Question to those who own the EF 35mm F/2 IS USM lens

Started Sep 19, 2022 | Discussions thread
OP SteveHU89 Regular Member • Posts: 130
Re: Question to those who own the EF 35mm F/2 IS USM lens

KevinRA wrote:

SteveHU89 wrote:

KevinRA wrote:

SteveHU89 wrote:

How does it compare to the 50mm 1.8 STM lens? Because I read things like this (35mm) is considered an L lens without the red ring, beautiful colors, contrast and all kinds of praises... then there were haters as well. A recent one I read was comparing it to the nifty-fifty STM and/or slightly better to it.

Please tell me that isn't true. Of all the lenses I used on Aps-c and FF, the nifty-fifty has the most boring, dullest looking image rendition. It is so sterile and bad..... I don't care what the MTF charts say and I rarely used it wide open. It needs HEAVY work in ACR and my other L lens produces fantastic RAW results without touching a slider. So if the 35mm F2 IS USM lens is similar to 50, then I'd rather spend a bit more on a 3rd party lens such as Sigma art or Tamron. In fact, I'm trying to decide between the three.

I owned this lens for some time.

On APS-C - very very nice even at f/2. Very useable even wide open across whole frame.

The issue is f/2 (and lesser extent f/2.8) on the borders on full frame - just outside the APS-C frame - where coma takes over. Now this can be not noticeable in some instances - but is painful in some shots and almost impossible to remove in post processing. Lens tip have this issue here:

https://www.lenstip.com/365.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

This affects not just stars and point sources - but any higher contrast edge where you see blooming of light in a smudgy way across the darker area.

Also owned the Tamron 45 f/1.8 - which is reported similar to the 35mm f/1.8. It does not have the comma issue but does have purple fringing. I found the AF not to be perfectly accurate on 5DSr so sold it too.

Vignetting strong too, but that can be artistic and corrected at cost of noise at higher isos.

Thank you. I assume that night shots with street light(s) around the edge and corner of the image would look terrible with the lens...? Grave candles at night bad idea?

Would depend if broadly in focus or not - might just look OK even if not "true" - issues more I saw was with more defined edges out doors being with halation and low mushy contrast. The halation is hard to fix. You can see it in action here - look at the square and black border on the third row:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

The other lens I'm considering is the Sigma 35mm 1.4 HSM Art. From what I've read and seen it is far superior to the Canon lens, but is quite pricey even used. The Sigma has the character to its images that I'm looking for (from what I've seen).

I had a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for about a day - but returned as on a DSLR the AF consistency was so bad. It would likely work much better adapted on say a R or M series mirrorless. It was better re coma but with a little purple fringing. It was nice wide open and especially at f/2 when in focus.

Check out the Tamron 35f/1.8 and 45mm too - coma seems much better but you may have purple fringing issues. These sharp and contrasty - but I did struggle with AF, better than the sigma I had though.

I believe but not tested that the tamron 35mm f/1.4 is good too - but pricier...

(I'm not bashing sigma - my 180 macro and EF-M 16mm AF flawlessly on mirrorless)

I see the halation, but I also see that stopping down to F/4 the Canon lens comes to life. But is it worth buying the lens and restrict myself to not using it wide open because of its mediocre quality? Maybe? Who knows. The results are really decent at F/4.

As for the rest: I considered the Tamron SP 35mm 1.4 before, however it is too heavy. Yes, it's better than the rest and actually usable wide open, but it's not the "walk around" size that I would like, thus it would be money down the drain.

The Sigma isn't lightweight either, but it is lighter in weight by a whole 50mm 1.8 STM. Its character also convinced me after seeing hundreds of photos on the web. It has the "look" and life to it. Of the Tamron I mostly saw pixelpeeping shots (not very artsy compositions to draw conclusion from).

 SteveHU89's gear list:SteveHU89's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow