# Canon 35mm f2 IS



## Jay Khaos (Jun 24, 2013)

I've been considering Canon's new 35 since it was released, although the negative response to it and price has led me to hold off on it. Understandably, it has been thrown into the new Sigma 35's shadow for still photography. According to a review by Safari (forget last name) on Youtube, the IS "doesn't work" for video and looks like you're not using an IS lens at all. Also, he says that glaring is an issue as well. His review is the only one I'm aware of that mentions these two negatives...

Despite the negative general consensus that this lens seems to have developed because of it's high price, it still seems like it might be good for me. It seems there really isn't anything else comparable at least for video use (video will be it's main use). Am I missing something? I don't feel like I am... but if I am, someone here always knows...

Here is a list I've put together of pros vs cons based on all of the reviews/videos I've watched:

PROS
- sharper than the canon 35 1.4
- CA is improved over the 35 1.4
- 4-stop IS
- f2
- rounded aperture blades

CONS
- high price
- plastic construction
- questionable IS (maybe?)
- slowish AF
- glare

Does anyone have experience with this lens personally? Especially interested in comments about it's use for video. Any experience with IS in video and... is it true that it's IS isn't as good as other IS lenses?? Should anything in my pros/cons list be modified?


----------



## symmar22 (Jun 24, 2013)

I am a bit like you, I am looking for a prime 35mm since a while, and I am hesitating between buying the 35mm f2 IS now or waiting for a 35 f1.4 L II. I don't want to buy Sigma, and IMO the 35mm L v1 is more than due to replacement, it was made in the film era, and the tons of chroma and relative corner softness are signs of it's age. It's more than time for a razor sharp, chroma free, weather-sealed 35L, (maybe even less distortion); c'mon Canon, I know you can do it.

In the meanwhile, the 35mm f2 IS USM is probably the best offer from Canon, despite the ,IMO, un-deserved bad advertising around this lens. It's not L, but if you don't need 1.4, it's better than it's L brother with the added benefit of the IS. I don't think the built quality is an issue.

I had the original 35mm f2, for a while, I hated it and sold it quickly, due to its poor image quality (soft corners and awful bokeh), plus the cheap built of the original non L lenses (I still have the 15mm fisheye and the 50 compact macro (both excellent, once stopped down a bit), but they feel cheap and completely outdated).

My only real concern about the 35mm f2 IS is more about the vignetting that seem to be extremely high, and never completely disappears when stopped down; I know it can be fixed in post, but some reviews talk about 3 stops vignetting @ f2, that's a lot.

Plus I think it's still a bit overpriced for a 35 f2, even more if you consider the hood sold separately for 50$.

I will try to go this week in a store I know to make a few test pics. I anybody could comment about the vignetting, I would love to have opinions on that issue.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jun 24, 2013)

Yeah the 35 1.4 II is another reason for holding off... especially if it has IS, although it doesnt seem like it would (could it??)

I hadnt really heard too much about vignetting on the new 35... good to know though. Unfortunately there isnt a shop other than Best Buy that sells camera gear near me, but I might have to drive out to find one somewhere to test


----------



## symmar22 (Jun 24, 2013)

I would be surprised if the 35mm 1.4L II will have IS, my guess it will be the clone of the 24MM f1.4 L II, improved optics and weather-sealing, with a bit of luck it won't be much more expensive than the version 1, but knowing Canon, I doubt it.


----------



## bradfordswood (Jul 21, 2013)

I recently rented this lens. It's definitely sharp and the IS works well. Didn't use it for any video, but stills turned out nice. I also rented the Sigma 35mm and liked the "feel" of those images more. I didn't notice much vignetting, nothing Lightroom can't take care of. Probably worth mentioning that I shoot crop.

It's been said a million times, but the price is too high. If this was in the $600 range I would consider buying it. Would like to see a 50mm IS soon.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 21, 2013)

A few months ago I had a chance to compare it with the Sigma for a few days (on a 6D), but I used them only to take photos. Leaving aside price and the obvious differences between 1.4 and 2.0, there was only one area where the Sigma obviously beat the Canon and that was coma - much less of it at 1.4 than the Canon had at 2.0. Aside from that (and it's only a problem in a rather narrow range of circumstances), if I didn't want the shallower focus potential of the Sigma I would go for the Canon, especially since IS does make a difference, even at 35mm, in low light hand-held. Moreover, it seems to have the nicest bokeh of any 35mm lens you can put on a Canon (I think The Digital Picture's review shows this), better than the Canon 1.4 or Sigma 1.4.


----------



## thelebaron (Jul 21, 2013)

I have this lens, I think the IS may be more like 3 stops. I haven't had the experience of the 1.4, but I bought this over the sigma for the size, weight, and reliable af. AF is super fast, I dont know where you got the idea that it was slower but it seems like its at the top of the heap for lens af I have used(well out of 24-105, 70-200f4 and 135). 
It does vignette quite a bit, also the plastic construction, not an issue to me, people gush about the EOS M's construction but they feel similar to me, its well built and leagues ahead of the 50 1.8. For me the real cons are the coma, it is pretty terrible for astrophotography, and obviously price. 
I bought this mainly as a primary walkaround lens for my 5d3, and I think it fills that gap rather well.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 21, 2013)

I'm also in the market for a good quality '35' and it's a difficult choice for sure. Too bad the 'L' is generally deemed to be showing its age although from the things I've read it seems to be the lens with the least vignetting, and dare I guess (with less elements than the Sigma) the one with the highest transmission? 

My guess is in the real world the 35 L will hold its own despite its age, and its flaws, other than resolution, can be corrected in DPP but I'm not convinced enough to dish out the money for one. At the moment it's between the Sigma and the 'L' for me. Does anyone think a 35mm L II is around the corner? However good it will be, it'll probably exceed my budget for a prime lens by a fair margin.


----------



## aspushkin (Jul 22, 2013)

35 1.4L is a good choice IMHO - but only if you really need it ... https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0QGAeIVTmMXRY8XLTlJs87lkApMixmBSGQNtE7enb54?feat=directlink


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 22, 2013)

I have rented the 35L numerous times and let me assure you with MY style of shooting I prefer my new Sigma 35 much more. The CanonL is not just the new overpriced but far too overpriced. I extend that to the 85 1.2 as well and hope with all fingers crossed that Sigma makes a similar lens.


----------

