving cost and value to the discretion of the reader.

Also, keep in mind that the inclusion of IS will generally add a few hundred dollars to the cost of a lens, so we're not exactly comparing apples to apples.


----------



## meli (Dec 29, 2012)

18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 29, 2012)

meli said:


> 18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55


Good point. I think Canon made a good but safe lens for the price of something awesome. How do you not make a good f/2 prime lens. Even the 50mm f/1.8 looks good at f/2 and like you said, the IS added $30 to the price of the 18-55. The build too is on par with most $400 lenses. Felt just like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 cropped sensor lens to me.


----------



## barracuda (Dec 29, 2012)

meli said:


> 18-55 has IS too, it doesnt add 500$ over the normal 18-55



Rather than cherry picking one of Canon's least expensive lenses out there, average the cost of IS over its non-IS counterpart throughout Canon's lineup. Some of the 70-200mm lenses come to mind.

Btw, I'm not defending Canon nor this particular lens. I don't even have it. The lens is expensive, even if the street price were to come down a couple hundred dollars a few months after its introduction, as was the case with the new 24/28mm 2.8 IS lenses. My comments were about the review, which I didn't find very credible, especially when the reviewer didn't appear to understand a fundamental concept like f-stops. If someone is going to publish a lens review, at least get that right...


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 29, 2012)

Regarding the f stop - it is a review by _Learning_ cameras after all !


----------



## kubelik (Dec 29, 2012)

this guy has some real-world samples of the 35mm f/2 IS: http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm/h4ed589de#h4f0f869e

I do see the slight ringing effect in the bokeh but overall it looks good. I'm also annoyed by the fact that the reviewer in this video can't get his stops right ... he even refers to the lens as an f/2.8 at one point.

need to see some head-to-heads between this lens and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 before we can determine which one has the better overall image quality. I'm fairly sure that sharpness will favor the Sigma, but I'm not so sure about other things. and I know it's a niche usage, but I really wish some of the reviewers would take a look and see how the coma and astigmatism on these lenses are.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 29, 2012)

I'm holding off....

Gotta see what Canon brings out soon. Would I trade a little image quality for IS on the 35/2 ? Probably.
Would I get a 50/1.4 IS before the 35/2 IS - hard choice. I'm a real "35" type of shooter, but, I've got the 16-35 and the 24-105 that both cover that range - and the shooting I do with the 35 is mostly for social events, and I'm getting to appreciate the flexibility of the zooms. Tough call.

I'm gonna hold out, see what they do... if there's no 50/1.4 IS coming soon... I'll probably do the 35/2.0IS.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 4, 2013)

kubelik said:


> this guy has some real-world samples of the 35mm f/2 IS: http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm/h4ed589de#h4f0f869e
> 
> I do see the slight ringing effect in the bokeh but overall it looks good. I'm also annoyed by the fact that the reviewer in this video can't get his stops right ... he even refers to the lens as an f/2.8 at one point.
> 
> need to see some head-to-heads between this lens and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 before we can determine which one has the better overall image quality. I'm fairly sure that sharpness will favor the Sigma, but I'm not so sure about other things. and I know it's a niche usage, but I really wish some of the reviewers would take a look and see how the coma and astigmatism on these lenses are.



I'm glad to see someone mention coma and astigmatism. I'm interested in a fast 35mm lens and, as I would mainly be using it to take photos in low light outdoors, hand-held, in situations where there are often fairly small, bright points of light, coma is a dispositive issue for me. Most reviewers seem to ignore it, and lenstip, who don't, haven't gotten around to this lens yet. So far the only review I've seen which mentions coma is Rockwell's, where he says: "To my surprise, this aspheric Canon 35 IS does have some coma at f/2. It gets better at f/2.8, and is gone completely by f/4. This is only about as good as the previous 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 L at the same apertures." He provides no samples, but if it's really like other two Canon 35mm lenses, I won't be tempted. Per Lenstip, the Sigma is much better than those two in this regard (and, apparently, just about everything else - though if the samples in The Digital Picture's review of the f2 IS are typical, it wins among 35mms for bokeh, followed by the Sigma).

Anyway, has anyone seen any reviews which address coma in the 35mm f/2 IS? Better yet, does anyone have any first-hand experience of this?

Thanks in advance


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 5, 2013)

this guys reviews are really bad


----------

