Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

Al Downie wrote:

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

Site listed in the first post is down,

...and?

and I don't have the inclination to trawl through 51 pages of a forum discussion looking for good photos.

Ahh... there it is. Laziness? An unwillingness to be proven wrong - that this lens can be EXCELLENT in the right hands? Or something else? Ehh... doesn't matter. I don't care.

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.

Agree.

Additionally, IMO, it's ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS to blame a piece of a equipment for not having something that's not part of the specifications.

Disagree.

So, you think it makes sense to blame a piece of equipment for not being able to do something it's not supposed to do? Well Al, I blame you for not being able to fly like a bird. Not like an ostrich or a chicken... but more like a peregrine falcon. And because you can't get over 150 miles an hour, in flight, equipped with only what you were born with, you are not a capable person. Would you criticize this lens for not being an 800mm f/5.6 lens also, Al?  If so, then I would also assume you'd criticize it for not being f/1.4, not being every other available focal length, as well as a zoom, f/1.2, being white, having the "L" designation, not natively fitting Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Sigma, etc., bodies, not making you breakfast, picking out your clothes, bringing about world peace, restoring the ozone layer, and getting the Japanese to stop whaling.  Wow... the list of negatives for this lens is ENORMOUS!  Isn't it Al?  It's a pity you don't have 2 minutes to scan through the above linked thread (but you obviously have much longer to be argumentative and reply to this thread) to see some great pictures - you'd almost be forgiven for ignoring the fact that it takes wonderful pictures within it's specifications.

To fault an f/2 lens for not being f/1.4 is just ....

I never said that.

Didn't say you did. You obviously have trouble with a little thing known as examples.

Similarly, to fault a non-IS lens for not having IS is just ....

I never said that.

Didn't say you did. You obviously have trouble with a little thing known as examples.

Same goes for a non-L lens not being an L lens.

I never said that.

Didn't say you did. You obviously have trouble with a little thing known as examples.

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.

Right you are.

You said above that you disagreed with not being able to blame a piece of equipment for not having something that's not a part of the specifications. Now you're saying you agree that if a person's reading comprehension sucks so bad that they can't figure it out that they shouldn't be buying something in the first place. You sure are picking an interesting point of view. Care to elaborate and explain that mess?

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.

So, just to be absolutely clear then, your point is that this is the very best EF 35mm f2 IS lens in the world, in fact it's "almost perfect" at being an EF 35mm f2 IS. No other EF 35mm f2 IS lens can match it. And it'd be wrong to compare it to any other kind of 35mm lens, because that would be like comparing apples to oranges. Right?

Nope. I think it's important to judge a piece of equipment based on it's merits, and not against something fictional. For instance, this lens has "IS". It's rated at 4 stops and can detect normal shooting or panning motion. However, if while testing it out a user finds that it's really more like 3 stops (and they're able to achieve 4 stops with other 4-stop rated IS lenses) and the ability to detect panning motion just isn't working out well... then... THAT is something you hold against the lens. In my review, I mentioned that the sharpness wide open isn't on par with another available lens, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. The 35IS is capable of shooting at f/2, just like the Sigma Art, but the sharpness isn't the same. THAT is something worth commenting on.

Al... if you haven't gotten the point by now, it might be best if you just moved along to another thread because that's all I've got man.  If I haven't laid it out with absolute clarity by now, then I'm obviously the one who's deficient and I offer my sincerest apologies.  Good day.