# Canon EF 35 f/2 IS Resolution Test



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 14, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12259"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=12259">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>From LensRentals.com


</strong>Roger and Aaron at LensRentals.com have tested the resolution on a small batch of the new Canon EF 35 f/2 IS lens.</p>
<p>The lens performed better than the EF 35 f/2 that it was replacing, especially noticeable in the corners. While center resolution remains about the same. They compared the lens against the original EF 35 f/2, the EF 35 f/1.4L,  and Sigma 35 f/1.4.</p>
<div id="attachment_12261" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/35mmtest1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-12261" alt="Battle of 35mm Lenses - Higher Numbers are Better" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/35mmtest1.jpg" width="575" height="137" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Battle of 35mm Lenses – Higher Numbers are Better</p></div>
<p>The real winner here appears to be the Sigma 35 f/1.4. Canon is going to have to make their sharpest wide angle prime ever to outdo the Sigma. It just happens that Norman Camera has the <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/27345/product_name/Sigma+35mm+f1.4+DG+HSM+A1+Lens+for+Canon+DSLR+Cameras+" target="_blank">Sigma 35 f/1.4 in stock</a> for $899.</p>
<p><strong>LensRentals.com’s conclusion

</strong>I’m afraid this is a rather dull and boring post that doesn’t tell you anything you probably hadn’t already assumed. If you like to shoot 35mm and need Image Stabilization for the type of shooting you do, this will be a very nice lens and worth the money. Otherwise, you’re probably better off with something else.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon" target="_blank"><strong>Read the entire article</strong></a></p>
<p><em><strong>Canon EF 35 f/2 IS $849 at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-REG/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA352ISU.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | Sigma 35 f/1.4 for $899 at <a href="http://www.normancamera.com/index/page/product/product_id/27345/product_name/Sigma+35mm+f1.4+DG+HSM+A1+Lens+for+Canon+DSLR+Cameras+" target="_blank">Norman Camera</a></strong></em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Tom W (Dec 14, 2012)

Interesting report - Seems that the Sigma resolves better, but possibly with a harsher bokeh. I wonder how the lenses perform in other areas - flare, CA, etc.


----------



## meli (Dec 14, 2012)

Tom W said:


> Interesting report - Seems that the Sigma resolves better, but possibly with a harsher bokeh. I wonder how the lenses perform in other areas - flare, CA, etc.



He does mention a couple apart from resolution:


> Our new toys let us do some other measurements as well.
> Chromatic aberration is low for the Sigma and the new IS f/2 lens at 0.7% and 0.9% respectively at the lateral edges. The Canon 35mm L is higher at 1.3% and the original 35mm f/2 far worse at almost 2%.
> The Sigma also had the lowest distortion at 1% barrel, with the 35L higher at 1.3%, and both the new and old 35mm f/2 versions at 1.4%.



All in all -apart from the addition of IS- a rather dull update of an almost 25yo lens


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 14, 2012)

i thought i never say that.. but.. SIGMA 35mm f1.4 all the way!!

i had a few sigma lenses over the years and never was impressed by them.

but i had a look at the new sigma 35mm last week and it´s a beauty.. and it´s a great performer.

the canon seems overprized in comparison.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

I like lensrental reviews. It's easy to understand for an ave Joe like me.

I can't believe I'm saying this... the new Sigma looks better than the Canon and now test shows is out perform the big boy....WOW. Where is 50mm f.1ish Sigma?


----------



## zim (Dec 14, 2012)

Does that mean if the Sigma didn't have IS it would have performed even higher  or is that only for more complex zooms?


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 14, 2012)

zim said:


> Does that mean if the Sigma didn't have IS it would have performed even higher  or is that only for more complex zooms?



the sigma has no IS.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 14, 2012)

I have to confess that this lens puzzles me: prior to its introduction I noticed that a thread on 35mm f2 images had received zero replies, so I ran another one a few weeks ago on posting 35 f2 images and that got 3 replies ! This lens is pretty unloved, so will adding IS make it better ? When i saw the price I assumed its performane would be on a par with 35 f1.4 which it would appear not to be 
It'll have to make up for it in build quality and manual focus.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0



I would never thought buying a f.1ish prime and shoot at f.4, 8 or 11? Never hurt to ask ;D


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 14, 2012)

Tom W said:


> Interesting report - Seems that the Sigma resolves better, but possibly with a harsher bokeh. I wonder how the lenses perform in other areas - flare, CA, etc.



Harsher? Sigma in recent years has produced lenses with great creamy bokeh, even their 10-20mm F/3.5 IMO has really nice smooth bokeh, my 70-200 OS is awesome, the 50mm 1.4 is just as good as the 50L in that regard, and on and on with the 85mm, 30mm f/1.4, and test shots I took with the 35mm are great. Some disks show up in some highlights, but really only noticeable when cropped way in, and they at least stay circular all the way, unlike the 35L


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 14, 2012)

Good job sigma. You've won this round.


----------



## Craig Richardson (Dec 14, 2012)

After my horrible experience with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 I will never touch one of their lenses again.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm actually surprised by this test. I thought this new lens would probably easily best the current 35mm f/1.4L in resolution, as the new Canon primes have all been exceptional performers. And, by a small margin at equal apertures, the new 35mm f/2 is sharper where it matters. But the corner performance really surprised me. While it made great strides over the original, it is completely blown away by the Sigma. I expected a more radical evolution over the original (which I was actually oddly fond of).

Except for those specifically looking for either IS or a smaller form factor, I think that the new Sigma is going to put a serious hurt on the sales of this lens. The Sigma is looking like more of a winner every day. I am still interested in seeing a bokeh comparison, but it seems to me that those who use a wide aperture 35mm in a traditional way are going to have a hard time looking at either of the Canon 35mm offerings now.


----------



## infared (Dec 14, 2012)

Have to say...this new Canon 35mm is a very mediocre lens, to me.
I know that a lot of people had problems with their Sigma 50 mm f/1.4...but I have had nothing but a great experience with mine...and I personally think that the bokeh is just incredible. As good as it gets with a 50mm f/1.4.
These new Sigma lenses (artist Series) appear to be a cut above anything the Co. has done in the past and reports are the customer service is on the mend,too. ...but don't tell what you are going to do. Show me. I think that Sigma has done that with their new 35mm....actually I think Canon has, too!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 14, 2012)

Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').

I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 14, 2012)

Why should anybody buy the 35mm f/2 if u can get an even wider open Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for about the same price? Just cuz of IS? Its not needed much with a 35mm lens anyway, is it at all? 

Im really curious what Canon wants to do when they release a 35mm 1.4L II. It must be REAAAALLY awesome but i doubt it will. More likely it will cost like 1500$ and offer no better performance than the Sigma. So why should people buy it...?!

p.s.


35mm f2 old one costs like 250 euro and new one with IS like 800 euro? That IS (!) a ripoff...even worse when thinking of the sigma...


----------



## kubelik (Dec 14, 2012)

I know Robert is saying the astigmatism suggests the sigma will have harsher bokeh, but in looking at some of the side-by-side comparisons with the Canon 35 L, I really don't find that to be the case. not to my eyes, anyway. so even that isn't really a strike against the Sigma. it pretty much beats the Canon in every single way.

I'm really disappointed to see the size of the 35 f/2 IS from Canon. I was still considering it as a walkaround lens on my 5D Mark II, but after seeing how big it is, why would I go for it over a f/1.4 lens? it's pretty darn close to the same size!!!


----------



## AdamJ (Dec 14, 2012)

A few months ago, comparing the old 35mm f/2 against the 35mm f/1.4L would have been considered an unfair comparison, given their wildly different prices.

Now we have an even better and much cheaper 35mm f/1.4 in the Sigma, and an improved but much more expensive replacement for Canon's 35mm f/2. And now, we consider comparison of these two lenses to be valid. I wonder if this would have been the case if the new Canon were priced at $500, and the Sigma at $1,100, or would we then have seen more clearly that these two lenses are, in reality, a league apart?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Try 24-70 f2.8 II @ f2.8....Oppss, we talking about prime not zoom :


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 14, 2012)

Since I have good experience with Sigma 50mm F/1.4, I was expected the Sigma 35mm would outperform 35mm L. However, I didn't expect it was like this good. Now this lens is on my shopping list.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 14, 2012)

infared said:


> Have to say...this new Canon 35mm is a very mediocre lens, to me.
> I know that a lot of people had problems with their Sigma 50 mm f/1.4...but I have had nothing but a great experience with mine...and I personally think that the bokeh is just incredible. As good as it gets with a 50mm f/1.4.
> These new Sigma lenses (artist Series) appear to be a cut above anything the Co. has done in the past and reports are the customer service is on the mend,too. ...but don't tell what you are going to do. Show me. I think that Sigma has done that with their new 35mm....actually I think Canon has, too!


The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open. 

It can't be _too mediocre_ if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 50/1.2L
Nikon 50/1.4G
Sigma 50/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4 (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar (for Nikon & Canon)
Zeiss 50/2 Planar (for Leica M)
Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar (for Leica M)
Leica 50/2 Summicron
Leica 50/0.95 Noctilux

It's not surprising that the new 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS scored a bit higher on resoluton, as they are both f/2.8. Stop down the new 35/2 IS to f/2.8 and it will score higher too.

One thing that the Sigma proves is that to make a better lens for a DSLR, you often have to make it BIGGER. So it's bigger than the already largish Canon 35/1.4L. It's no doubt going to be great for usage at f/1.4, and thus very attractive for photographers who will make use of that. But for photographers who typically shoot at f/2 and smaller, the more compact Canon 35/2 IS may make more sense, especially with the addition of IS.

People are comparing the price of the new 35/2 IS and the old 35/2 and asking why pay so much more "just" for IS? — but they are overlooking the fact that the old 35/2 had that noisy AF motor from the 1980's and has a cheaper build overall. Also, keep in mind that the new 35/2 IS is being introduced at $850 but isn't going to cost $850 in the long run. The 24/2.8 IS and 28/2.8 IS were introduced at $850 and $800 and are both under $700 currently.


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 14, 2012)

The real winner is definitely the Sigma. What an awesome lens. Everywhere I look it is getting praised. AMAZING Sigma!!!
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens Review


----------



## weekendshooter (Dec 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



what are you going on about? Even your precious 24-70 is best between f/5.6-8.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1


----------



## meli (Dec 14, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
> and it appears that the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS offers better resolution (center & average) wide open at f/2 than ANY of the 50mm lenses at f/2, with the exception of the legendary $4,000 Leica Summilux. And keep in mind that most of those 50mm lenses are stopped down at f/2, whereas this new 35mm is wide open.
> 
> It can't be _too mediocre_ if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:



Zlatko you make no sense, what does 50mm has to do with 35? 
Plus, about build quality, i ve only seen the sigma from up close but the build quality is insane for the price.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 14, 2012)

meli said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > The numbers don't show a very mediocre lens. To put things in perspective, look back at LensRentals' "The Great 50mm Shootout" —
> ...


Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 14, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> It can't be _too mediocre_ if it offers better resolution at f/2 than any of these lenses do at f/2:
> Canon 50/1.4
> Canon 50/1.2L
> Nikon 50/1.4G
> ...



Good point, it's better to compare the resolution figures with a wider set of primes like these. My Sigma 50/1.4 is really great, and sharp enough for me.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 14, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> meli said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.


----------



## eyeland (Dec 14, 2012)

It's also worth remembering the value of the 35mm IS as a valuable addition to the primekit of a DSLR videographer. If the Sigma had IS, I would add it to my shopping list right away, but sinc eit doesn't, the only reason for me NOT to get the 35mm IS would be the choice between that and 24/28 which will probably be settles when I decide between going FF or staying on crop.
Regardless, as mentioned by others, the 35mmmk2 seems like QUITE an upgrade over the old version assuming that the AF is on par with the rest of canons new stuff and at least decent build


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 14, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').
> 
> I'll wait for the SLR Gear review before deciding to purchase or not http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1574/cat/4 After all, the IS should allow some stopping down into high res territory.



This just isn't true.

I attach a picture that we took for Selby Abbey, taken on the 35 f2 - we could reproduce this 3 m across if we needed to. We do have the 35 f1.4, but once you get to f11 there is no difference. 

I'm surprised that Lens Rentals achieved the same centre MTF at f2 against the 1.4 at f2. This wouldn't be our experience in practice.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 14, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.


Agreed, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is turning in fantastic numbers. That makes it a very compelling alternative to the Canon 35/1.4L, offering both better resolution and lower price. Roger mentions that some people are finding the Sigma's bokeh less attractive, so I'd like to see a bokeh comparison of the two. If the bokeh and autofocus performance are good, then it's even more compelling.

The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS, and because a few sample images online look very promising (but small); I'm eager to see some full-res samples. It's not the winner on the resolution test, but it seems to have other good qualities, and certainly offers resolution numbers comparable to those of some highly regarded lenses.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 14, 2012)

Sporgon said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at these figures I'm a bit disappointed with the new Canon. I like the new Canon especially for weight and size. The old 35mm didn't cut it on full frame, and the Sigma, although very good, is too large as I would like to use such a lens for travel photography to complement my 24-105 f/4. If these figures are true, they may save me a sum of money (but never say 'never').
> ...



At F/11? I need such a prime to be useful (nearly) wide open. I can use a much slower lens if I bring a tripod!!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Most peak around f/4-f/5.6.
Some do much worse wide open compared to stopped down a bit and others not as much of a difference.
The 24-70 II is sharper at f/4 than f/2.8 but it is actually by a pretty marginal difference in the center on the copies that do best wide open and by just f/3.2 it's basically there (on those best wide open copies), only super close careful peeping at 200% would ever tell any difference between 3.2 and 3.5 or 4. Same for most of the super-tele. The 135 2 does very well wide open.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 14, 2012)

That sigma does look pretty amazing. Wonder if they ever got their AF system working well yet? I'm sure it won't have the high-precision mode of the new 35 IS but it would be nice if it could at least AF as well as the 35L. I wonder though. But the resolution wow. Kinda shows up the Canons.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 15, 2012)

weekendshooter said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I don't read reviews. Mime seems best at f2.8 

I wish I can say that on my 16-35 II :


----------



## GDub (Dec 15, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> ...The new Canon 35/2 IS is attractive to me because of its smaller size & weight and IS...



Ditto!


----------



## hmmm (Dec 15, 2012)

This is the first of the Art series from Sigma, and a great start. But I'm more interested in something like a 24mm. 

This being a rumor site, any idea what comes next in the Sigma Art series, and when?


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 15, 2012)

dilbert said:


> GDub said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...


Yes, almost equal at center and on average, but not almost equal in corners. Also not almost equal in quiet autofocus motor or image stabilization. Doesn't make the original 35/2 a bad lens, just that the new one has something extra to offer, which may be of use to some photographers.

A comparison of weights may be of interest:
Canon 35/2 original = 210 grams
new Canon 35/2 IS = 335 grams
Canon 35/1.4L = 580 grams
new Sigma 35/1.4 = 665 grams


----------



## Radiating (Dec 15, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> A few months ago, comparing the old 35mm f/2 against the 35mm f/1.4L would have been considered an unfair comparison, given their wildly different prices.
> 
> Now we have an even better and much cheaper 35mm f/1.4 in the Sigma, and an improved but much more expensive replacement for Canon's 35mm f/2. And now, we consider comparison of these two lenses to be valid. I wonder if this would have been the case if the new Canon were priced at $500, and the Sigma at $1,100, or would we then have seen more clearly that these two lenses are, in reality, a league apart?



The Sigma 1.4 absolutely has harsher broken than the Canon 1.4, comparison tests have been misleading. The Sigma only shows harsher bokeh under particular and particularly contrasty backgrounds. Back to back comparisons have avoided the right set of circumstances to trigger harsh background blur but I'd you look at sample photos you can see a harsh background blur in about 20% of photos with a keen eye, but lenses like the 70-200mm Ii and 100mm macro IS also cause harsh background blur ocassionally. The sharpness is phenomenal though so its a trade off.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 15, 2012)

Interesting post, CR. so Canon managed to produce a slower and softer lens for the same price. Ouch.

In theory I like Sigma lenses (and own one), but had issues with customer service warranty work. Still, the results don't lie.

On the other hand, I'm a sucker for IS and primes. The 35 F2 would be a fun lens for low light shooting and video work...I could see it on the camera most of the time when indoors. I'd probably go with the Canon for the intangibles.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## meli (Dec 15, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> Why does it make no sense to compare resolution numbers of 35mm and 50mm lenses? I'm just saying it's not a "mediocre" lens if it produces resolution better than some highly regarded 50's, even better than the Leica 50 Summicron. Infared mentioned that he had a "great experience" with his Sigma 50/1.4, but described this new Canon 35 as "mediocre" — and yet the new Canon offers better resolution than his Sigma 50/1.4, ... so why not compare the numbers?


Well, pas mal Infared didnt mention his 150-500 cause then you could draw some rather interesting comparisons; 
how does it make sense comparing 35mm and 50mm res in the context of choosing a 35mm? And if it does, then how about comparing 35mm and 85mm or 35 and 24mm? What about 200mm, shall we compare them also?
If someone is on the market for a 35mm he will be interested on 35mm lenses only, not how they fare with some other random category.
Plus, Infared mentioned his sigma 50/1.4 to make a point about his experience with sigma's bokeh rendering unrelatedly to his opinion on 35/2IS



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Your point is very valid. It should be noted the new lens destroys the 35L in every category when the 35L is wide open; it is only stopped down that it surpasses the new 35 f/2 IS in the corners. In fact, if it weren't for the Sigma's numbers, we would probably think this new lens was pretty great. But the Sigma is turning in some fantastic numbers...and that makes it hard to deny.


The new one seems to have better corners & Ca but center res & distorion on par with the old one, I would deem that okayish not "pretty great" specially considering the old one is 22years old and 1/3 in price, IS notwithstanding.


----------



## zim (Dec 15, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Does that mean if the Sigma didn't have IS it would have performed even higher  or is that only for more complex zooms?
> ...



Oops me silly, where's the embaressed smiley when you need one ;D


----------



## symmar22 (Dec 15, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be curious to see how they all perform at, say, f/8.0
> ...



I'd be interested to see how it performs with smaller F-stops as well.The first report just shows a preview about the lens capacity at f2. Chroma aberration seem much better than the previous version, corner sharpness should improve a lot as well. The only thing I find a bit disappointing is the distortion, but it can be fixed in post. Let's wait for a full test. 

The statement about not shooting fast primes at f4, f8 or f11 is a bit odd. It might be your style to shoot everything f1.4, but there is a difference between having 1.4 when you need it and being forced to shoot everything 1.4.

Here is a link that could show a different opinion (check the showcase and see what f-stops he used, especially on the 35mm f1.4).

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/david_noton_on_the_eos_5d_mark_iii.do?utm_source=newsletter-december-1-2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter


----------



## drs (Dec 15, 2012)

Am I surprised? Yes and no, I can't really tell, will say I'm more confused about this result.

I not surprised as Canon has a gap in the Pro CN line - no 35mm and no plans in the near future to fix that. So, if they had something great to offer, why wouldn't they share that with new Semi-Pro L Lenses? 

I'm surprised based on the great pancake lens 40mm which is at AMAZON now around $149. One would expect that any new 35mm F/1.4 or F/2.0 would be just a great lens. (especially after two great new zoom lenses 24-70/70-200 as well) A leading 35mm lens was my expectation. 

It's after all just a 35mm F/2 lens, we are not talking here about problems to build a 17mm, F/1.4 lens, right?

Too sad, to be honest. Sigma is not really an option for me. I like to use the lenses as well for video, and intercut with different brands can cause trouble (no color match, different overall look and feel etc.)

If I have to stop down, what is the point to buy a faster lens in the first place? 

OK perhaps next year -- Canon. ;o)


----------



## earwaxxer (Dec 15, 2012)

It looks like Canon continues to crank out crap! Very disappointing performance. I have the Sigma 50/1.4. I'm happy with it, dont use it much actually. It looks like, from this performance test, I will continue to look to Sigma/Tamron for my future wide angle choices. 

Canon needs to raise the bar! They make their own glass for gods sake!


----------



## GDub (Dec 15, 2012)

Here's a link to sample shots taken with a 5D Mark III and the new 35mm f/2.0 IS:

http://eyvindness.zenfolio.com/35mmf2isusm

The forum thread:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1173538


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 15, 2012)

Those images are pretty nice. I'm particularly impressed with the ones with great scale. The resolution seems really high. I always found the original to resolve very highly when stopped down a bit, and this seems even better.


----------



## roadrunner (Dec 16, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I like lensrental reviews. It's easy to understand for an ave Joe like me.
> 
> I can't believe I'm saying this... the new Sigma looks better than the Canon and now test shows is out perform the big boy....WOW. Where is 50mm f.1ish Sigma?



As for the Sigma 50 1.ish, have you checked out the Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX? Great performing lens at a great price. Used to have major focus issues (Never experienced it myself, but I've only borrowed the lens a handful of times) but apart from that, it may be what you are looking for.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 16, 2012)

drs said:


> Am I surprised? Yes and no, I can't really tell, will say I'm more confused about this result.
> 
> I not surprised as Canon has a gap in the Pro CN line - no 35mm and no plans in the near future to fix that. So, if they had something great to offer, why wouldn't they share that with new Semi-Pro L Lenses?
> 
> ...


Wait ... you're confused and sad because it's not a great lens? The new Canon 35/2 offers better resolution wide open at f/2 than a long list of highly regarded lenses ... and yet it doesn't meet your expectation of a great lens? Just because the new Sigma 35 is outstanding, doesn't mean the new Canon 35 is not a great lens. And we still don't know which one offers better bokeh and autofocus.



earwaxxer said:


> It looks like Canon continues to crank out crap! Very disappointing performance. I have the Sigma 50/1.4. I'm happy with it, dont use it much actually. It looks like, from this performance test, I will continue to look to Sigma/Tamron for my future wide angle choices.
> 
> Canon needs to raise the bar! They make their own glass for gods sake!


Wow ... "crap"? Are you serious? It's sharper at f/2 than a Leica 50mm Summicron-M — a standard of excellence and one of the highest resolving lenses on Photodo.com — and yet you're very disappointed? According to LensRentals, it's sharper at f/2 than your Sigma 50/1.4 at f/2, which you're happy with. I don't get it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 16, 2012)

roadrunner said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I like lensrental reviews. It's easy to understand for an ave Joe like me.
> ...



Thanks for the info on the Sig.

I just picked up 50L. After a quick run through FoCal(-7 AFMA), the lens is excellent at f1.2


----------

