# Canon 35mm F2 IS image quality



## Patak (Dec 16, 2014)

just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 16, 2014)

I love it.
I love the view angle, good enough for many tasks. Its very sharp, similar to my 100L macro... I often use both of them and don't miss a zoom.


----------



## TeT (Dec 16, 2014)

If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant. 

Its a fine lens. 

at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 16, 2014)

I have both lenses (35/2 IS and 24-70/2.8 II), they are similar in IQ: excellent. Did you perform AFMA on your 35/2 IS? What specifically are you unhappy with in the images?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2014)

TeT said:


> If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.
> 
> Its a fine lens.
> 
> at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.



That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as _'background compression you get with a zoom'_ there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.

If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 16, 2014)

Patak said:


> just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?



I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open. This is not unusual but I don't see that with my 24-70. This is not to say the 35 is bad. It's just that the 24-70 is too good, and too hard to beat. the prime has the advantage of an extra stop and IS. But putting them side by side, 9 out of 10 times I grab the zoom. 

I sold my sigma 35 to purchase the canon version and I don't regret this part of the decision at all. The canon is so much more portable and more realistic to bring along with the zoom. The real question is whether I need a 35mm prime given how excellent the zoom is. The debate is ongoing but I don't have much choice here because I already cut the box for rebate purposes and can't return. I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550. 

Only you yourself know whether you need a 35mm prime. I can't imagine how expensive the 35Lii will be when it's launched. Maybe $1800?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 16, 2014)

Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens. 

However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish). Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.


----------



## zlatko (Dec 16, 2014)

sunnyVan said:


> I might have been happier if I had gotten a refurbished one and paid $400 instead of 550.



Don't feel too bad. I paid $789 for the 35/2 IS in June, 2013.


----------



## TeT (Dec 17, 2014)

TeT said:


> If I had to guess I would say you are missing the background compression that you get with a zoom. Given the quality of the 24 70 II that could be significant.
> 
> Its a fine lens.
> 
> at 35mm f4 - f8 the 35 2.0 IS is sharper than your 24 70 most noticeable in the corners. Enough that you can see it on the image quality charts on DP. probably not enough to notice in real world past f4.





privatebydesign said:


> That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as _'background compression you get with a zoom'_ there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.



Call it what you will, you are probably right, but on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens. In that particular reference I was not comparing 35mm to 35mm, but aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement.... I gave up my 35 prime because i liked how my zoomed images looked in tight spaces compared to the images from a fixed lens in same space, Gave up sharpness in the trade. 



privatebydesign said:


> If the 35 is worse than the 24-70 at f2.8 there is something wrong with it, There isn't a huge difference between the two, but the prime should be slightly better.



The 35 is better at 2.8 midframe and the 24 70 II is better in the corners, center is basically identical... Using your chart link...


----------



## ecka (Dec 17, 2014)

TeT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is just wrong. For a start there is no such thing as _'background compression you get with a zoom'_ there is just perspective, secondly, perspective is not related to focal length but position, and lastly, at 35 and f2.8 they have identical imaging characteristics.
> ...



Focal length does affect perspective .

At the same settings there is no difference between a zoom lens and a prime lens background compression.
I don't know what you mean by "on a tightly zoomed image on a ZOOM lens you get a look that you don't get as easily on a fixed lens". Some people are confusing "more zoom" with longer focal length, shorter focal length or more magnification. Are you?
"aiming more towards a fairly wide general statement" sounds like you don't know what you are talking about .


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Interesting observation. Shallow dof 'pop' can be induced by the contrast between very sharp in focus areas and the remaining blurr, or 'bokeh'. So some lenses have really good bokeh; the EF 50/1.4 for instance, but it doesn't display very well against the sharpness and contrast of that 50 mil lens at f1.4. So my initial reaction is that you are not getting proper focus when wide open, either due to the need for AFMA, or a bad copy of the lens.
> 
> However what prompted me to reply is the fact that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements ( very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded ( cheapish). Now I have often thought that these moulded elements are getting better and better; the 35/s IS is definitely very good, but some of the lenses that I have, or have had, with the much more expensive to produce elements in them do seem to give, for want of a better description, a 'liquid, 'glassy' quality. I'm not saying that I could pull the difference out in a blind test all the time but I see it in some of my pictures taken with those lenses.



The moulded aspheric lenses in phones are remarkable, they vastly outperform our EF lenses for resolution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2014)

ecka said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No it doesn't. I don't know f the cheesy emoticon means you are being ironic or something, but focal length does not affect perspective.


----------



## Arty (Dec 17, 2014)

Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance. 
In comparing the two lenses, consider that you can reduce ISO when you can use F2. The 35 at F2 will let you use ISO 3200 where the F2.8 lens requires 6400. I don't know about you, but I get sharper images at ISO 3200 than 6400.
Of course, the 35F2 is limited in focal length and view. 
I can think of lots of circumstances where I would want to keep ISO down with any camera, but your needs may be different.


----------



## Arty (Dec 17, 2014)

P.S.
The 35F2 IS is one of my sharpest primes, and that includes my macro lenses.


----------



## TeT (Dec 17, 2014)

ecka said:


> ".... sounds like you don't know what you are talking about .



I prefer confused over ignorant any day... 

Specifically: When I shoot a subject with a not distant background with the 35 IS v. standing back and zooming in to the same framing with my 24 105; I find the image beyond the subject with the 24 105 zoomed to be more pleasing to me. If the background is distant I find that it doesn't matter as much. Surely I am not the only one to notice this....

Consider that I am often using f4 or narrower in those situations.

So if the above phenomenon had a name what would it be?

I had to look up Emoticon, who comes up with these terms?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2014)

TeT said:


> standing back and zooming in



You've described what you like here; perspective is a result of distance from the subject, nothing else.

If you have a photo editing suite of some sort you can test this for yourself with a good standard zoom. Shoot a scene with plenty of depth detail at 24mm. Then shoot from exactly the same place at 70mm ( or 105 ). Look at the two pictures side by side, particularly the central area of the 24mm picture covered by the 70mm. The 70mm shot will appear to have more 'compression'. 

Now crop out of the 24mm shot the same framing as the 70mm. Reduce the image size of the 70mm shot so both the cropped picture and the 70mm are the same size. Look at them both side by side again: this time they will be identical. If you can, overlay one on the other and reduce opacity to 50% so you can see them both. With a good quality zoom they will virtually overlay each other identically.


----------



## Patak (Dec 17, 2014)

Thank you all for your useful and extensive comments. My slight dissappointment with the lens is not based on lack of sharpness or bokeh. it is the color and contrast and overall artistic impression of the image that does not meassure up to 24-70 Mk II. Put it this way; just came from vacation and used 3 lenses, 35 f2 IS, 24-70 II and 135 f2. The percentage of "keepers" is way higher on 24- 70 and 135 than on 35 f2. Perhaps, I am still not very familiar with this lens and used it more often in low light situations than the other two.


----------



## ecka (Dec 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Focal length does affect perspective .
> ...



Yes it does .



Arty said:


> Focal length has no impact on perspective. Perspective is a function of distance.



Well, I'm talking about the picture. You can't shoot the same thing using different FLs from the same distance without changing your camera format.
Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective.
But, *same framing* + different FL = different distance and perspective.
The FL doesn't matter only if you are photographing the perspective from a fixed position and you don't care about framing (for whatever reason).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 21, 2014)

ecka said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



FOV and framing has nothing to do with perspective, that is where you are going wrong.

If we change this _"Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."_

to this _"Same distance + same angle (whatever FL and sensor) = same perpective."_

Then you will be on the right track.


----------



## applecider (Dec 21, 2014)

Sunnyvan said:"I got the 35 f2 recently. I noticed quite a bit of coma towards the edge when shot wide open".

So my question is if anyone has used this lens for astrophotography and if so if the coma is enough to be concerning. Going to death valley at some point and want to take advantage of what I hope will be dark skies. Oh and I already have a 24 1.4 rokinon which I also plan to use.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 21, 2014)

Patak said:


> Thank you all for your useful and extensive comments. My slight dissappointment with the lens is not based on lack of sharpness or bokeh. it is the color and contrast and overall artistic impression of the image that does not meassure up to 24-70 Mk II. Put it this way; just came from vacation and used 3 lenses, 35 f2 IS, 24-70 II and 135 f2. The percentage of "keepers" is way higher on 24- 70 and 135 than on 35 f2. Perhaps, I am still not very familiar with this lens and used it more often in low light situations than the other two.


The extra pop you are going to expect is basically that the 24-70/2.8 uses ground glass aspherical elements (very expensive to produce) and the 35/2 IS uses moulded glass, which is cheaper. I own the 35mm F2 IS and it is definitely very good lens. There will be always a difference in color rendition but in terms of sharpness and portability the 35 f2 IS is difficult to beat. 
I don't have the 24-70 V2 but the V1 and when walking around I prefer the 35mm lens because is less conspicous, lighter and has very low distortion.


----------



## ecka (Dec 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



FOV and framing has everything to do with distance, which affects perspective.


----------



## Joey (Dec 21, 2014)

Let's not be harsh on the poor guy. He says focal length affects perspective and let's all agree that in practice that's the perception because of the way we use our cameras. Let's say we want to take a picture, say a head-and-shoulders portrait. We're using a 28mm lens and stand close to the subject to achieve that, but the poor guy looks like he's got a rather big nose. So we choose an 85mm lens, and we'll have to stand further away to fill the frame with our subject so the perspective will be different - his nose shrinks to a much more flattering size. _When we fill the frame with the same subject using a different focal length lens we get a different perspective. _Yes we know it's not _because_ we're using a different focal length lens, but because we've changed taking position, but let's face it we've been walking all around the subject during the shoot and don't think of the changed taking position as a step change, whereas changing lens is.


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 21, 2014)

I've had this lens since around March and it never ceases to impress me. I personally feel the colors it produces are great, but at the same time I haven't used the 24-70. If you think about it more, you should be disappointed if the 35 IS which is a $600 lens has better colors than the 2K+ 24-70. 

This and my 100L are the two lenses I could never do without again.


----------



## JoFT (Dec 21, 2014)

For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...

Some ideas from the first day I had the optics in use:

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/the-canon-ef-35mm-1-2-is-usm-the-fastest-lens-on-the-market


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2014)

ecka said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



ecka,

You have a proven track record of wallowing in your ignorance, have at it, if you don't want to learn that is fine by me, I don't have the time to help all the people that want to learn let alone to be bothered with the people that don't want to.

For anybody else, the only thing that determines your perspective is your position, which is why you can get the same image with a 4mm lens with a phone as you can with a 35mm lens with your 135 format camera, stand in the same place and your perspective is the same, regardless of focal length or sensor size. Start moving, either with the same camera or a different one, and your perspective changes.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

Ok , I will add my thoughts. I shoot weddings and use the 35mm F2 IS about 50-60% of the time , with other primes. 

I have found it to be by far the best prime or zoom i have ever owned and sold my 50mm 1.2L as it is that good. Also it beat my 24-70 2.8mk1 too so that went. It cannot compete with the blur of the 85 and 135 lenses but it can produce a good bokeh and it definitely allows images to pop when shot at F2 for me.

I would guess though with it not having the L moniker that there may be a chance the QC is not up to scratch and you may have a bad copy or it needs AFMA.

Take a look at some of my work on the latest photos link and most of that will be with that lens.


Wedding Photography North East and Northumberland www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## ecka (Dec 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Well, most photographers (not snapshooters) are not just photographing the perspective from where they stand, they tend to frame their pictures logically, while looking for the best position, background and distance. Standing still and zooming your 18-300 lens won't change the perspective. But, when you have the image in your mind, then you have to choose the right FL and distance to replicate it using your set of tools (which has it's limits). Try using some primes, shoot an environmental portrait (or something where perspective really matters), then you'll see that you are changing the perspective by changing your lens (FL) and distance, while keeping the main subject. If you only change distance, then you change the whole picture (framing, perspective, DoF...). OK, you can skip the experiment, just google for "dolly zoom" or "vertigo effect" (used in movies) and learn how it is done and why.
No need for personal insults, have nice holidays .


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2014)

ecka said:


> If you only change distance, then you change the whole picture (framing, perspective, DoF...). OK, you can skip the experiment, just google for "dolly zoom" or "vertigo effect" (used in movies) and learn how it is done and why.
> No need for personal insults, have nice holidays .



If you looked up those terms yourself you would see that they are not changing subject framing, they are changing PERSPECTIVE because they are changing camera to subject DISTANCE. 

The framing stays constant on the subject and the perspective changes because the camera position is moved, which is entirely consistent with my point that perspective is created by position and nothing else. Change position and your perspective changes, if you don't change position your perspective does not change.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > If you only change distance, then you change the whole picture (framing, perspective, DoF...). OK, you can skip the experiment, just google for "dolly zoom" or "vertigo effect" (used in movies) and learn how it is done and why.
> ...


and focal length!



> The framing stays constant on the subject and the perspective changes because the camera position is moved, which is entirely consistent with my point that perspective is created by position and nothing else. Change position and your perspective changes, if you don't change position your perspective does not change.



This effect (changing perspective) is not possible without zooming. You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2014)

ecka said:


> You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.



Yes you can, just crop, or use a different sized camera. An iPhone takes normal perspective images with a 4mm lens, a 135 format camera appears to give distorted perspective images at 17mm, but when shot from the same place crop the 17mm image to the 4mm image framing and the images are the same, no distortion and the background elements are as 'compressed' as with any other lens with that framing from that place.

These two images are shot from the same place with the same camera, one with a 17mm lens the other with a 200mm lens, *they both have the same perspective because they were shot from the same place.* 

Perspective has nothing to do with field of view or focal length, zero, nada, zilch. Perspective is describing where you are in space in relation to your subject, and where the subject is in relation to the other elements in the picture and the viewer, you can only change perspective by moving yourself or one or more of the elements within the frame, that is what perspective means.

Perspective gives you your view; focal length (in combination with your sensor size or crop) gives you the angle of that view, but it doesn't affect your spatial relationship to your subject or the other elements in the picture. Dolly zooming does change the spatial relationship of the subject to camera, so it changes the perspective.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot use random focal length to get what you want.
> ...



Cropping doesn't prove your theory, sorry. You've shot two *different *pictures from the same spot, that's all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 23, 2014)

ecka said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



The two pictures have the same perspective.

It isn't a theory either, that is the definition of perspective, it isn't my definition, it is the actual definition.


----------



## ecka (Dec 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



So what? You still can't shoot the same picture using the same FL from whatever distance to get different perspective. All you can do is cropping or using different camera format (which is cheating) .



> It isn't a theory either, that is the definition of perspective, it isn't my definition, it is the actual definition.



Really?  I thought it was about representing 3D objects in 2D.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 23, 2014)

dlee13 said:


> I've had this lens since around March and it never ceases to impress me. I personally feel the colors it produces are great, but at the same time I haven't used the 24-70. If you think about it more, you should be disappointed if the 35 IS which is a $600 lens has better colors than the 2K+ 24-70.
> 
> This and my 100L are the two lenses I could never do without again.


+1, these two are my most used lenses. The 35mm f2 IS beats my 24-70mm f2.8 Mk1 handsdown


----------



## dlee13 (Dec 23, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > I've had this lens since around March and it never ceases to impress me. I personally feel the colors it produces are great, but at the same time I haven't used the 24-70. If you think about it more, you should be disappointed if the 35 IS which is a $600 lens has better colors than the 2K+ 24-70.
> ...



When the lens was launched I can understand why it wasn't as popular due to it being overpriced, but at it's current price I think it's honestly one of Canon's best lenses (especially considering it's a non L lens). If Canon can make a 50 and 85mm lens with the same quality as the 35, I will definitely be getting it (85mm especially).


----------



## gregorywood (Dec 23, 2014)

davidcl0nel said:


> I love it.
> I love the view angle, good enough for many tasks. Its very sharp, similar to my 100L macro... I often use both of them and don't miss a zoom.



+1

This is the combo I take with 6D, often accompanied by a fisheye. I love the 35mm f/2 IS. I would say it is the sharpest lens I have, even edging out the 100mm L Macro. 

To the OP, maybe you got a dud, or you are looking for something it can't do for you?

Greg


----------



## zlatko (Dec 23, 2014)

davidcl0nel said:


> I love it.
> I love the view angle, good enough for many tasks. Its very sharp, similar to my 100L macro... I often use both of them and don't miss a zoom.



+1
The 35/2 IS is super sharp and draws beautifully. At one point my copy became a little de-centered, or I first noticed it was de-centered. So it required a trip to Canon's service center for repair. After repair, it is just excellent. The 35L's bokeh is probably a little better, but not by much. I prefer the 35/2 IS due to its lighter weight and smaller size, and it has IS.


----------



## Arty (Jan 1, 2015)

The OP may just prefer the narrower field of view of longer focal lengths. On full frame, the 35 mm view is a bit wide.
I like the 35F2 IS very much, but prefer the view of a 50 on full frame for people photos. Some people don't care for the way the new 35 renders color. That is a subjective evaluation, but I have read negative comments that some people expressed about how the 35 works for portraits. 
I like the fast and accurate AF of the 35, and it is very sharp. It is one of my favorite lenses, but each to his/her own.


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 1, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Perspective has nothing to do with field of view or focal length, zero, nada, zilch. Perspective is describing where you are in space in relation to your subject, and where the subject is in relation to the other elements in the picture and the viewer, you can only change perspective by moving yourself or one or more of the elements within the frame, that is what perspective means.
> 
> Perspective gives you your view; focal length (in combination with your sensor size or crop) gives you the angle of that view, but it doesn't affect your spatial relationship to your subject or the other elements in the picture. Dolly zooming does change the spatial relationship of the subject to camera, so it changes the perspective.


Perspective is typically understood as the relationship between your subject and its surroundings. As your two photos demonstrate, two different focal length lenses at the same distance will yield the same perspective of your "scene". But, you need to crop the image from the shorter lens to duplicate the view of the longer.

However, to suggest that perspective has nothing to do with focal length serves to invite a semantics debate. While technically true, it's wrong in practice. When comparing two lenses of different focal lengths by shooting a given subject, one typically assumes that goal of the comparison is to fill the frame with the subject during the comparison. This means changing the distance to the subject.

Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.

Oh, the 35 f2 IS is a fun, bright, sharp lens that focuses quickly and quietly. It is surprisingly comparable to my 24-70 f2.8L II at 35mm. But, the 24-70 is quieter and maybe a little quicker to focus.


----------



## switters (Jan 1, 2015)

Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> Perspective is typically understood as the relationship between your subject and its surroundings.



No, perspective is correctly understood as the relationship between you, and your subject and the surroundings.





FTb-n said:


> While technically true, it's wrong in practice.



Well I find the suggestion ridiculous. If it is true, it is true in practice; if it is wrong in practice, it is not true.

I am not overly interested in a semantics debate, I am interested in telling the truth, that the majority of ill informed photographers think it is so, does not make it so. That all those photographers look up to equally ill educated 'pros', reviewers, bloggers etc means they can't really be blamed for the mistake, but it is a mistake.

Perspective is derived from your position, alone. Focal length, sensor size etc etc are meaningless when talking about perspective, they are not meaningless when talking about fov, framing etc, but we weren't and they are quite different from perspective.

If nobody ever points out what is correct and what is incorrect how does anybody ever learn? I am not belittling anybody for not knowing the difference, especially, as I said, because of the sources of their misinformation, but the word perspective has a definitive meaning and it isn't related to focal length or sensor size.

To put this in a photographic context.

I see a scene, an environmental portrait, I want to show a person and their very strong connection to a building across a body of water. I move to get the perspective I want, that is, how large they are in relation to the building, then I select the focal length I need to get the framing I want for the sensor I have. Done. But the perspective is the over reaching first step, the focal length is just a factor along with the sensor size used to achieve the desired framing, not the perspective.

See below, perspective drives everything else in cognitively framed images whether we are aware of that or not, focal length comes a distant second and then only in conjunction with sensor size and desired framing.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 4, 2015)

FTb-n said:


> Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.



Perspective depends on subject distance alone, technically and practically.
One might have numerous reasons for wanting to change the subject distance- in your example you are trying to frame the subject similarly with a lens of a different focal length. In another example, I might want to have the same amount of DoF with a different aperture (let’s say you want to take a photo with a 85mm lens and due to the low lighting conditions you need to use f/1.2. Instead of shooting from where you’re at, you step a few feet back to ensure that everything will be in focus. Would you say that the aperture changed the perspective in this case? You might say that in my example the framing is changed while in your case it stayed the same. The misconception about focal length affecting perspective might arise from the fact that one equates perspective with framing. While the focal length dictates framing (as it directly controls the angle of view and therefore controls the field of view at a given distance), focal length doesn’t affect perspective. It is merely one of the reasons that cause us to alter the subject distance.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 4, 2015)

switters said:


> Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?



Maybe not extensively but my friend and I compared his 35A to my 35 IS. The IQ wide open is the same for sharpness, but the Sigma is somewhat better since it has less vignetting (if that even bothers you).

In reality the main comparison comes down to preference. Do you like a heavier build and f1.4 or IS, lighter and cheaper.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jan 5, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> switters said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the subject of the original post...has anyone on this thread compared the 35 IS with the Sigma 35A extensively?
> ...



Totally agree. Between A grade sharp and A+ sharp there's just no significant difference. I gave up my sigma, which had zero AF problems and was extremely sharp, and settled for canon 35is instead mainly because of smaller size.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 5, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > switters said:
> ...



At its launch price, I can see why people chose the Sigma over the Canon (even I would have). I'm glad to hear you're happu with the IS! I find it to be a really underrated lens but I'm happy see more and more people are starting to pick it up and realising how good it really is! The size and weight were definitely a huge factor for me too.


----------



## ecka (Jan 5, 2015)

sagittariansrock said:


> FTb-n said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, it's this change in distance that changes the perspective. But, it's the change in focal length that necessitates the change in distance to capture two images of the same subject that fills the frame. Because filling the frame with your subject is typically understood as a given for such a comparison, then focal length does affect perspective.
> ...



OK, technically FL doesn't affect perspective directly (just like sensor size doesn't affect DoF), but FL dictates framing and distance, so the perspective will change anyway. What if the background is far away or even close to infinity (like moon)? Running around won't really change the perspective, but the FL will affect it.


----------



## Foxdude (Jan 5, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > switters said:
> ...




+1
I had 35 ART one year, sold it and got the EF35 IS. Sigma was great, but so is the 35IS. I could't do side by side comparison, but with 35IS, I can easily count eyelashes shot wide open. It is extremely sharp. I really like lighter weight, size and price over Sigma. Bokeh seems to be little smoother with 35IS, too. I liked Sigma lot, but I like this new Canon even more. IS is also very nice to have, and I haven't missed that F1.4 at least yet. 
Overall, I'm very happy with this lens. Very well balanced with 6D, and it is now my most used lens. 35IS+100L macro makes Reeally nice combo on 6D


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2015)

ecka said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...



How does changing focal length change the perspective of the moon? It doesn't! It affects your reproduction magnification, but that is not related to perspective. 

Please understand, perspective is about where you are, that is it. If you don't move your perspective doesn't change, if you move it does.


----------



## Ripley (Jan 5, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > switters said:
> ...



The Sigma is sharper several stops sooner. In low light, and for less DOF, the Sigma holds the advantage.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 6, 2015)

ecka said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > FTb-n said:
> ...





Technically, or otherwise, FL doesn't affect perspective directly, or indirectly. It can only affect our motivation to alter the subject distance. There are uncountable other factors that may motivate us to do the same, such as aperture in my example.
As I said earlier, you are equating framing with perspective. If the background is near infinity, running towards it _will_ alter the perspective, but in an entirely negligible amount. After all, you are altering the subject distance only by 1/infinite amount. On the other hand, altering the focal length will merely change how much of the background you can see- which has nothing to do with perspective. Framing is NOT equivalent to perspective.
Perspective is HOW a subject looks at a certain distance. Framing is HOW MUCH of the subject you can see from that distance. If you don't change the subject distance, the subject will look exactly the same irrespective of focal lengths used, as PBD's illustration shows. What will change is how much you have to crop away in order for the images to look similar.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 7, 2015)

I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).

http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/

It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!


----------



## sunnyVan (Jan 7, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).
> 
> http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/
> 
> It's for the 16-35mm f4 IS but the review compares it to the 35 IS and the 35 IS actually does considerably well in comparison!



Can't compare a sedan with an suv. Just because they both have 4 wheels doesn't make it a fair comparison.


----------



## dlee13 (Jan 7, 2015)

sunnyVan said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this review would be a great read for everone (it's not my review).
> ...



How is it an unfair comparison? Considering the 16-35 is double the price of the 35 IS and is also a L lens, it just shows the great quality of the 35 IS. I'm not saying the 16-35 is a bad lens either, I actually still plan on getting it!


----------



## Arty (Jan 7, 2015)

Ripley said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...


Perspective s purely a function of distance. Focal length has nothing to do with perspective. i have a number of refereed publicatons on perspective, and can assure you that focal length is not relevant.
Focal length does change the framing, depth of field, and amount of background blur. That may alter the final image.
No, I am not a pro photographer, but a psychologist with an interest in perspective.
Formal perspective was devised by Brunelleschi in the Renaissance. Ask an artist if you want to know.
If you change the distance, you change perspective. One way to think about perspective is to imagine loooking at a scene from a fixed position and then imagine a vertical plane at a particular distance. Think of everything within sight projecting on the vertical plane. This is what we do with cameras.
This is not a mere "technicality." Perspective is what it is, and one can't invent new definitions. There are socially agreed upon definitions of things like perspective.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jan 7, 2015)

dlee13 said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > dlee13 said:
> ...



I bring both with me quite frequently. They're for different purposes. The zoom is great for landscape and indoor architecture. It's useable at 35mm for portrait but the look is very different from what I'd get with the prime. I mainly use 35 prime to photograph my toddler son indoor. It has the classic magical look of a prime lens. The zoom I like to use 24mm for landscape and 16mm to get insanely close to foreground. 

Having said that, I've used the zoom to shoot portrait and the prime for landscape. It's just not the primary reason I got them for.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 7, 2015)

I wholeheartedly recommend this lens.

Works great on crop (like a 45mm FF or so) and very journalistic at FF 35mm. Its not an L, so expect a more 'pale' image rendering comparable to the 85/1.8, 100/f2, etc with a fair amount of CA. Ive tried in on my t2i and my 6d- fantastic.

IMHO its way overpriced, even at 500, but if you can get a deal on it, by all means do. And im always baffled by shooters who argue about IS- its a great feature, and it should be in every lens as far as im concerned.


----------



## JoFT (Jan 26, 2015)

JoFT said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > For me the 35mm f2.0 is a real great Lens. I love it since I have it... Maybe a bit to much CA wide open... but on the other hand it delivers great images...
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 26, 2015)

JoFT said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...



Is there an actual reason, other than shameless self promotion, that you are going round posting all these direct links to your blog?

You are making no further comment in the threads, you are inking to badly written misleading posts that you could just as easily leave here directly.


----------



## Ruined (Jan 27, 2015)

Patak said:


> just recently i got 35mm f2 IS. it is a bit disappointing that the images do not have a "pop" effect that i get from 24-70 Mk II. I am thinking of returning it and saving money for 35L MkII or some other lens. Can anyone share experience with this lens?



The images from the 35mm f/2 IS USM are fantastic, however they do not have the color rendering and microcontrast of lenses like the 24-70 f/2.8L II

BUT consider vs the 24-70L,
1. The 35mm f/2 IS lets in significantly more light than the 24-70
2. The 35mm f/2 IS is small, making it the best "portable" lens Canon makes IMO
3. The Image Stabilization can come in use in some scenarios

And vs the current 35L:
1. With its curved aperture blades the 35mm has superior bokeh at f/2 on compared to the 35mm f/1.4L which has ugly angular bokeh highlights due to its straight aperture blades.
2. The 35L will be replaced likely sometime in the next 1-3 years (but who knows exactly when)
3. The 35L and its eventual successor will remain much larger and heavier than the 35mm f/2 IS


So in summary, the 35 IS performs great even if not 100% as stunning as some of the most expensive L lenses. Still, due to its other qualities the 35 IS remains a spectacular lens in your arsenal if you want the best quality portable walk around lens Canon makes.


----------



## candyman (Jan 27, 2015)

In my opinion, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 27, 2015)

candyman said:


> In my opinion, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens!



Nicely done candyman. I like background light.


----------



## candyman (Jan 27, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, the 35mm f/2 IS is a great lens!
> ...




Thanks. 
Every few seconds the light on this ice sculpture was changing. It went from blue to green to yellow and so on. With some patience something I was able to catch a good moment of light


----------

