Any experience with the new 35 IS?

Started Dec 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
MayaTlab0
MayaTlab0 Senior Member • Posts: 2,643
Re: Any experience with the new 35 IS?

Sovern wrote:

Do you think that $600 is worth it for IS alone over the regular 35F2?

As already said, it's not just IS. It's also got a higher build quality, better performance, a better USM drive that's both faster and more precise (as all new Canon lenses). In addition to that, its price will quickly go down as it did with the 24 and 28mm lenses.

I don;t think so

You don't think so, and that's perfectly fine. I think it will be worth the price it's likely to settle at in Europe, around 700 euros, like the other stabilised primes.

.....I'd rather get the 35L which will be sharper.

As already said, it's as sharp as the 35L at comparable apertures, if measured tests are anything to go by.

I heard the 1/focal length rule but it's really nonsense. If you have good hand holding technique you can easily shoot with a shutter of about half of the focal length (I can) hand hold.

As I said in my post, it's a guideline that may vary depending on people's abilities. Whether you can hand-hold a lens at 1/focal or 1/(focal/2) will influence the need for IS for very low shutter speed, but not what I'm on about - which is that IS will offset the need for higher and higher shutter speeds if one wants to exploit the resolution potential of higher megapixel density cameras.

The people that are craving the Mega Pixels can have fun I'm staying at 22MP or below and I never heard of IS doing anything beyond what a high shutter speed does for image shake. I'd love to see a link where it shows that more MP's require a higher shutter speed for the photo to not suffer from camera shake as this is the first time that I'm hearing such a thing and to me it sounds like non sense.

Think harder. In fact it makes perfect sense : because you increase megapixel density, it's like having an APS-C sensor inside your camera. I assume you wouldn't use the same minimal shutter speed with a D700 and a D300.

Obviously that only matters if you want to get optimal results and fully use the D800's resolution potential.

For those for which this sort of thing matters, as megapixels increase, raising shutter speed will be more and more important. If we were to apply to a FF sensor the same pixel density as current 24mp APS-C camera, we'd go past 50mp. In these conditions, to keep, for example, a shutter speed around 1/40 with a 85mm lens and fully exploit this resolution, IS is likely to be needed.

As for the Canon 35L / Sigma 35 comparison, optically, it's better in a number of ways, as these reviews / tests / comparison demonstrate :

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order

(BTW : Lensrentals isn't a review site, as you seemed to imply, that may receive for free a specifically selected lens for a review - they buy all their lenses, just like you and I).

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

On the other hand, in terms of AF lottery, so far we're reading conflicting reports (read Lensrentals article comments) - possibly one reason to indeed steer clear of the Sigma.

As for the 35mm IS, I'm playing with it since yesterday (delayed Christmas !), but there isn't much to say about it that hasn't already been said - it's like the new 24 and 28mm IS lenses (I own the latter), just longer, fatter, with a different focal length and a different maximum aperture. In a way, it's a boring lens in the sense that it meets expectations, but nothing more - even from an optical standpoint, I think it performs just like what we could have guessed just by reading Canon's MTF graphs. To me it performs quite like this in comparison to the 40mm (which I also own) : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=810&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I too think it's softer at f2 than the 40mm at f2.8, but I wouldn't call that a massive difference. I guess personal expectations / demands vary.

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