Any experience with the new 35 IS?

Started Dec 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 6,418
Re: Any experience with the new 35 IS?

Sovern wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

x-vision wrote:

ali20 wrote:

I bought the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. But I returned it after taking a few test shots. This lens is very soft at F2. I found this disappointing.

Thanks for sharing your experience. You saved me the trouble to do what you did ;).

I also think that the only reason to get an f2 prime would be to use it wide open.
So, if the lens is not sharp enough at that aperture, then why bother.

Do you trust this one anecdotal experience more than lensrentals' controlled test of 5 copies of the same lens, which showed it to be as sharp at F2 as the 35L at F2? If so, why? I'm all for anecdotal experience. That's why I started this thread. But it is the height of irrationality to base a decision on one anecdote, especially when there is evidence that contradicts it. It is a natural human tendency to give more credence to negative reports than positive ones. It's natural, but it's still not rational.

Honestly I'd trust word of mouth before a site like lens rentals. Reason being is a lot of these review sites and websites get paid by the lens manufacturers to review the lens and get free samples which could be "special" samples basically cherry picked lenses. This is a very common practice when it comes to almost any product especially from a large company like Canon.

I've trusted lens sites in the past and I will never do so again as I've had a bad experience with the 17-50 2.8 lens (optically is worse than the 18-55 yet the review sites say otherwise).

It looks like you're making the same mistake I pointed out above. It's called hasty generalization. A bad experience with one lens is not good evidence that the review sites were wrong. It's evidence that the results you got from that one copy of that lens were worse (in your opinion) than the results from one copy of another lens. One reason that the lensrentals review is more reliable than a single anecdote is that they tested five copies. Another reason is that they used sophisticated testing equipment in a controlled environment. If you've looked at their reviews, you'll see that they are not at all reticent about criticizing lenses. Which 17-50 2.8 lens are you talking about? Tamron and Sigma each make one. If it's one of those, I wouldn't be surprised that there was a bad copy, but I certainly wouldn't take that as evidence that most copies were bad. If you're talking about Canon, it's the 17-55. That lens is much better than the 18-55. Testing sites and masses of anecdotes say that. If you had a bad experience with one copy, that's unfortunate, but it would be irrational to conclude that all copies (or even a large proportion) are bad.

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot SD450 +19 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow