# Canon 35mm f/2 vs Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon f/2.8



## Synomis192 (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm looking to purchase a fixed lens for my Canon T1i because I feel that by having a zoom lens, I'm losing that feeling of actually being in the shot. 

I also heard if you purchase a new lens, it's better to get a fixed focal length lens rather than a zoom lens.

Anyways, I've been trying to decided between these 3 lens. I'm really liking the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 even though it is a manual only lens.

Can anyone help me find a good fixed focal length lens that has good IQ and isn't going to burn a hole in my pocket?

(PS. I already have the Canon 50mm f/1.8, but I feel like it's more of a telephoto on a crop sensor)


----------



## pdirestajr (Mar 6, 2012)

On my 7D, I find this lens (35mm f/2) ends up mounted more than any of my other lenses.

I have the Samyang 35 1.4 too, it's very nice & I use it with video. But when I'm chasing my daughter around indoors, I go for this lens. Even wide open it's pretty sweet.

Also, it focuses very fast even without USM.

What is the "Canon f/2.8"? You missed the focal length.

Here is a shot wide open @ iso 3200! (I rarely shoot this high, but sometimes, you gotta):



Great Grandpa's Bar by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Another recent shot:



Lex &amp; Vi by Philip DiResta, on Flickr


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 6, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I'm looking to purchase a fixed lens for my Canon T1i because I feel that by having a zoom lens, I'm losing that feeling of actually being in the shot.
> 
> I also heard if you purchase a new lens, it's better to get a fixed focal length lens rather than a zoom lens.



I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Prime lenses can indeed be much better than zooms (very broad statement, take it with a big grain of salt), and for better IQ it can lead to somewhat less expensive lenses. But really, what are your needs? That's #1.

If you need something on the wide side, the 35mm f/2 looks like a viable option, and will function more like a 50mm on your camera. If you need even wider, you'll start really paying if you want a good lens, or you'll need to go to the EF-S 10-22mm or EF-S 15-85mm which will only work on crop factor (not full frame like the 5d series).

The advantage on the zooms (especially the 15-85) for you is they give you more flexibility, while still giving you a pretty darn wide angle on your camera. They do cost more than the 35mm f/2, and with their larger aperture you'll find it hard to get clean or blur-free shots in low light. They also cost more than the 35mm f/2, but will definitely be better quality than the kit lens.


----------



## elflord (Mar 6, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> I also heard if you purchase a new lens, it's better to get a fixed focal length lens rather than a zoom lens.
> 
> Anyways, I've been trying to decided between these 3 lens. I'm really liking the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4 even though it is a manual only lens.
> 
> ...



I have the 35mm f/2. It's very nice on APS-C (see the photozone review -- very strong performer) but it's only f/2. So it really depends on which is more important -- f/1.4 or autofocus.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 6, 2012)

The Canon 28mm f/2.8 is discontinued and replaced with the new IS version that is expensive, but you might be able to find one if you look around.

The 35mm f/2 is a good lens for the money. If you can manually focus, the Rokinon is also a good lens. You will get a higher percentage of your money back if you get the Canon and ever decide to sell it.

The fact is, that many of the newer zooms are better and sharper than those old primes, and the replacements will be much better and much more expensive.

A 17-55mm IS is going to beat all the older f/2.8 primes in its range for sharpness and IQ, but it does not have a f/1.4 aperture, and it might cost more than you want to pay.

Don't be afraid of a good deal on a used one, they are simple and fairly reliable.


----------



## Synomis192 (Mar 6, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Prime lenses can indeed be much better than zooms (very broad statement, take it with a big grain of salt), and for better IQ it can lead to somewhat less expensive lenses. But really, what are your needs? That's #1.



Well I mostly shoot portrait and landscape. I also like to take walks near the beach and take pictures there.
So I'm looking for a prime lens, that could fit that need.



pdirestajr said:


> What is the "Canon f/2.8"? You missed the focal length.



Sorry about that, I mean the Canon 28 f/2.8. Thanks for catching that mistake (Btw you daughter is adorable )

Well, if I were to restate my question for Drizzt321: I'm looking for a prime lens that I could use as a walk around lens for my crop sensor body that won't cost me too much (ie Canon 35mm f/1.4).

(PS. Is there any other lens you guys would recommend for a good walk around lens?)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Mar 9, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Prime lenses can indeed be much better than zooms (very broad statement, take it with a big grain of salt), and for better IQ it can lead to somewhat less expensive lenses. But really, what are your needs? That's #1.
> ...



Ah, well, the 50mm f/1.4 (haven't actually used it, heard it's pretty nice) would be ~85mm on a crop body, which is a classic portraiture length without being all that expensive. The 35mm f/2 would be pretty good length, although if you're walking with someone you'd probably have to back up a bit to get closer to a 3/4 to full length shot, but if you're going for head & shoulders it'll be pretty good.

If you want more of a telephoto, the 85mm f/1.8 is pretty good, which would be ~135mm on your camera for a short telephoto. I have one, pretty nice, although of course it's not an L lens. Definitely something you'd use if you want some distance between yourself and your subject.


----------



## Joellll (Mar 9, 2012)

If you have no intentions of stepping into full frame, you might want to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

I have no experiences with this lens, but judging by your case I suppose this is something you'd be interest in.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-30mm-f-1.4-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## AndyVN2 (May 22, 2012)

I have another question: I intend to sell my Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 to buy Canon 35mm f/2 for *portrait shoots* (separation of subject from background is important to me). However, I don't know if f/2 of the 35mm can create shallow DoF like (or better than) the 55-250mm with long focal length or not?

I use crop sensor and don't want to move to far from subject so the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or longer focal length are not suitable for me.

Any advice for me on that? Thank you very much!


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2012)

AndyVN2 said:


> I have another question: I intend to sell my Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 to buy Canon 35mm f/2 for *portrait shoots* (separation of subject from background is important to me). However, I don't know if f/2 of the 35mm can create shallow DoF like (or better than) the 55-250mm with long focal length or not?
> 
> I use crop sensor and don't want to move to far from subject so the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or longer focal length are not suitable for me.
> 
> Any advice for me on that? Thank you very much!



I just don't think 35mm will be a good portrait lens. If you have the f stop down pretty low, say 1.4-2, it will be impossible to get a whole group of people all in focus. Secondly, if you buy a 50mm prime, that's 80mm on a 1.6x, and that is actually not far away. So actually a 50 would work really well. If you still have your 55-250mm zoom lens, set it to 50mm and test it out to see what I mean. 35mm on a crop 1.6 is 56mm, so yes, that lens works but I have had a hard time getting everything in focus when the aperture is really wide.


----------



## AndyVN2 (May 23, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I just don't think 35mm will be a good portrait lens. If you have the f stop down pretty low, say 1.4-2, it will be impossible to get a whole group of people all in focus. Secondly, if you buy a 50mm prime, that's 80mm on a 1.6x, and that is actually not far away. So actually a 50 would work really well. If you still have your 55-250mm zoom lens, set it to 50mm and test it out to see what I mean. 35mm on a crop 1.6 is 56mm, so yes, that lens works but I have had a hard time getting everything in focus when the aperture is really wide.


Thank you for the reply, but I don't really get you point: you suggested me to get 50mm, either 1.8 or 1.4 will have wider aperture and longer focal length compare to 35mm f/2, so the effect must be shallower DoF, and harder to get focus with wide aperture.

In previous post I just wonder will 35mm f/2 with its wide open aperture could produce shallow DoF like the 55-250mm or not. In other words, DoF is more depend on aperture or more depend on focal length?

You are right on the 50mm that it is not too far away. I will check it out for considering


----------



## paul13walnut5 (May 23, 2012)

Can vouch absolutely for the 28mm f2.8 as a brilliant walkaround lens on APS-C. It equates to mid 40's focal length, which is closer to a true 'standard' lens than 50mm or worse, 50mm on APS-C.

Sharp, compact, cheap, and fast focusing despite perhistoric AFD motor.

I loved mine and may well buy an another.

It's now officially discontinued, so you may have to pick up used. There is a new 28mm f2.8 IS USM coming, but Canon seem to have forgotton that theres a recession on and priced it at silly money: its a very specialist lens these days, most folks using zooms, but priced right they could sell a fair few, I will not be buying one.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 23, 2012)

AndyVN2 said:


> In previous post I just wonder will 35mm f/2 with its wide open aperture could produce shallow DoF like the 55-250mm or not. In other words, DoF is more depend on aperture or more depend on focal length?
> 
> You are right on the 50mm that it is not too far away. I will check it out for considering



Using an online DOF calculator, the DOF for 35mm @ f/2 is similar to your 55mm @ f/4. The DOF may be similar but the angle of view is not. The background will look less cluttered with the 55-250 because of the reduced angle of view than the 35, but one is not better than the other. Sometimes you want to get more background to get better context.

I loved using a 35mm prime when I had my crop camera, especially indoors. It works well.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2012)

AndyVN2 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't think 35mm will be a good portrait lens. If you have the f stop down pretty low, say 1.4-2, it will be impossible to get a whole group of people all in focus. Secondly, if you buy a 50mm prime, that's 80mm on a 1.6x, and that is actually not far away. So actually a 50 would work really well. If you still have your 55-250mm zoom lens, set it to 50mm and test it out to see what I mean. 35mm on a crop 1.6 is 56mm, so yes, that lens works but I have had a hard time getting everything in focus when the aperture is really wide.
> ...



No, what I meant was, if you need f/2 on the 35mm and you shoot say, a group shot of your family indoors, the whole group will not be in focus (likely). If you DON'T need f/2, I was simply suggesting 50mm focal length instead, because on a 1.6 that's 80mm, closer. Sorry for my confusion, it was very late at night/early in the morning  Of course you know exactly what you'll be shooting, I was just adding some consideration.


----------



## NormanBates (May 24, 2012)

The Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is a very impressive lens: for a small fraction of the price, it's actually sharper than the Canon 35mm f/1.4L or the Zeiss 34mm f/1.4; in fact, it's nearly perfectly sharp even at f/1.4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=749&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

but that doesn't mean it's perfect; for a start, it's only manual-focus; but there's more; for example, and unlike the samyang 85mm f/1.4, the 35mm f/1.4 has just-about-average bokeh; not a problem on full frame (where it is a moderately wide-angle lens), more of an issue on aps-c

for the price, though, it's stellar; just compare it to the canon 35mm f/2; it's laughable
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=771&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=122&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

(of course, for pictures of kids, like those posted above, "manual focus only" will be a problem)

more about it here: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#samyang



now, regarding focal length, depth of field, etc, I think you'd benefit from reading this:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/300.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/310.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/tuten/320.html
summary: focal length doesn't affect DoF (more exactly: it does it to a very, very, very small extent); only framing (what your subject is), sensor size and aperture do; but focal length affects perspective in a big way, and that's a very big part of how out-of-focus objects appear on the image, so it affects how we "feel" depth of field


----------



## pdirestajr (May 24, 2012)

AndyVN2 said:


> I have another question: I intend to sell my Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 to buy Canon 35mm f/2 for *portrait shoots* (separation of subject from background is important to me). However, I don't know if f/2 of the 35mm can create shallow DoF like (or better than) the 55-250mm with long focal length or not?
> 
> I use crop sensor and don't want to move to far from subject so the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 or longer focal length are not suitable for me.
> 
> Any advice for me on that? Thank you very much!



Are you talking about shallow DOF, or the bokeh quality and compression of the blurred background?

The telephoto Zoom at it's longest @ f/5.6 will be more blurred that the 35mm @ f/2.

But there are a lot of factors involved:
- camera Distance from subject
- aperture used
- focal length
- background distance to subject

Here are 2 shots since I had the 55-250 a long time ago, and still use & love my 35mm f/2.0.

This shot is the EF-S 55-250mm @ 232mm f/5.6:



green army man by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

And this shot is the 35mm f/2 wide open:



Lex 39 weeks by Philip DiResta, on Flickr

In the bottom photo, the background is across the street (pretty far), but still a TON of detail. Since I wanted this shot to still show the city, it worked for me.

The top photo was just a walk around street shot.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 24, 2012)

I have both the Canon 35mm f/2 and Rokinon 35mm f/1.4

The Rokinon is fully manual, meaning you'll have to set both the aperture & focus by hand. If bokeh is important to you, the Canon 35mm f/2 has a nervous bokeh when linear objects are out of focus, as can be seen in the Photozone review of the lens.


----------



## dshipley (May 24, 2012)

AndyVN2 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't think 35mm will be a good portrait lens. If you have the f stop down pretty low, say 1.4-2, it will be impossible to get a whole group of people all in focus. Secondly, if you buy a 50mm prime, that's 80mm on a 1.6x, and that is actually not far away. So actually a 50 would work really well. If you still have your 55-250mm zoom lens, set it to 50mm and test it out to see what I mean. 35mm on a crop 1.6 is 56mm, so yes, that lens works but I have had a hard time getting everything in focus when the aperture is really wide.
> ...



Here's an example for you to look at and decide for yourself. Lens is the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4. Since the body is a 5D2 I've gone ahead and have darkened out the image area that wouldn't be covered by your 1.6x crop sensor. The trunk of the tree is about 8" wide.


----------



## AndyVN2 (May 25, 2012)

Thank you all for the valuable information! Now I realized that perspective is one reason that the 35mm can't be used for portrait. I will take 50mm f/1.4 for both portrait and low-light shoots.

I'm pretty new to photography so it's great to have your knowledge and experience shared!
Wish all a nice weekend!


----------



## vbi (May 25, 2012)

Just to confuse the situation further...the 24-105L is a really sweet combination with a crop sensor and will give you relatively wide angle with a nice range for portraits. Might be worth considering instead of a couple of fixed length optics.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 26, 2012)

I know you don't have a FF camera, but if you want to get one, I wouldn't recommend using the 35 f/2 on a FF camera. However, if you can use a crop sensor, better.


----------

