Canon 35mm F/2

Started Nov 21, 2007 | Discussions
borderrose Veteran Member • Posts: 3,240
Canon 35mm F/2

Any experience with this one. Photozone.de tests indicate that it performs marginally better optically than the Sigma 30mm F/1.4, and weighs half as much.

Can anyone comment on Image, AF and build quality?

I need a prime that is small, light and a decent performer in this focal length on a 40D. I don't want to spend much more than US$250-300.

Thanks.

-- hide signature --
007peter
007peter Forum Pro • Posts: 12,428
Strength & Weakness

It has 2 weakness: (1) purple fringe (2) buzzy af motor.
but has 5 greatness: (1) amazingly thin DOF @f/2 near MFD
(2) poor man's macro lens
(3) good whole body portrait lens
(4) Super Tiny and lightweight
(5) Cheap

The sigma 30 1.4 is definitely better, but heavier and more expensive. If money is not a problem, sigma is awesome. The tricky part is finding one that focus reliably.

-- hide signature --

FANBOY(i)sm is a NEUROSIS, Get Help!

OP borderrose Veteran Member • Posts: 3,240
Re: Strength & Weakness

Thanks. Is the PF apparent only in the typical strongly back lit situstions?

-- hide signature --
nfs2 Forum Member • Posts: 75
Re: Strength & Weakness

I never noticed any purple fringing on my copy, but i mostly used it indoors, so outdoors in harsh direct sunlight might be different...

It was one of my all time favorite lenses, and my favorite focal length on a crop. I sold it when i got my 35L though

hullodare
hullodare Regular Member • Posts: 229
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

Oh! That lens is a ton of fun. I say grab it. I shot these photos with it on a 5D.

-- hide signature --

I post therefore I am.
http://www.tomkaszuba.com

 hullodare's gear list:hullodare's gear list
Sony a7 III
trumpet_guy Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

It's a good lens optically, but I do think the Sigma is significantly better.
The weight is a non-issue to me, but if you simply can't afford the
$340 it takes to get a used Sigma 30/1.4, then get a used 35 f/2 at
around $190.

Here's a somewhat unfair comparison between the two lenses. The Sigma
shots were made on a sunnier day, but the results are still worth looking at.
The differences are more apparent near wide open. Both lenses are very
respectable, though.

Processing was similar on both shots:

Canon @ f/9:

Canon 100% crop:

Sigma @ f/9:

Sigma 100% crop:

trumpet_guy Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

Stopped-down sharpness is comparable in both lenses, but the
contrast is better in the Sigma, and this corresponds to me real-world
experience with these lenses.

Cesare Ferrari Regular Member • Posts: 431
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

Yeah, I've always had trouble with stray light reducing contrast on my 35/2. I keep meaning to pick up a hood for it as i'm fairly certain this will help.

Do you have the hood for yours?

Cesare

 Cesare Ferrari's gear list:Cesare Ferrari's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 +1 more
pertti Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

borderrose wrote:

Can anyone comment on Image, AF and build quality?

My findings from 35/2 + a few other lenses covered, mainly focal length and usability issues:

http://www.jussivakkala.com/blog/20071029

-
http://www.jussivakkala.com

Niedzwiedz Junior Member • Posts: 44
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

http://www.fotoblog.cba.pl - 35 f2 at 2-2,8
--
--
5d , Tamron 17-35 f2,8-4 ,EF 50 f1,4 ,EX 85 f1,8 , 430 EX
http://www.fotoblog.cba.pl

trumpet_guy Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: Canon 35mm F/2

Cesare Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, I've always had trouble with stray light reducing contrast on
my 35/2. I keep meaning to pick up a hood for it as i'm fairly
certain this will help.

Do you have the hood for yours?

Cesare

I do now, but that 35/2 shot was before I got the hood. I don't
think that shot would have been much improved with the hood, though.

Tim

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads