Almost flawless! 35mm f/2 IS USM review

For several months I owned the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art simultaneously. Over that time I had plenty of opportunities to figure out where I was happiest with each. I knew going in I was going to sell 2 and keep 1. Regarding my thoughts on the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM...

Image sharpness: in my opinion it falls between the two when considering the bulk of the image frame on my 70D. It's not as sharp as the Sigma wide open (the Sigma is sharper at f/1.4 and f/2 than the 35 IS is at f/2) but at f/2.8 they're basically even and it's sharper than the 40mm.

Bokeh: I don't think it loses anything to either of them in this department - if it's not the best of the three it's tied for first.

Focusing: I've found there to be little difference between the focusing speeds and sound of the Sigma and 35 IS and it's probably a little faster than the 40.

Image stabilization: of course, the big advantage of this lens over the other two is the IS. IS makes this lens an EXCELLENT choice for a low-light (or anything brighter), walk around lens for non-moving subjects.

Video use:You'll hear and see it focus racking once you've obtained focus and the camera attempts to maintain focus, if you use AF. That's not unique to this lens as all other non-STM lenses do it too. I recommend an external mic if you're in a quiet environment and take advantage of your cameras ability to deactivate AI Servo focusing if your subject isn't moving - this is a good recommendation for all lenses. In my opinion, there's no advantage to this lens over any other (HSM for Sigma or STM for the Canon 40mm) with regards to the focusing system in video - however IS is probably useful.  Well... except that the 40mm STM seemed to have trouble going from near to far in my test (linked below). Obviously the focusing system of the 40mm STM will be slightly smoother for cameras which wholly support STM in video (T4i, T5i, SL1, and 70D and maybe [not sure] the 6D) but be aware that the 40mm has an electrical buzzing sound to it when it focuses in video so you'll still need an external mic. In fact, here's a video comparing some popular options: http://youtu.be/8OqGAV6bi2k Turn up the sound to hear the focusing motors (or not, as is the case with the 18-55 STM).

What did I decide to do between the three lenses? I'm keeping the 35mm f/2 IS USM! For me, it's the best compromise in terms of speed, versatility, comfort/portability (size/weight) and cost. However, I did find myself frequently grabbing the Sigma when I KNEW I'd want to shoot wide open or slightly stopped down and when IS wouldn't matter - so if that's you, HEAVILY consider the Sigma (with an AFMA enabled camera and/or the Sigma lens dock). If an aperture faster than f/2.8 doesn't matter to you, nor does IS, save yourself time, money, space, and weight, and buy the 40mm f/2.8 STM and LOVE THE HECK OUT OF IT! It's really great!

What would I change? For me, the opportunities for improvement would be sharper wide open and an equally fast STM focusing motor to use this lens for video more easily. Otherwise, this lens is STELLAR and there's little, if anything, to complain about in daily, real world shooting.

Final thoughts: The softness wide open compared to the Sigma 35mm Art does bother me as it's obvious there's a sharpness difference but the smaller size, lighter weight, and IS made this the better choice for me and I just sold my Sigma 35mm Art the other day (I've got an ad up for the 40 STM right now). The sharpness is all that makes me deduct anything out of a 5 star rating and it's worth half a star because it's still very usable at f/2 - it's just not impressive.

If you want this lens, keep an eye on Canon's refurb store. It's $480 there and they frequently run sales of 15-20% off and you can often get free shipping if you simply ask for it. This means you can get this lens for around $400+/- (including tax) and that's a STEAL!

Good job, JB.

...finally we see eye-to-eye on something.

"I've got nothing but respect for you Abu."

You're probably the only one around here, JB. Cheers.

I know it's DPReview an' all, but did you notice that you'd written a 730 word review about a lens without once mentioning the images that it makes? Jus' sayin...

Good write up JB.

Although i dont have the Sigma i do have the 40mm as well as the 35 and im in total agreement with your findings

I do find the 40mm to be quite sluggish to focus (5DMKIII and 650D) compared to the 35mm, and the only thing i find the 40mm has over the 35mm is the size.

I find images just as pleasing from my 35mm as i do my 24-70 f/2.8 MKII. Not saying they are the same, but very comparable.

It is my fav lens these days, although i dont actually use it as much as i should.

Yes. The only three things that the 40Pancake has over the 35IS are weight, size and price. I sold the former upon getting the latter.

Here you go, Al...

My 35L is flawless  JK Great review, thanks for taking the time to share!  I have had a few moments I wish I had IS on my 35.

Yeah I thought it was a great review, better than most actually. Very practical reasons why it's a great lens.

I have it too, and love it. Never used either of the other two. Was going to get the Sigma first, but then this one just made more sense. I don't think I regret it, though I do ocasionally wonder what I could do with an f/1.4 lens on my 5D3.

Maybe I'll get the 24L II or sigma 50 someday.......

For me the question is, how does it compare with the old non-IS 35mm f2? I have this, and use it on a 60D and 100D. I'm continually surprised by its sharpness. I know iw is not the lens to use for video, but that's OK because I don't do video. I also understand that the new IS lens is better than the older non-IS lens. But how much better? Basically, would it be worth the significant cost of upgrading?

The 35IS makes the old lens obsolete. Better IQ, better build, plus IS and USM. As I have said before, it is Canon's top non-L prime lens.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Here you go, Al...

And there's the thing. I hope you're not offended Abu, but those pictures just don't excite me the way that 135L shots excite me, or Nikkor 50 f1.2, Sigma 50 (although I wouldn't take a chance on it!) or even the lowly 40mm f2.8, discarded above because it didn't match some physical measurements of another lens. There are plenty of images in 35L galleries that are super-impressive and inspiring to me; hardly any in the 35IS galleries. They just don't display the same depth and liveliness as the 35L.

So it might be sharp, and it might be useful in low light, it might be compact and light, but it still doesn't float my boat. "Almost flawless" is a bit of an overstatement.

Yeah, ok, Al. You are, after all, one and the same fellow who faulted another member's majestic image of a bridge taken with the 35IS for lacking the depth of the 35L. It seems to me that you are one of those for whom the determation of whether an image is good or worthy of your admiration hangs on whether it's got thin DoF or it was taken with an L lens. As I said on that other thread, "Al, give us a break."

On your beloved 35L (a lens i owned, sold and then eschewed in favor of the 35IS) two of those images would have been blotchier and grainier for they were at ISO2500 after 3 stops of IS at 1/5 shutter speed. The 35L would have returned ISO10000 images.

Now, if you wish to continue along your line of thinking, i invite you to post images taken with the 35L at f/2 or slower that in your estimation cannot be obtained with the 35IS. Show us your images, Al.

That's pretty much what I expected - apologies for upsetting you Abu.

I have ordered both of these lenses and will test them to see which one works better for my particular needs (low light, fast action). Interesting thread, as well.