# 35/2 IS Review by Dustin Abbott



## JumboShrimp (Apr 5, 2014)

You can see his review here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/03/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-review/


----------



## drjlo (Apr 5, 2014)

A nice read for those deciding among the 35 mm options out there. I especially concur with this point:

"But one of the things I do besides reading reviews when I am doing research before purchasing is to look at pictures taken WITH the lens. I realize that there will always be a very wide disparity in the quality of photos because of the skill level of the photographer. But after a while you start to get a sense of how the lens performs in a variety of situations.

Lenses are more than the sum of their parts or even review scores, and I find that particularly true with fast prime lenses. The 35L, for example, produces images with a frequently beautiful “feel” to them that goes beyond technical merit. The images frequently look “pro” or “magic” (and that’s a good thing!) I kept waiting for the WOW images from the Sigma…but I rarely saw them. The Sigma just seems more clinical."


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2014)

The IS is not Hybrid IS, it is just OIS, it does not allow for shift like the HIS in the 100 L Macro.

The IS does not switch off one axis when you pan, it still runs both but doesn't try to counteract the steady motion of the pan, this means you can pan at any angle and still get the full benefits of the IS.

But nice insight into the lens and, as always, some nice illustrative images to go along with it.


----------



## RavePixel (Apr 5, 2014)

I used this lens to take one of my best pictures (see below). It is a spectacular lens for the price, and IMO as a whole superior to the aging 35L - the 35 IS is slightly sharper, has better bokeh stopped down, it is smaller, lighter, more economical, and as a bonus has IS. Whenever I go to NYC this is the lens I take.

On the flipside, I would like to see a more modern 35L II design.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Apr 6, 2014)

Nice review. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## zlatko (Apr 6, 2014)

Great review! I agree with every point. It is one of my favorite lenses.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 6, 2014)

Very nice review Dustin! 

It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.


----------



## LOLID (Apr 6, 2014)

This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.

I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my

question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?

I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
- sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.8)
- distortion
- bokeh rendering
- Dustin's "WOW" effect

Thanks in advance.
O.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2014)

LOLID said:


> question: how does the 35mm f/2 IS compare to the 40mm f/2.8?
> 
> I understand the max aperture small difference, the 300$ price tag gap, and the former being a tad wider, but what in terms of:
> - sharpness (@ 2v2.8 and 2.8v2.8)
> ...



I don't have the 35 IS but have researched it and seriously considered it but I already have the 40.

Sharpness at 2.8 is very similar. If you're going to go test charts the 40 is slightly ahead, more so in the corners despite being fully open. So when both are fully open the 40 is ahead.

The 40 has virtually zero distortion (0.6 barrel), the 35 IS 1%, which is actually really good for the focal length and better than the old 35/2.

Personally I think the bokeh of the 40 at 2.8 is very pleasing. With my limited time on the 35IS I can't comment.

The WOW effect ? Again I think the 40 has it.

With the 35 IS you're getting IS, better manual focus ring, F2, distance scale and less money left in your pocket. You are not getting better 'IQ'; the 40 is exceptional value for money in that respect. 

However if I hadn't already got the 40 I think I'd go for the 35IS now it's come down in price.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 6, 2014)

LOLID said:


> This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.
> 
> I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my
> 
> ...


Sharpness:
f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.

Distortion: (For me this is a non-issue with these lenses)
The 40mm pancake is slightly better, neither of them is bad.

Bokeh:
The 35mm blurs the background better and has a better rendering.

I can't comment on Dustin's WOW factor...

I think more significant factor in your purchasing decision is build-quality. The 35IS is a more solidly built tool whereas the pancake needs to be carefully looked after. The 35IS has USM which focuses faster, the 40mm has STM which allows smoother focus transitions for video on STM-compatible bodies?

Do you intend shooting video? Is your camera body STM compatible?


----------



## LOLID (Apr 6, 2014)

Thanks Sporgon and Studentoflight for your prompt and helpful responses.

It looks like in terms of IQ (all factors combined) the 35 /2 IS and 40 /2.8 are quite similar.

I do not intend to shoot video (yet). I have a 5D3 and I believe firmware updates (since 1.1.3) made it compatible. Please let me know if it is not the case.

Unless I get comments leaning strongly towards the 35 IS with compelling arguments, I am going to purchase the 40mm. Even though the f/2 and IS would be a clear advantage in low light situations (let apart the build quality as I take great care of my equipment) it cannot justify a $400 (or 300%) difference in price.

Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off. But even at $599, and even with an excellent build quality, I have psychological barrier to spend such amount on a non-L lens. But that might just be me!

Thanks again.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 6, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Very nice review Dustin!
> 
> It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.



+1


----------



## batotman (Apr 6, 2014)

I've had this lens for the last month. I think he nails it. I also have the old 35F2 and it is nice but it's definitely not close to the new one. 

As for the 40 2.8, I've never cared for it. I tried to make myself like it but found myself unimpressed with both copies I've owned. The images are okay but the focal length is odd on both my 6D and T4i. For the money it's good, but I don't think it's a great lens.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Apr 6, 2014)

Finally, thank you!


----------



## Frodo (Apr 6, 2014)

Yes, I like Dustin's reviews - thanks Dustin.
And yes, I like this lens - thanks Canon.
I bought it for the small size, the sharpness and relatively small depth of field wide open, and for the IS.
Its weakness is bad coma wide open - I've posted elsewhere on this site about that.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> Sharpness:
> f/2 vs f/2.8 - They are very similiar wide open however the 35IS has more vignetting and softer corners
> f/2.8 vs f/2.8 - The 35IS is sharper in the centre and mid-frame with the corners sharpness being similar. The vignetting also starts clearing up nicely by f/2.8.



Just out of curiosity from which source(s) of information did you draw these conclusions ? 

One other thing I forgot to mention is that the 40 vignettes quite badly at 2.8 whereas at 2.8 on the 35 IS the vignette is much less.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Apr 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Sharpness:
> ...


In terms of sharpness I normally refer to TDP crops: 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=810&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

In terms of terms if vignetting: reviews on Photozone.de
The 35IS is mostly cleared up by f/2.8. At f/2.8 the 40mm's vignette is significant but not quite as bad as the 35IS is at f/2.

I briefly tested 35mm f/2 IS when I was considering the various options for 35mm. I'm struggling to find my sample images so it's much easier to just refer to crops and weblinks. Anyway, the 35IS was quite expensive on release and I managed to get a 35L at a good price so I rather opted for that instead. Now that the price has dropped (relatively) the 35IS has become a must-consider option.


----------



## Gino (Apr 6, 2014)

Hi Dustin,

Great review as usual...keep up the great work! Your portfolio of photographs is exceptional! 

Thanks,
Gino


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 7, 2014)

LOLID said:


> Dustin Abbott rightly pointed out that the original pricing of the 35 IS by Canon was clearly off.



I've seen many comments in this review, these postings and others that Canon missed the mark with its premier pricing of this lens (and others), and quite frankly, I find it a little maddening.

I don't blame manufacturers for pricing any new product as high as they think they can get away with. As the old saying goes, "whatever the market will bear." They have their own price sensitivity models, and only they know how many they have to sell, at what price, and how quickly, to recover their R&D investments.

They can always drop the price later, as Canon has done with this product, once they've reaped the purchases of all the early adopters who are willing to pay the premium, whatever their rationale / justification.

This will probably be my next lens purchase. I wish I had picked one up during one of the recent sales; the ~ $50 discount would have paid for the lens hood.

Each new lens announcement (I'm looking forward to the 50/1.x-2.x IS and the 100-400 II) will take us on the high price ride all over again.


----------



## PVS (Apr 7, 2014)

The WOW effect is in the eye of a photographer. Personally, I didn't find any of the wows in Dustin's link so it's always down to what works for you. Some lenses are awful at cettain distances, sonetimes distracting rendering of the OoF areas works better than silky smooth, really, there's no rule. 
I wouldn't agree with S35/1.4A being clinical, it is indeed a quite modern lens design and it takes some time to get used to advantages coming from that design. Here's my post from other forum where I gave some examples from Sigma:
http://www.dizajnzona.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65927&view=findpost&p=1256406

See, when I bought the 24-70/2.8L mk2 lens I was a bit turned off by lens being almost perfect in so many ways especially because I got used to mk1 rendering quite a lot but after a while I got used to it and now I just love it. It's just about getting to know your tools and the trademarks they give and, like I've said - it always boils down to whatever works for you personally.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 8, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Very nice review Dustin!
> 
> It is good to see an image and photography based review, rather than chart porn. I have the Sigma and despite it´s phenomenal sharpness, I can relate to all your concerns and worries and why you decided not to get one. Clinical is a descriptive word.



Thanks for the valuable feedback. My goal was not to bash the Sigma, but rather to demonstrate my reasons for choosing the Canon.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 8, 2014)

Thanks to everyone for weighing in with your personal observations. I'm actually just happy to see some dialogue about this lens; it doesn't seem to have gotten on many people's radar. Too bad, as it is a deserving little lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2014)

It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me

I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 10, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me
> 
> I really liked the canon and the IS but I decided for me the extra sharpness wide open and extra stop of light of the sigma was worth more, but that was when prices were equal with the big drop in price the canon is alot more appealing especially because its ALOT smaller and lighter.



And that is exactly why I do feel that Canon made a mistake with initial pricing. There are those that argue that a high price for early adopters is the way to go and perfectly justifiable. It may be justifiable, but it is also a mistake, IMO. How many others like you would have purchased the Canon instead of the Sigma if the initial price had been $200-300 less for the Canon? This excellent lens has had next to zero buzz because it was initially overpriced. Contrast that with, say, the new Tamron 150-600mm, which has a waiting list of months everywhere in large part because it is a a good lens at an excellent price. For that matter, look at the "shorty-forty". It seems like it has ended up in just about everyone's bag (including my own). Would that have been the case if it was even $100 more expensive?

I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I don't even use my 40mm very much, but I don't sell it because it represents such a small investment that it is worth hanging on to.


My 40mm experience was this: bought for $100 off (rebate + GearShop credit), put on camera, took 3 cat photos. Removed from camera. Collected dust for 4 months. Sold for $75 profit. I just couldn't find a use for it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The exact reason why, even after looking at the price tag so many times, I have refrained from buying it. I'll never use it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 10, 2014)

Dustin,

Did you have a chance to use the S35 personally? I would have guessed the S35 would have been a better match to your 24-70 f/2.8 VC because the difference in aperture is greater.

The size/price advantages of the recent Canon IS lenses compared to their L counterparts are large, but I often wonder what is the point of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is priced near 1k. It seems to me that Canon didn't think someone would deliver a 24-70 f/2.8 VC when it decided to design the new 24 and 28 mm lenses. If Sigma sells its new 50mm f/1.4 for about 1k, I can see a Canon 50 f/1.8 IS meeting the same fate as the 35 f/2 IS because I don't think Canon would sell it for 300 or less. If the price is 500 or more, most people would prefer to upgrade/get a better zoom than for a single focal length.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 10, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > So I push you to finish the review and then don't even notice it when you publish it. I guess that's a comment on my busy life of late, but I'm glad I finally saw the post. I liked your real-world review and comparison to the other 35mm choices. The bokeh looks excellent and the wide open sharpness is really impressive. I've never found much comfort at 35mm finding it too narrow compared to 24mm and too wide/distorted compared to 50mm, but I might have to give this lens a try someday. The launch price killed my initial excitement, but it is more reasonable now.
> ...



It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either. I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer. It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens. It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 10, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> It can come in handy but I don't use it all that often either. I use it primarily to complement walking around with a 70-xxx zoom when going to a zoo or taking pics of the kids playing soccer. It takes little space, so I'm not using a bigger camera bag to bring the additional lens. It is hard to take a team soccer photo when the rest of the parents are using smart phones and you have to stand 5-10 feet behind them (and they're still in your way) because the shortest focal length you have is 70mm.


I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it. I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket. For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though. I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens  And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot. 

I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS. I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit. The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I understand and have seen some excellent photos taken with it, which is why I bought it. I thought it would be a great companion when I shoot wildlife with my 300mm because I could stick it in my pocket. For some reason, I just never found a use for it, though. I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens  And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.
> 
> I think that experience is what's keeping me from the 35 IS. I thought Dustin's review might sway me more towards it, but I still don't think it would see much use in my kit. The gap between my 24L II and 50L just isn't big enough for me to justify the cost and unlike the old 35 it's almost the same size as my 50 (TDP link).



I don't bother getting hoods for the non-L lenses. The hoods decrease their size advantage, and if I'm trying to go as small and light as possible... I didn't realize how much bigger the 35 f/2 IS is compared to the 24 f/2.8 IS.

I have never used the M and the DSLR at the same time, although I can see it being useful at times. When the light is low indoors, I prefer using FF over the APS-C, which is probably why I rarely use the M's 18-55. My wife uses it (she doesn't bother with the DSLR anymore), but I use the 22 f/2 more. Perhaps that would change if the M's AF would be improved, but I find I like the DSLR ergonomics so much more even though the M's touchscreen is one of its best features.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 11, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > It was a difficult choice between the sigma and the canon for me
> ...



speaking of the tamron I've been using it a bit and the images I am getting from this lens are frigging amazing, did a zoo trip to shanghai zoo a few days ago with it. I would have posted images sooner however i have so many tack sharp images of lions, tigers etc that i'm having a hard time culling it, it's down to analysing slight facial variations of the animal to work out which ones i like best. Sorry to go OT but it was your review that made me jump onto the bleeding edge with this lens which is amazing because I was a confirmed tamron hater until this lens came out.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 11, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> Dustin,
> 
> Did you have a chance to use the S35 personally? I would have guessed the S35 would have been a better match to your 24-70 f/2.8 VC because the difference in aperture is greater.
> 
> The size/price advantages of the recent Canon IS lenses compared to their L counterparts are large, but I often wonder what is the point of the 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS when the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is priced near 1k. It seems to me that Canon didn't think someone would deliver a 24-70 f/2.8 VC when it decided to design the new 24 and 28 mm lenses. If Sigma sells its new 50mm f/1.4 for about 1k, I can see a Canon 50 f/1.8 IS meeting the same fate as the 35 f/2 IS because I don't think Canon would sell it for 300 or less. If the price is 500 or more, most people would prefer to upgrade/get a better zoom than for a single focal length.



That was pretty much my same line of logic initially. I didn't see a big advantage when I have the Tamron and like it so much. Still, I have found that the images from the 35IS are pretty special, and 2) I do love primes. There is something about them that stretches your creativity a bit more. The size difference is enough that I frequently will take the 35 when going out for a walk. I just got back from going out of the country to shoot a wedding, though, and I packed only two lenses - a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. It's hard to beat the flexibility of a zoom for event work.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 11, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



The last 5 Tamron lenses have all been great (70-300, 24-70, 70-200, 90mm macro, and 150-600). My Tamron 24-70 is my most used lens, and when I travel it is my first choice. I liked a few Tamron lenses previously (28-75mm and 17-50 f/2.8), but they were the "bargain choice". The new Tamrons are competing on merit, much like several of the new Sigmas. That's great news for consumers.

Glad you are enjoying yours!


----------



## bholliman (Apr 11, 2014)

Great review Dustin! I always enjoy your reviews since they are written from a photographers perspective and are not all about charts and numbers. I purchased the Canon 35 f/2 IS in February and am also very pleased with it. I chose it over the 35L and S35A primarily due to its more compact size and IS with similar optical properties. I was looking for a relatively small and light prime to use as a single lens option or to use in conjunction with my 70-200. 

I really enjoy this lens both indoors with the kids and as a light weight option outdoors. It's very sharp and color rendition is excellent. The bokeh also is very pleasing. It's on my 6D more than a third of the time now (may be the newest lens factor at play here). I made a weekend trip to San Diego a few weeks ago and just took this lens on my 6D. Despite missing additional reach at times, it performed great and I was pleased with the pictures I came home with.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I guess what really ruined me on it was the EOS-M that I bought not long after the 40. I can take it along with the 22mm in a package that's still very portable. Why take lens when I can have another camera and lens  And for a bit more space, I can take the M + 18-55 IS and that covers a whole lot.



I bought a 35 f/2 IS a few months ago primarily to use along with my 70-200. It works great for this, but so does the EOS-M as you pointed out. 

Two weeks ago our family spent the day at a theme park as part of a spring break vacation. I took most of my equipment on the trip, but accidentally left both of my spare batteries for my 6D at home. The 70-200 and 35 IS were my lenses of choice for a day in the theme park, but I was worried my battery in the 6D wouldn't make it all day. So, I opted to take my M +22/2 (and EOS adapter just in case) to use in conjunction with the 70-200 and leave the 35IS (and 24-70) locked in our vehicle trunk. This combination worked great! The 70-200 is a nearly perfect lens for theme parks with little ones, as you can get some terrific shots on the kiddie rides. It was also long enough to catch our older son and his buddy on roller coasters and more advanced rides. The M was perfect for the occasional wider group shot or in tighter quarters. The M is also a pretty effective video camera.

In the future I'll probably use the M in the role again (but will remember to bring my spare batteries!)


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 11, 2014)

All the pros & cons stated in these posts for using this and other lenses in various situations and circumstances serve to reinforce in my mind how much the entire value proposition for any piece of gear depends on intended use and a variety of personal preferences.

The latest L-level zooms are of such high quality that they must represent a significant impact on the sales potential for primes ... and yet the market demand is sufficient that manufacturers continue to develop new and improved prime designs.

I have only two prime lenses (50 & 100mm) in my kit, and I use them almost exclusively for studio work, where distance to subject, composition & framing are just a few of the factors which I can easily control. I am interested in buying one of these new 35/2 IS primes in the near future, primarily to "challenge myself" from time to time with street and environmental photography.

It's great to have choices / options.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 11, 2014)

Still no correction of the incorrect IS information though.........


----------



## Dantana (Apr 11, 2014)

Thanks for another great and practical review, Dustin.

I have the old 35, which I used often on my old crop body, and picked up the 40 on sale in December. I don't think I'm in the market for another lens in that range, but it was nice to read about the 35IS all the same.

As for the 40 and its usefulness, it was nice to have on vacation two weeks ago when I didn't want to always carry around a zoom but wanted a real camera. It made my 6D tiny.


----------



## JPAZ (Apr 11, 2014)

Nice review. Thanks.

Lots of info in this thead that has got me thinking.

First, the 40mm Pancake. I also have a difficult time figuring out where it fits into my regime. Frankly, I do like using it on the M with the adapter and almost never put it on the DSLR. But, as others pointed out, the price was very right when this lens came out and it does fit into my pocket.

What's really got me thinking is using the M in conjunction with the DSLR. I am not accustomed to carrying more than one camera body on my adventures but the discussions, here, were like an epiphany for me. I can carry my 5Diii with my usual 2 or three lenses and then also bring the M with an appropriate lens to expand my opportunities while out and about. That's another reason why I look about on CR.....to get new ideas and to learn.


----------



## dcm (Apr 11, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> Nice review. Thanks.
> 
> Lots of info in this thead that has got me thinking.
> 
> ...



I find the M/22 complements my 6D/70-200 when shooting an event. Might try the M/11-22 next time out. The 40 has become my lens cap on the 6D when I don't have something else mounted.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 11, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Still no correction of the incorrect IS information though.........



Do a Google search of the lens + Hybrid IS and see what you find. I understand what you are saying and it isn't a Hybrid IS system in the sense of the system on the 100L, but most review sources refer to the IS system in the lens as "Hybrid". From FredMiranda, for example:

"The EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM Standard Prime Lens from Canon adds _*hybrid*_ Image Stabilization (IS) to a rear focusing system and ring-type Ultra Sonic Motor (USM) for not only quick and quiet autofocus, but steadier shots in low-light conditions. Optimized lens coatings help ensure exceptional color balance while minimizing ghosting, and full-time access to manual focus is provided while in autofocus (AF) mode allowing you to quickly switch between the two as you need them."

I don't know why you are making such an issue of this, but hopefully this will help...


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Still no correction of the incorrect IS information though.........
> ...



First, I don't see that mentioning it twice is "making such an issue". 

Second, why do a Google search? Copy and pasting something that is wrong does not make it right. More confusing for many, Canon actually have a feature called Hybrid IS, but it is not on this lens.

Why not just look at the Canon press release? "Canon Standard Prime Lens with Optical Image Stabilizer: EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens"

The manual: You can use the Image Stabilizer in AF or MF mode

The Spec sheet: OIS box

I appreciate you are brand building, however propagating erroneous information is not a brand I would expect you to want.

The fact that you also misrepresented what the IS actually does in panning mode is also frustrating. Your reviews are very nice, your supporting images a very welcome break from the usual journalist churn it out rubbish that is so common. You know how to take a photo and you actually use the gear to its potential rather than write about what you are given with no enthusiasm or knowledge in the hopes of a promotion to the motoring division of a big publishing house.

That I am asking for simple errors to be corrected shouldn't be seen as a negative, I am trying to help and make your branding authoritative.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Apr 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


But Dustin said before that he wasn't brand building, but the he said he was.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 12, 2014)

Gentlemen, I found out where the confusion on the web started. The 24-70 f/4L IS (with Hybrid IS) was announced in the same press release as the 35 f/2 IS: Source 
The press release also mentions a "Panning IS mode" for the 35.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 12, 2014)

Thanks Mac, I had noticed that too, it is on the press release I linked to earlier, I had just read through the whole thing and realised where some confusion might have arisen originally.

Like I said, I wasn't trying to make an issue of it, just pointing out a simple E&O.

P.S. How's that 1DX coming on? Notice much difference between it and the 5D MkIII files?


----------



## funkboy (Apr 12, 2014)

My €0.02:

- I don't have the 35mm f/2 IS (yet), but I do have an old "made in West Germany" C/Y mount Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon. I love it to pieces & the IQ is the best of any wide-angle I own, but it's pretty heavy & completely manual so I don't use it that much. I should probably get a decent AF-confirm adapter for it so that I'll use it more.

- I own the 40mm f/2.8 pancake (which I got at the same time as my 6D), and it pretty much lives on the camera. Previous to the 6D/40mm combo I'd carry around my Fuji X10 whenever I needed to just "grab a camera", shove it in a coat pocket or small bag & go, but now it's the 6D. The IQ, movie mode, & handling are just that much better that I want to have it with me whenever I want a camera. I had a 17-40L for a long time when I was still on APS-C, and I'll be the first to say that the 40mm focal length on a crop camera is kind of "meh"; a little too long for use the way I use a "standard" lens & not long enough to have telephoto compression or reach worth mentioning. My "standard" APS-C lens for a long time was an adapted 28mm f/2.8 Distagon. Conclusion: if you're an APS-C person then the 40mm pancake may not float your boat, but considering the pricing ($160 refurb at the moment) it's a must-have on full-frame; if you can afford an FF camera then you can afford a panacke - just get one .

- The 35mm f/2 IS has intrigued me since it came out. Of the three new "IS" wide primes, the faster aperture sets it apart. The size & weight are right, but the price isn't. I might bite if I can find a refurb somewhere slightly north of $400. It would be a nicer "standard" focal-length lens on an APS-C camera too.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Thank you for explaining where you are coming from. I can now appreciate what you are trying to say. There are a few posters on this site that seem to love to attack me regardless of what I write. I will further investigate both of your points and make changes if warranted.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks Mac, I had noticed that too, it is on the press release I linked to earlier, I had just read through the whole thing and realised where some confusion might have arisen originally.
> 
> Like I said, I wasn't trying to make an issue of it, just pointing out a simple E&O.
> 
> P.S. How's that 1DX coming on? Notice much difference between it and the 5D MkIII files?



I've made some minor revisions. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 12, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Thanks Mac, I had noticed that too, it is on the press release I linked to earlier, I had just read through the whole thing and realised where some confusion might have arisen originally.
> 
> Like I said, I wasn't trying to make an issue of it, just pointing out a simple E&O.
> 
> P.S. How's that 1DX coming on? Notice much difference between it and the 5D MkIII files?


I'm glad things are resolved and sometimes it's hard to express tone on the internet because of its inherent negativity and lack of cues that you have in speech and from body language. 

Anyways, I'm really loving the 1D line features and particularly the stuff added by the new firmware. For wildlife shooting, those features are priceless. In terms of files, the reduced resolution is noticeable when I go to crop, but isn't terrible. I don't tend to print my wildlife photos anywhere near as large as landscapes and architecture, and I've got the 5DIII for that work. Besides, I still remember when a 6MP shot made the SI Leading Off double truck, so I'm not too worried. The files are cleaner than the 5DIII, especially at ISO 3200 and over, and I find that it holds more fine detail at high ISOs in particular. I shot at 25,600 the other day and the midtones and highlights looked incredible. The shadows were a bit muddy, but DxO PRIME did good work with them. Also, the AF seems better in low light than the 5DIII but that might just be subjective.

Also, I agree with your comments on Dustin's reviews. He doesn't just walk around downtown and take pictures at Noon. He takes his time and takes real photos that demonstrate what the lens is truly capable of in the hands of a real photographer.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 12, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Mac, I had noticed that too, it is on the press release I linked to earlier, I had just read through the whole thing and realised where some confusion might have arisen originally.
> ...



Thanks for the nice review Dustin!


----------



## funkboy (Apr 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm glad things are resolved and sometimes it's hard to express tone on the internet because of its inherent negativity and lack of cues that you have in speech and from body language.



This cartoon is 10 years old & still sums it up nicely:







Wow, there's actually a Wiki article on it...

I think this one's fairly accurate as well:


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Apr 13, 2014)

I found a use for the 40 pancake as an indoor full body portrait lens. The photo below is a full frame example shot wide open. (5D3)

I'm considering the 35 IS for this role. I think the extra stop and the IS would come in handy. Mostly waiting for the price to come back down after the recent change in Canon advertising policy.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 13, 2014)

Another nice review by Dustin. I do like seeing what a lens can do when it's not just shooting a test chart!

My (very much unprofessional) $0.02 ... I currently have the 35IS and it's growing on me, but I'd call it a very nice lens rather than an amazing one. 

Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
- my feeling is the 35IS is a little sharper, but there's not a whole lot in it
- my feeling is the 35IS has slightly better colour and contrast, but there's not a lot in it
- my thinking is the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
- the 35IS has noticeably faster and quieter AF - but that's not to say the pancake is bad in those respects, so query how much difference this is likely to make in practice (no doubt it depends in large part on what you're shooting)
- the 35IS feels more substantial and hence makes you think it may have better build quality - but I have no idea whether, in reality, the 35IS is likely to be any more durable. (In this case I strongly suspect it is likely to be more durable than the pancake, but all the same I get sick of reading statements which seem to equate weight with build quality, and conclude anything light weight is lesser quality. Isn't that like saying something made of steel is always a higher build quality than something made of titanium or carbon fibre?)
- of course, the 35IS has a one stop aperture advantage (which you'd rather have than not), and IS (worth at least another 3 stops - which allows you longer shutter times / lower ISO)
- the 35IS has 67 filter thread, which means you may already have filters you can use on it (unlikely with the pancake)
- the extra 5 mm of width (in the focal length) is noticeable on the 35IS but again, it's not very different - and to the extent there is a difference, each has its pros and cons
- much better focus ring 

Weighed against that, the 35IS is around 3x more expensive than the pancake, substantially larger and over 2.5x heavier (even if it still ranks as a relatively small and light lens in the bigger scheme of things).

So, my question remains about the value of the 35IS compared with the pancake. The 35IS clearly offers more flexibility in that if you want to be able to handhold shots of still subjects in low light, the 35IS is way in front. If you're subject is moving, the 35IS still has the advantage but the gap is much closer. If you have enough light though, the 35IS's IQ advantage doesn't seem to be that great really, so if you're using it in well lit conditions, it's less clear to me whether that advantage is worth the extra cost/weight/size.

Put another way, and taking the position most people can hand hold a 35mm or 40mm lens at 1/60 second in most circumstances (noting the debate in one of the other message threads about whether 1/focal length is a suitable guide or if these days it's closer to 1/double the focal length, I'll use a compromise here), if you'll use the lens in circumstances where you want to handhold shots at shutter times longer than 1/60 second, the 35IS offers a clear advantage (and more so as you get into the 1/30 second range and longer). Otherwise, though, you're paying quite a lot more for only extra stop of shallow depth of field ability, and a few other things which may be of limited practical value to some people (eg the better AF).

Even so, I'm enjoying shooting with the 35IS at the moment. That could be just the "new toy" effect though - I'll see over the next few months how much use it gets. I do agree though with person above who commented on how small the 6D becomes with the pancake on it - which is of value to me, given I tend to use this lens as a general walk around lens.

Dustin, if you have time, it would be great to hear your thoughts on what you see the 35IS adding to your kit compared with the 40 pancake, and also compared with your Tamron 24-70 VC.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 13, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Another nice review by Dustin. I do like seeing what a lens can do when it's not just shooting a test chart!
> 
> My (very much unprofessional) $0.02 ... I currently have the 35IS and it's growing on me, but I'd call it a very nice lens rather than an amazing one.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you whole line of logic here, which is the primary reason that I parted with the earlier version of the 35mm f/2. It needed to be frequently stopped down to f/2.8 anyway, so the light advantage was diminished vs. the 40mm. 

Still, I do have all three lenses, and I find that the images from the 35IS are just enough "extra-special" that I prefer them. Here is a guy that has used the 35IS both often and well: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michael_kafka/. His images, in part, sold me on the fact that the 35IS could do some special things.

Here's the thing: *zooms are tools*. I just got back from traveling out of the country to shoot a wedding. I took two zooms of the f/2.8 variety (Tamrons, actually). Both stabilized. Between the two lenses I could shoot just about every shot imaginable. The flexibility of a zoom means that you get the shots you need when the pressure is up.

*But primes are fun*. I own primes because I love photography. You take a little more time with a prime, and you have to think a little more, but you get images that remind you of why you love photography. Unique images. More creative images. Right now at home we are slowly trudging out of winter and there isn't much to shoot. But I can go out and shoot something simple like this old leaf, have fun processing it, and then share an image that a lot of people will like. That is the joy of a prime lens.



Glorious Decay by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## jd7 (Apr 14, 2014)

Thanks for your thoughts Dustin. And I do agree with you about primes - I do find something fun about using them which I don't usually feel about zooms (although the 70-200 2.8L comes close!). It's just that I can't quite shake the feeling the price of the 35IS is still a little on the high side when you weigh up the pros and cons compared to options like the Tamron 24-70 VC, the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and Canon's own 40 pancake. Anyway, I'm enjoying the 35IS at the moment, so for now maybe more time spent shooting and less time thinking about gear would be the best idea!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 14, 2014)

jd7 said:


> Perhaps my biggest reservation about the 35IS relates to the 40mm pancake. Comparing them:
> - my feeling is the 35IS is a little sharper, but there's not a whole lot in it
> - my feeling is the 35IS has slightly better colour and contrast, but there's not a lot in it
> - my thinking is the 35IS has slightly nicer bokeh, but there's not a whole lot in it
> ...



If Canon made an error with the pricing I think it was with the 40mm pancake. The lens is just too good for the price ! Canon could easily have 'crippled' it in such a way as to stop people like myself buying it; just give it a plastic bayonet mount, and that's the likes of me out of the frame. 

Regarding the statement "there's not a lot in it', I'd say "There's nothing in it' !


----------



## jd7 (Apr 15, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Glorious Decay by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Very nice photo Dustin - I don't have experience with the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, but that photo looks pretty good to me! However, I wonder if the Tamron 24-70 VC could have produced something pretty similar? I don't believe my Sigma 24-70 2.8 could - it's just not that sharp at 2.8.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 15, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> If Canon made an error with the pricing I think it was with the 40mm pancake. The lens is just too good for the price ! Canon could easily have 'crippled' it in such a way as to stop people like myself buying it; just give it a plastic bayonet mount, and that's the likes of me out of the frame.
> 
> Regarding the statement "there's not a lot in it', I'd say "There's nothing in it' !



SSSHHHHH!!! Don't want Canon realising they've let a product onto the market that's not just a good product, but is good value as well! Just think how depressing that would be for the managers, after all their hard work overpricing everything else in the last few years ...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2014)

jd7 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Glorious Decay by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr
> ...



More than you might think. You could achieve a similiarly shallow DOF by shooting near the minimum focus distance and zooming in to 70mm, but that would change the framing. The 35mm is sharper (though the Tamron is no slouch). The bokeh is also a bit softer with the prime. 

Still, I know what you are saying. If you owned none of the options, I would say the Tamron is the most versatile tool, and I have been really pleased with my results from it. I just enjoy primes, though, and I have enjoyed having the 35IS in addition to the Tamron.


----------



## Badger (Apr 17, 2014)

Dustin, 

As always, thanks for an awesome, down to earth review. You always get me thinking.

I will say I was a bit disappointed in your YouTube review. Not in the content, but in your voice! In my mind's ear, I assumed you would sound like you were off the set of Strange Brew (you are from Canada, right?) so this Southern Illinois accent you are sporting threw me off ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCI39NWZ5g

Seriously, thanks for the incredible effort I'm sure it took you to pull this off.

Oh, I do have a question. As a fellow 6D shooter, I am curious to know if, with available light, you use the other focus points outside of the center one. Do you ever find yourself locking in focus with the center and recomposing? Personally, I am embarrassed to say that I am just starting to experiment with my other focus points.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 17, 2014)

Badger said:


> Dustin,
> 
> As always, thanks for an awesome, down to earth review. You always get me thinking.
> 
> ...



Southern Illinois? That's interesting. I was actually born in California, raised in Arizona, and have been in Ontario (Canada) for the last nearly 17 years. Maybe all of that = Southern Illinois. 

I do use the outer focus points at times. I almost never have all point activated. I primarily do use the center point and recompose, but I don't hesitate to use other focus points when I am shooting more deliberately.


----------



## Badger (Apr 17, 2014)

Reading your review for the third time. Seriously considering this lens. On my third read, you are starting to sound like a pirate 

"The Sigma is incredibly sharp, but to _me _eye it seems like there is an imbalance between sharpness and “creaminess” in the defocused region."


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 17, 2014)

Badger said:


> Reading your review for the third time. Seriously considering this lens. On my third read, you are starting to sound like a pirate
> 
> "The Sigma is incredibly sharp, but to _me _eye it seems like there is an imbalance between sharpness and “creaminess” in the defocused region."



Ayyyy, ye caught me, matey...


----------



## Sneakers (Apr 18, 2014)

Thanks for the helpful review. I've been putting a lot of thought into upgrading from the 40 2.8 to the 35 is, and see in this thread that I'm not the only one. One of the things I do (in addition to watching lots of review videos) is browse through all of the Flickr photo pools for specific lenses. Helps to get a feel for what the lenses really produce in the real world. In this case I think the comparison isn't entirely fair because many 40mm owners are shooting on inexpensive crop sensor cameras, and more 35IS owners are shooting on high end full frame models. 

Still, I have the following impressions about these two lenses: they're both extremely sharp, and produce very similar images in well lit conditions. The 35 excels in low light conditions and when blowing out the background with a subject within a few feet from the camera. I'm debating whether those two scenarios justify the price difference and am leaning towards "yes they do." The bokeh on the 35 can be spectacular when exploited properly, and I do find myself chasing after my 1 year old while shooting video. I don't think I'd regret having footage shot with IS. 

For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2014)

Sneakers said:


> For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.



From some of the images that I have seen posted on the web the out of focus or 'bokeh' of the Sigma has, on first impression, looked really good. However I think that the transition from in and out of focus is quite abrupt, at least when compared with the 35L. That lens has a proper ground glass aspherical element, and I do find that on lenses when this is used there is a more 'glassy' or 'liquid' quality to the out of focus area. I'm guessing that the Sigma is pretty highly corrected for chromatic aberration to get the sharpness, and I'm sure it doesn't use a ground glass aspherical element, and the out of focus is a little more 'plasticy'. ( I'm being really scientific here). 

I wonder if this is what Dustin is relating to ? 

The EF 35 IS will use a moulded element, but as with the other Canon mid range primes the bokeh transition is good. Pretty clever stuff for such a sharp lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 18, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Sneakers said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.
> ...



You've expressed it better than what I could have. The Sigma is unquestionably one of the finest lenses produced thus far in terms of absolute sharpness. I personally would trade a little of that sharpness for a smoother transition into defocus, but that is a matter of preference. I find the 35IS does this very nicely, and so it was my choice.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Sneakers said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, I disagree with the "Sigma is clinical" assessment. I've seen a lot of images that look wonderful from that lens. I lean towards the Canon mostly because they both look great and the price difference is significant.
> ...



Have a look at these images, and tell me this lens has a smooth transition zone. Notice how rough the highlights look, both in front of the focus plane, and behind it. 

http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=2787280480_kxf8wgz

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=2

Frankly the 40mm f/2.8 pancake, had as smooth of a bokeh as this, if not slightly superior, it seems to me. The Sigma 35mm Art, appears to also have a smoother transition zone in the bokeh, than the Canon 35 f/2 IS. Just have a look at Photozone's samples from the Sigma. They do fault it as having "slightly busy" bokeh background, but very smooth in the foreground. But its background highlights, do not seem to have such a pronounced "bright ring" around them, as does the 35 f/2 IS. It would help if the exact same scene were photographed to compare, of course.

I see the IS feature as the only very good aspect of the Canon 35 f/2 IS lens, going by these samples. Certainly a nice feature to have. Also I will admit that for bokeh smoothness at 35mm, the Canon f/1.4L is still clearly king. Also, if I had to guess which had the smoother background bokeh, between say the Sigma 35mm Art, and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii (at 35mm), the Sigma might edge it out a bit. Would be interesting to see a direct comparison of that. If there are no highlights in the background, then all of these lenses can probably portray a relatively smooth blur, as most lenses can.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 19, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Sneakers said:
> ...



I use photozone a great deal for comparing the resolution of lenses, but to be quite honest I never look at their samples. However I've just looked now at your prompt and it's confirmed my belief; the Sigma samples are pretty useless for a bokeh assessment. 

Have a look at the ones in the CR thread:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.45

As I said in my earlier post, my initial reaction was this looks really good, but then over time I thought they are just a little - 'clinical' - is that the word Dustin used ? From what I read Dustin has come to that conclusion over time, which makes it more pertinent, and I'm with him on that one. 

Also I mentioned earlier that the likes of the 35L, 50L and 24-70 II use a _much_ more expensive lens manufacturing process. Mid range lenses such as the 35 IS etc. use moulded glass elements, and really cheap lenses use plastic ones. 

However I agree with you on the 40 pancake - and remember you are talking to someone who ditched his 35L for the pancake : ( But don't tell anyone else that !). I don't have a use for a really fast 35, I'd much rather use a 50 or 85.

Overall I'm very tempted by the 35 IS, not for it's aperture but because it has IS and is really good across the frame when stopped down.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Fair points, and I will remember that (and I won't tell anyone, this is just between you and me!  Btw I sold my pancake and I don't miss it much, but the guy that bought it was a bit of a jerk!).

However, just to be clear, those two links to sample pics I posted, were for the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, not the Sigma. Frankly I think the Sigma will be the next lens I buy. I definitely would love using it. But at this point I'm not buying anything. I'm only selling things.

I can certainly see how you would have to have stabilization, if you are wanting to shoot landscape or other slow or still life, hand-held...with a narrow aperture. Like I said, that seems like the selling point of this new Canon lens.


----------



## Badger (Apr 26, 2014)

OK Dustin, 
One more question as I'm probably going to pull the trigger on my next lens in the next few weeks. The Canon's price drop pushed you to seriously consider the 35/2. So my question is, if the Canon stayed at its original price or was the same price as the Sigma today, and you had to make the decision, all over, which would you choose? I understand there were many factors governing your choice and that price was only one them. Just curious how much of an impact price was.


----------



## CANONisOK (Apr 26, 2014)

By the way, Canon direct has the 35mm f/2 IS refurbished (with 1 year warranty) for $409 right now. That was enough to get me to finally jump. 3 copies left!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 27, 2014)

Badger said:


> OK Dustin,
> One more question as I'm probably going to pull the trigger on my next lens in the next few weeks. The Canon's price drop pushed you to seriously consider the 35/2. So my question is, if the Canon stayed at its original price or was the same price as the Sigma today, and you had to make the decision, all over, which would you choose? I understand there were many factors governing your choice and that price was only one them. Just curious how much of an impact price was.



I probably wouldn't have bought either of them. I don't think the Canon is worth $849, even though it is my choice of the two. I'd have stuck with my Tamron 24-70 VC and looked in a different direction. I suspect I'll be having a similar debate regarding the Sigma 50 vs. a new Canon IS prime before long.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 27, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> By the way, Canon direct has the 35mm f/2 IS refurbished (with 1 year warranty) for $409 right now. That was enough to get me to finally jump. 3 copies left!!



That's a *great* value at that price.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, Canon direct has the 35mm f/2 IS refurbished (with 1 year warranty) for $409 right now. That was enough to get me to finally jump. 3 copies left!!
> ...



sucks to not be in america i would have bought one at that price for sure


----------



## candyman (May 6, 2014)

I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm) 
It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier. 
But I am still in doubt...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
> It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
> But I am still in doubt...



It is a great balance on a 6D. You will find the AF faster than the 40mm, but isn't anywhere near as compact. Still, if your two extremes are the 40mm and the S35, the 35IS is a nice balance between the two.


----------



## Invertalon (May 6, 2014)

I sold my 35L due to lack of use and tried the 35 IS as a cheaper alternative. Only lasted about a week before I decided to sell that off as well.

I find the 35L a better lens overall. The f/1.4 IMO is better than the IS at f/2. IQ is better on the 35L in the center, edges probably similar or better on the f/2 IS stopped down.

Weight is nice on the f/2 IS, but the 35L is really not heavy by any means.

Both are great lenses, but if I got a 35mm again it would be the 35L for sure before the f/2 IS.


----------



## SoullessPolack (May 6, 2014)

candyman said:


> I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
> It may be a better indoor/streetphotography lens on my 6D as the Sigma 35mm - which is bigger and heavier.
> But I am still in doubt...



Why is how heavy this lens is even that important? It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier. But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds. That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes. It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water. C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. Pick up a weight or two once in a while. Lenses aren't heavy.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 7, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Why is how heavy this lens is even that important? It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier. But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds. That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes. It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water. C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. Pick up a weight or two once in a while. Lenses aren't heavy.



Try carrying 8 of them in a bag and the differences add up quickly, although I'm usually more concerned about the diameter. The fast primes (35, 50 and 85) won't fit side by side in a many messenger bags while the 24 f/2.8 IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 40 will.


----------



## Ruined (May 7, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> I sold my 35L due to lack of use and tried the 35 IS as a cheaper alternative. Only lasted about a week before I decided to sell that off as well.
> 
> I find the 35L a better lens overall. The f/1.4 IMO is better than the IS at f/2. IQ is better on the 35L in the center, edges probably similar or better on the f/2 IS stopped down.
> 
> ...



While the 35L is amazing at 1.4, I don't like the angular boke balls when stopped down. While you would not shoot stopped down all the time, it is definitely something I would want to be able to do and not have distracting boke. The 35 f/2 IS as it is more modern does not have this problem, so it is my 35mm of choice currently.

What we really need is Canon to update the 35L with more modern curved blades.


----------



## zlatko (May 7, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> SoullessPolack said:
> 
> 
> > Why is how heavy this lens is even that important? It's true that technically the Sigma is heavier. But you're talking about an item that weighs less than two pounds. That's a pretty pathetic complaint in my eyes. It weighs less than a bottle of soda or water. C'mon guys, if you spent the time you spend complaining and talking about lens weights in strength training, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. Pick up a weight or two once in a while. Lenses aren't heavy.
> ...



Exactly! When you carry multiple cameras, lenses, flashes, batteries, etc., the weight of each item has to be considered. Also, consider carrying that stuff up & down stairs, into & out of vehicles, etc. After a half day or a full day on your feet, the difference between a 10 pound bag of gear, a 20 pound bag of gear, or a 30 pound bag of gear can be very significant. And if the heavier bag results in a back or knee injury, it can be the difference between working and not working. Also, as the weight adds up, it can be the difference between being quickly mobile with a shoulder bag, or being slow to move around with a wheeled roller bag.

Back in the early 1970's when Olympus designer Maitani was designing the original OM-1, he wanted to create a camera that would weigh 600 grams, along with a system of lighter lenses. With a few lenses, a photographer could have a bag that weighed three kilograms or so — about half the weight of a typical bag of Nikon gear. More at this link: http://www.olympus-global.com/en/corc/history/lecture/lecture2/part9.html

Maitani described what this meant to one photographer: "He [photographer Don McCullin] told us that he had been able to capture his amazing battlefield photographs in Vietnam and various other war zones because his camera was light. He wanted to thank us for that. My eyes filled with tears when he told us that the OM SLRs had lifted a weight from the shoulders of photographers everywhere. He really understood the significance of our efforts to create compact, lightweight cameras. That was a wonderful moment."


----------



## candyman (May 7, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
> ...



Thanks.
I will find out today.


----------



## candyman (May 7, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
> ...



Random Orbits and zlatko make the valid points here.
As you can see from my signature I own some heavier lenses than the sigma or canon 35mm. My 5D MKIII als comes with a grip and usually with the GP-E2. So, I am used to carry some weight and it is not an issue for a 6"2 person unless carrying it all day. BUT....I bought the 6D (using it without grip) also to be able to go somewhere light - indoors or street - with an aperture sensitive lens (more than 2.8 in focal length of 35mm (otherwise I could take my 16-35mm or 24-70) And, I do not want to use a large camera with a large lens to bump into peoples faces or scare them off. Point and shoot camera is not my choice.
But everyone has its own criteria


----------



## candyman (May 7, 2014)

The Canon 35mm f/2 IS has some really nice colors too. I like the first impression of this lens


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2014)

It is digital, colours are irrelevant.


----------



## candyman (May 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It is digital, colours are irrelevant.


yes, the less time on pp the better


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2014)

candyman said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It is digital, colours are irrelevant.
> ...



Import preferences take ten minutes to set up one time, then you never have to try to get the colours and contrast that are so "distinctive". Software is so powerful now it is all automatic, lens colour and contrast characteristics are totally irrelevant in imaging nowadays.


----------



## zlatko (May 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Can you set import preferences for a specific lens?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 7, 2014)

It depends on how you import.

You can make import presets specific to camera serial number and/or iso, but not just lens, unless you import images shot with that lens in a group, or you shot all the images with one camera. 

If however you are like most people your images shot with different lenses are all jumbled up on a card then import them all, select metadata and then the lens, select all those images and then apply the preset to that selection, it takes 6 clicks of a mouse to select every image shot with that lens and apply the preset, about 5 seconds in a worst case scenario. Hardly onerous post processing!

It is the digital age, colour and contrast are not differentiating lens characteristics nowadays.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 7, 2014)

I apologize if this question was asked previously - I'm at work and don't have the time right now to read the entire thread, but has anyone tried this lens with a crop sensor camera? If so, how did it perform?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 7, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> I apologize if this question was asked previously - I'm at work and don't have the time right now to read the entire thread, but has anyone tried this lens with a crop sensor camera? If so, how did it perform?


According to tests photozone, 35 F2 IS performs very well on APS-C cameras.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 8, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> wsmith96 said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize if this question was asked previously - I'm at work and don't have the time right now to read the entire thread, but has anyone tried this lens with a crop sensor camera? If so, how did it perform?
> ...



It is also a reasonable option on the EOS-M. Great image quality and it is compact/light enough to not overwhelm the M.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 8, 2014)

Thanks ajfoto, this lens was of interest to me as a ~50mm ff equivalent for my crop camera. I don't live near a photography shop so I read reviews, etc., to get an idea of how a lens will do prior to mail ordering. I'll check out the photozone site.


----------



## candyman (May 8, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > I am going to check this lens out tomorrow. The thing I like about this lens from specs is that it is lighter and smaller as the Sigma 35 f/1.4, it has IS and f/2 (compared to the pancake 40mm)
> ...


Balance on the 6D is truly great. I used to own the 40mm and you are right it is faster though slower as some of my other lenses. And noisier too. But, I like the result of this lens. It is working well indoors in low light situations. The accurancy of AF out-of-the-box is pretty good. Of course, I just got the lens so I will have to do some more photography but I am sure I am going to enjoy it.


----------



## scott_m (May 8, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> I apologize if this question was asked previously - I'm at work and don't have the time right now to read the entire thread, but has anyone tried this lens with a crop sensor camera? If so, how did it perform?



I've played around it on the 7D quite a bit - it really is a neat lens on a crop camera. It gives a more or less "normal" FOV, the corners are cut off so it looks even better wide open than it does on FF, and the IS makes it easy to hand-hold at silly-slow speeds, thus making it a real go-to in dim light so long as the subject isn't moving. The size and (lack of) weight are a really nice fit on the 7D. Mine required very little AFMA on either camera, FWIW.

The 35IS/7D combo makes me _*long*_ for a fast, IS 50mm. Since I do a reasonable amount of low-light shooting, one of these on the 5DIII would make me a very happy camper


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 8, 2014)

I played around with the idea of getting this lens, or maybe the Sigma for quite a long time. As mentioned in the review, "that thick and stubby “prime” design" was very tempting too, but in the end I went with the Sigma (that was also before the Canon price drop). It may be a little clinical (the Sigma) but I happen to like the sharp rendering for night-time hand held photography. I retain the original 35mm f/2 for travel - nothing beats that compactness.

The attached shot was taken with the Sigma 35mm at f/1.8, 1/30, ISO2500 handheld (on a 5D MkII).


----------



## sdsr (May 9, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I played around with the idea of getting this lens, or maybe the Sigma for quite a long time. As mentioned in the review, "that thick and stubby “prime” design" was very tempting too, but in the end I went with the Sigma (that was also before the Canon price drop).



You made the right choice for that sort of use, I think - the Sigma is amazingly good at controlling coma, far better than the Canon (or any other fast lens I've tried, for that matter).


----------



## Badger (May 10, 2014)

Guess what came in the mail yesterday? Got my 35/2! Thanks for the advice Dustin.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 10, 2014)

Badger said:


> Guess what came in the mail yesterday? Got my 35/2! Thanks for the advice Dustin.



Enjoy!


----------



## candyman (May 17, 2014)

Just bought the original lens hood Canon EW-72
The attachement to lens is not so good at all. Both front and reversed attached to the lens.
A slight bump againt the hood and already it gets loose.
Anyone else with this experience?


----------



## bmwzimmer (May 18, 2014)

No problem with my hood.... In fact it clicks and feels more solid than my 24-70 mk2 and my previous 24-70 f4 is


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2014)

candyman said:


> Just bought the original lens hood Canon EW-72
> The attachement to lens is not so good at all. Both front and reversed attached to the lens.
> A slight bump againt the hood and already it gets loose.
> Anyone else with this experience?



My 35 IS hood is excellent.

On the other hand, the hood for my 16-35 II needs a bit of wrestling to get on/off sometimes.


----------



## bholliman (May 19, 2014)

candyman said:


> Just bought the original lens hood Canon EW-72
> The attachement to lens is not so good at all. Both front and reversed attached to the lens.
> A slight bump againt the hood and already it gets loose.
> Anyone else with this experience?



No problems with my EW-72, feels solid. You might have received a defective hood.


----------



## candyman (May 19, 2014)

@bholliman, Ruined, bmwzimmer
Thanks for the feedback. I will check in the camerastore.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 19, 2014)

Have now taken around 10,000 shots with the 35mm F2 IS and left somewhat bemused at its stellar performance especially when compared to my L lenses.

It has completely replaced my 24-70 2.8L mk1 for wedding photography , much sharper across the frame from F2 , similar if not slightly better AF especially in low light and a damn sight lighter to boot.

The lens feels right, performs without flaw or hesitation and is so so sharp. The bokeh from F2 gives a lovely seperation for full length portraits and candid photography. For stills photography i just cannot knock it at all and at the price its know at is a definite competitor for the 35 1.4L , sigma 35 Art and for some people will be preferable to 50s too.

As far as video goes although not been heavily used yet i have noticed a distinct difference in the IS system from the 24-105L IS to the 35 F2 IS for some reason the 24-105 is smoother.

On the back of this i also bought the 24 2.8 IS to pair it with and for the odd wider shot that does great too and beats out the old 24-70 , now paired with an 85mm and with a 135 on the way its prime time baby oh yeah 


 Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Have now taken around 10,000 shots with the 35mm F2 IS and left somewhat bemused at its stellar performance especially when compared to my L lenses.
> 
> It has completely replaced my 24-70 2.8L mk1 for wedding photography , much sharper across the frame from F2 , similar if not slightly better AF especially in low light and a damn sight lighter to boot.
> 
> ...



i wish they would do a 20mm f2.8 IS in a similar vain I prefer 20mm to 24 for wide angle currently i use the voigtlander f3.5 which is MF only still a nice lens


----------



## Badger (May 28, 2014)

Been enjoying pretending this lens is a macro lens. Using live view and a tripod more than I ever have!


----------



## candyman (May 28, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Have now taken around 10,000 shots with the 35mm F2 IS and left somewhat bemused at its stellar performance especially when compared to my L lenses.
> ...


Or... a 20mm f/2 IS - would that be possible in terms of technology, atractive pricing and ranking in the current lens line up?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2014)

candyman said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...


Oh yeah that would be super awesome! if it had low coma sky chasers would be all over it at f2 it would be an L and not cheap but yeah sign me up for a 20mm f2


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 30, 2014)

Badger said:


> Been enjoying pretending this lens is a macro lens. Using live view and a tripod more than I ever have!



That reminds me of my recent trip to Japan, the cherry blossoms really are as spectacularly beautiful as they say


----------



## funkboy (Jun 3, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i wish they would do a 20mm f2.8 IS in a similar vain I prefer 20mm to 24 for wide angle currently i use the voigtlander f3.5 which is MF only still a nice lens



I love my Voigt 20mm f3.5 pancake as well; makes a great lens for interiors & wide street scenes. The current Canon 20mm f/2.8 is pretty big & heavy compared to the new IS wide primes; not sure how much smaller they could make an IS version.

The current "ultrawide prime" for my 6D is actually the "crop" Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 that I used as a wide zoom on my 40D. It's a normal EF mount, & just leaving it at 16mm keeps the vignetting under control (this is one of the reasons I bought it in the first place; I tested it out on my EOS 1n as soon as I got it & it worked just fine @16mm). The extreme corners can be a little soft & vignetted by a stop or two, but at $450 for a pretty decent 16mm f/2.8 FF AF prime no one is complaining. Also the GF can still use it as an ultrawide zoom on her crop camera .


----------



## Niki (Jun 3, 2014)

i needed a bit wider and is so i went for the 24mm…great!


----------



## Shield (Jun 10, 2014)

I've owned the Sigma 35, 2 copies of the 35/2 IS, and 2 copies of the 35L.

I would take exception with this article stating the 35/2 IS is "sharper" than the 35L. Wide open, yes. But the 35L is much sharper @ F/2 especially in the center and vignettes much less.

As far as 'clinical" sharpness, yep, the Sigma has that, along with a brownish tint that makes up the character of the lens. The 35L IMO just has the best bokeh, color, contrast and rendering. If I took 100 shots with the 35L and the 35/2 IS, the latter might result in 100 really good photos, but the former might have 8-10 amazing shots. The 35L is still the king of the 35's.

Sigma = sharpest
Canon 35/2 IS= light, IS, better AF accuracy than the Sigma, plenty sharp enough.
Canon 35L = best build, fastest and most accurate AF of the three, best color/contrast/bokeh. Really sharp around F/2 and beyond, and F/1.4 is usable.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 10, 2014)

LOLID said:



> This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.
> 
> I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my
> 
> ...



I have both the 35 f/2 IS and the pancake 40mm. I use the 35 quite a bit, and love it!

I hardly ever use the 40. It's not quite wide enough, and the aperture is not quite large enough. I'm not a fan of the focus by wire, which produces a lot of noise in video, and is frustrating for quick manual focus, and you can't retract the focus unless the camera is on.

The 35 is small and light enough to satisfy my desire for light weight walk around, but the 40 fits easily into almost any bag, and the camera is really easy to take out of a bag when the 40 is on it. Some people use the 40 as a camera body cap.

If I was only going to get one, I'd get the 35 f/2 IS. I've taken handheld video interviews at night on the street using this lens that look like they are on a tripod! And the focal length is perfect for street video interviews because you can get up close to the subject which vastly improves the on-camera audio quality (using a Rode VideoMic Pro).

Then again, I bought the 40 2.8 for $150 ... at that price it's a no brainer for me, so wait for a sale and get both!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Jun 12, 2014)

Shield said:


> I've owned the Sigma 35, 2 copies of the 35/2 IS, and 2 copies of the 35L.
> 
> I would take exception with this article stating the 35/2 IS is "sharper" than the 35L. Wide open, yes. But the 35L is much sharper @ F/2 especially in the center and vignettes much less.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree, my 35mm F2 IS walks all over the L lenses i have owned including the 50mm 1.2L it has brilliant bokeh and is sharp and contrasty to boot , it can also take an amazing close up ....

It may be that i have an extra good copy granted but it certainly is good. I would not swap it for a 35L

example shot : 5Dmk3 35mm F2 IS, F2 iso500










 Wedding Photographer Durham Darlington Teesside Newcastle York


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 13, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Shield said:
> 
> 
> > I've owned the Sigma 35, 2 copies of the 35/2 IS, and 2 copies of the 35L.
> ...



I agree regarding the bokeh from the 35 IS. Great shot, by the way. It is very useful as a pseudo macro in the field, particularly when you want to include a bit more environment.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 13, 2014)

Here's another example - this one mounted on a crop (EOS M):



A New Heart by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jun 13, 2014)

Here's another mounted on a 6D. I stopped down to f/2.5 as the DOF is pretty thin at minimum focus wide open.



Ground Level by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## FTb-n (Jun 13, 2014)

LOLID said:


> This is the third review I read from Dustin Abbott. Great review once again. Very honest.
> 
> I was seriously considering the reviewed lens but got caught up by the announcement of the Sigma 50 1.4 Art (not sure I want to buy a 35mm AND a 50mm). Anyway I might end up just buying the 40mm instead, so here comes my
> 
> ...


I own both. The 40, which I bought on sale for $150, was a splurge purchase. I bought it for the fun factor and justified the purchase because it is an incredibly sharp lens. I use it mainly as a grab shot, travel light lens and as a backup to my 70-200. On many occasions I'll shoot indoor sports and only expect to use the longer zoom. But, just in case I get in tight situation, I throw the 40 in a pocket and it has come in handy.

The 35 IS is my low light speed demon. Very sharp, great close up, fast focus, very bright, and very fast. With less glass, I think it lets in about a third stop more light at 2.8 than my 70-200 does at 2.8.

I have the 24-70 2.8 II, which covers most of my short focal length needs. But, if low light is a concern (such as a wedding reception) I grab the 35. What I have yet to do is explore the thin DOF more...definately on my todo list.

For what it's worth, I'm waiting for a new EF 50 IS at 2.0 or faster and plan to add it as a complement to the 35 for better low light coverage.

I got the 40 before the 35 was introduced. If I had neither, the 35 IS would be my first purchase.


----------

