Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

qianp2k wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

qianp2k wrote:

Al Downie wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Al Downie wrote:

Seriously, joking apart, in my view some lenses *do* display something special (at all apertures) which cannot be measured by MTF charts or specifications.

If it can be seen, it can be measured.

Such as skin tone Don't believe you can measure it.

Of course it could be measured. Whether or not anyone measures it, however, is another matter.

Bokeh is one of these things;

Bokeh can be measured:

http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm

This is where we'll have to disagree. What's the formula for Art?? If aesthetic characteristics can really be measured, why does the reviewer above have to rely on adjectives like 'quite pleasing' to describe the differences between lenses?

Here are bokeh patterns from TDP tests between 35/2.0 IS and Sigma 35 A. To my eyes, 35/2.0 IS has a slight more pleasing bokeh pattern.

Canon 35/2.0 IS bokeh pattern

Sigma 35/1.4 Art bokeh pattern

I, too, prefer the bokeh of the Canon 35 / 2 IS in those photos. But that's at f/4, so...

PZ has some examples at wider apertures:

Sigma 35 / 1.4:

Canon 35 / 2 IS:

35/2.0 IS bokeh patterns are more circular while while 35 A shows cat-eyes and some layers inside the light patterns

To my eyes, f/2 and f/2.8 look very similar for both.  So similar, in fact, that I could not imagine caring about the differences one way or another.

35/2.0 IS @F2.0

Like I said, even though I own, and love, the Sigma 35 / 1.4A, I'm quite the fan of the Canon 35 / 2 IS, and feel it would better suit more people than the 35 / 1.4A due to it being smaller, lighter, and having IS, and pretty much the same IQ by f/2.8.