Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

Al Downie wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Here you go, Al...

And there's the thing. I hope you're not offended Abu, but those pictures just don't excite me the way that 135L shots excite me, or Nikkor 50 f1.2, Sigma 50 (although I wouldn't take a chance on it!) or even the lowly 40mm f2.8, discarded above because it didn't match some physical measurements of another lens. There are plenty of images in 35L galleries that are super-impressive and inspiring to me; hardly any in the 35IS galleries. They just don't display the same depth and liveliness as the 35L.

So it might be sharp, and it might be useful in low light, it might be compact and light, but it still doesn't float my boat. "Almost flawless" is a bit of an overstatement.

There are some great images in this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1264523

As for it being an overstatement... well... the review was my OPINION.  I feel like it's a perfectly accurate statement of how I see this lens.  And since it's a review I wrote, it doesn't really matter what you think at the end of the day.  

Additionally, IMO, it's ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to blame a piece of a equipment for not having something that's not part of the specifications.  To fault an f/2 lens for not being f/1.4 is just ....  Similarly, to fault a non-IS lens for not having IS is just ....  Same goes for a non-L lens not being an L lens.  If your reading comprehension sucks so bad that that you can't figure these things out before buying, perhaps you shouldn't be buying the product in the first place.

How can someone fault a piece of equipment for NOT being something it's not?  (I hate this hammer, it SUCKS at screwing in screws!  lol)  Additionally, if it did have a particular specification a user wanted, it would no longer BE that prior item.  For instance, if this lens had a 1.4 aperture, it would no longer be an f/2 lens, making it an ENTIRELY different product (larger, heavier, needing a different/more powerful focusing motor to achieve the same focusing speed, more expensive, etc.) and therefore it would have a different price, value proposition, and utility.  Not to mention it would be the first of it's kind in the world (a stabilized f/1.4).  Oh wait, it was already the first of it's kind for Canon (a stabilized f/2).

So, if you were ragging on this lens for not being what it clearly isn't... how about you reconsider that position...

So, to restate... given that this is the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, I feel it's ALMOST PERFECT.  It lived up to my expectations but when compared side by side to another lens, it did show an opportunity for improvement.