Speed Poll

Great Bustard wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Wrong initial premise:

...

While peoples' choice is a combination of many factors, I would like to think that the popularity of the 35 / 2 IS over the other candidates is based on size, weight, price, and IS, and that these factors outweigh both speed and IQ since the 35 / 2 IS is "fast enough" and has IQ that is "good enough".

...

The 35IS IQ is good, not just "good enough". Why is that so dificult to fathom and accept?

In terms of speed, the 35 / 2 IS is a stop slower than the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 1.4L II. In terms of resolution, it's not as good as the 35 / 1.4A (until f/4, albeit pretty close by f/2.8), nor is it as good as the 35 / 1.4L II. Specifically, at f/2, the 35 / 2 IS has almost a stop more vignetting than the 35 / 1.4A and 16% lower resolution in the center (but only 6% lower in the corners).

But, f/2 is "good enough" for many, if not most, the IQ is "good enough" for many, if not most, it has IS, is smaller, lighter, and costs less, making it the preferred choice for many. Why is that so difficult to fathom and accept?

I agree totally to one fact and if someone asks me what is the MOST appealing feature of 35 f2 IS for me then BIGGEST thing would be its size/weight that totally trumps all others. What I mean is people can pixel peep and go crazy about wanting to put 35 1.4 ART or 35 1.4 Canon higher than 35 f2 IS. But image quality, bokeh and sharpness 35 f2 IS  provides for its size/weight - nothing trumps that. That is where Canon totally wins! That does not say that 35 f2 IS is any lesser than other 35mms. It all depends on types of pictures you compare. I am sure many would find pictures from 35 f2 IS that are so much better and unique than Sigma 35 ART and for Sigma's 1.4 aperture you shall find many more images that can prove, hey, 1.4 rocks than f2. But the point is 35 f2 IS remains unbeaten. And I did not even consider IS in all this. Which is an icing on a cake.

I seriously think that this is Canon's hidden L lens!