Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

Jonathan Brady wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Good review!

Thanks!

However I disagree your conclusion that Sigma 35/1.4 Art @F1.4 is sharper than 35/2.0 IS @F2.0. You might have a soft copy.

I don't dispute that as a possibility.

DPR 35/2.0 @F2.0 IS vs 35/1.4 A @F1.4 on 5D2

DPR 35/2.0 IS @F2.0 vs 35/1.4 A @F1.4 on 7D

TDP 35/2.0 IS @F2.0 vs 35/1.4 Art @F1.4

In either case, it shows 35/2.0 @F2.0 is sharper than Sigma 35/1.4 Art @F1.4. At F2.0, Sigma is sharper. Canon captures up at F2.8 and as sharp as if not slightly sharper at F4.0.

PZ tells a different story...

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1

MTF charts show the Sigma resolving 3587 lines at f/1.4 and the Canon 35IS resolving 3069 at f/2. It's possible their copy of the Sigma is REALLY good, the 35IS is a soft copy, or both. Same for me.

This is a major disagreement between me and a few regarding PZ Tests that I found that they are not reliable and not very scientific.  I trust DXO, LensRentals far more.

LensRentals also found 35/2.0 IS @F2.0 is sharper than Sigma 35/1.4 Art @F1.4. So I have to believe the other three tests - DXO, TDP and LensRentals but not PZ. I'd suggest you to get another copy and test again.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon

Also watch this video that it doesn't show that either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmV0qtGPUsw

Also, I was playing with the 35 IS about an hour ago and adjusted the AFMA another 2 notches because of the indoor light. I've found that I can have some fairly wild variations for AFMA depending on the light source. I've had swings as high as 7 (+16 down to +9 for the 85/1.8) when changing light sources. So it's quite possible the softness I'm seeing is AFMA related in various light sources and I'm not correcting for it.

I love my copy of 35/2.0 IS and have some test samples here . 4-stop 'IS' is awesome that I can hand-held at 1/6 or even 1/4 sec to get consistent sharp photos.

The reasons I chose 35/2.0 IS over Sigma 35 Art are,

1) 4-stop 'IS' as this is the lens I used very often in low-light or indoor hand-held photos on most static or slow moving subjects. Then 4-stop 'IS' by shooting at F2.8 can effectively overcome one-stop aperture advantage of Sigma 35 Art. So by this sense, I don't see Sigma 35 A has optical quality advantage as this is not a main portrait lens so I don't need to shoot at F1.4 wide open.

2) Lighter/smaller in traveling in my already somewhat heavy camera bag. It's much lighter that is a big deal. It's also lots cheaper that I bought at $527 from BigDig.

3) Canon brand and reliable and more accurate autofocus. I don't suggest Sigma is not good but I do hear bunch of stories for AF accuracy issue. It's a bit tricky to MFA on 4-stop shooting distance that USB dock offers as MFA on near distance may not best for far distance or vice versa. I virtually have not heard any complaints in 35/2.0 IS AF accuracy issue.

-- hide signature --

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

-- hide signature --

QUOTE: "Another conclusion: After having read a few hundred instances of “fanboy” references during research for this article, it’s clear to me that the word has lost whatever potency it might once have had as an insult. It’s too much of a cliché, too inappropriately dismissive, too likely to be tossed in as an ad hominem attack by someone who shows signs of extreme fanboyism himself."
In other words - takes one to know one. And you lack creativity.
http://gizmodo.com/5540818/the-fascinating-origin-of-the-word-fanboy