# Canon EF 35mm f/2L IS Review from the Digital Picture



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 16, 2013)

Bryan Carnethan has a very favorable review of the new 35mm f/2 IS up now:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Most interesting is that he concludes that the bokeh is smoother on it than either its predecessor, the 35L, and the new Sigma (which he makes second).

The biggest advantages of this optic over the Sigma:

1) The very effective IS (he calls this the most handholdable full frame lens available), particularly for video purposes.

2) Much smaller size and weight. 

3) AF is (according to Brian) amongst the quietest he has heard (which definitely sets it apart from the old 35mm f/2).

Biggest downsides (vs. Sigma)

1) Slower aperture

2) Slightly lower sharpness.

I'd really love to see a head a to head comparison between the two lenses. I will probably add one of them to my kit within the next year, and I'd love to see them compared.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jan 16, 2013)

Regardless of the 'Sigma is better/cheaper' talk, I for one am interested in this lens, I think it will make a nice compact standard walkaround lens for the 7D. Yes it is expensive at the mo, but like the 24 and 28 IS will drop in the coming months, and I'm sure it will appear on some rebate programmes somewhere down the line, at which point I can see me getting one. Let the flaming commence.......


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 16, 2013)

I have both lenses. I really prefer the Sigma. The only time I pick up the Canon is if I am shooting video. Otherwise, the Sigma is better looking, sharp, 1 stop faster, better built (feels like an L lens), less vignetting, and a host of other things. The big advantage to the Canon is the IS...the rest is really not a big deal. If you want something small and light then you might prefer the Canon too but if you travel with a heavy camera like a 5D or 7d, the difference is hardly noticeable. 

If you want to see the review it is here for the Canon 35mm f/2L IS
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/89-canon-35mm-f2-is-review

Here is a head to head of the 2 lenses as you requested:

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


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 16, 2013)

It the 35 f/2 follows the 24 and 28mm IS pricing, then it'll be going in the 600s on the street within the year. With the price around 600, then the Sigma might not be the clear winner.


----------



## drjlo (Jan 16, 2013)

Now where is that Canon 50mm f/1.4 IS ?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 16, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> It the 35 f/2 follows the 24 and 28mm IS pricing, then it'll be going in the 600s on the street within the year. With the price around 600, then the Sigma might not be the clear winner.



I think you've hit the nail on the head here if price on this lens was in the $500 to $600 range it would be a great little package, the Hybrid IS is very appealing especially combined with the small size light weight and close focus distance with a extension tube it can probably do reasonably good macro 
it looks like a very good travel lens but looking at those sample shots the sigma really is significantly sharper even at 1.4 vs f2 on the canon and by f2 the sigma is insanely sharp. while the Is is tempting I am still more inclided to go with the sigma myself


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 17, 2013)

I wrote Bryan and asked him his preference between the two. He responded and said that he has gotten the question enough that he will do a writeup shortly on the subject.

IQ is huge to me, but there is more to a lens than that. Sometimes it is about the quality of the image that can't be determined on a chart. I'm very interested in some direction comparisons of subjects other than charts or walls.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 17, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I wrote Bryan and asked him his preference between the two. He responded and said that he has gotten the question enough that he will do a writeup shortly on the subject.
> 
> IQ is huge to me, but there is more to a lens than that. Sometimes it is about the quality of the image that can't be determined on a chart. I'm very interested in some direction comparisons of subjects other than charts or walls.



Ditto, very keen to see the difference in the real world the hybrid IS and small size are super tempting


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 17, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I wrote Bryan and asked him his preference between the two. He responded and said that he has gotten the question enough that he will do a writeup shortly on the subject.
> ...



Me, too. I have to confess that while I love the look of the Sigma and its finish, I don't need another prime in my bag that large. It is not smaller than my standard zoom (Tamron 24-70). I used the original 35mm f/2 as a portable lens that could still provide narrow depth of field and close focus work (I have been using the new shorty forty more for that now, although f/2.8 is not f/2.)

The Sigma would be great if you were using it in, say, a holy trinity kit. But I've already got 8 lenses in my modern kit, plus another 6 or 7 manual focus primes that are in my rotation. Smaller size is good in my book. That being said, I can see the substantial build of the Sigma being a bigger plus for someone else.

Bottom line: IQ is what matters most to me. If the Sigma is significantly better (not just sharper), it gets my vote and perhaps my cash. If the rendering on the Canon is better, I may lean that way.


----------

