Choosing between EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM

I’m looking to get my first fast prime lens, as I really want to have better quality low light photos and video. My current EF-S lenses only go to f/4 (kit 18-55mm IS STM and 55-250mm IS STM), and I’m not very comfortable using my T7i any higher than 800 or 1600 ISO. I‘ve lately been mostly, but not exclusively, shooting events and live music, and I’m finding that my setup’s low light capabilities are the weakest point right now (a new camera is way out of my budget at the moment).

Image stabilization is a hard requirement as I shoot almost exclusively handheld or with a gimbal, and so I’ve narrowed my choices down to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM and the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. They’re the only IS lenses I’ve been able to find within my price range (about $300 refurbished from MPB or KEH), and are in the range of focal lengths that would be most useful and flexible to me.

I’ve mostly set my mind on the EF lens (the longer focal length on my APC-S camera would be helpful for events where I might not be able to get close up to the subjects, and the f/2 aperture would be wonderful to make use of), however, I’m concerned about the old autofocus system for video. I’m having trouble understanding the documentation for the older ring-type USM autofocus, and I’m not very familiar with how they work. Does this lens have the same continuous tracking autofocus that my newer STM lenses have, or is it only one shot, and I would constantly need to be manually readjusting it? This is particularly important for video, and while on a gimbal, where both the subject and me are moving all around and I need the focus to be constantly adjusting for that.

Aside from that, is the old focus motor too noisy to use for video? I don’t need very high quality audio for the content I’m currently making, but I currently record with either the onboard microphone or a mounted shotgun mic, and so I don’t want the focus motor to be noisily whirring in all of my footage.

Those two concerns are what make me hesitant about the EF lens and lean me toward the EF-S, but I’d really like to have something that’s as bright as possible, to give me the flexibility to use faster shutter speeds and lower ISO, so any advice that would assuage my concerns about the EF f/2 would be very helpful.

Thank you,

Ezra

(I hope this post wasn’t too lengthy, this is my first time posting to DPReview.)

Torschlusspanik wrote:

I’m looking to get my first fast prime lens, as I really want to have better quality low light photos and video. My current EF-S lenses only go to f/4 (kit 18-55mm IS STM and 55-250mm IS STM), and I’m not very comfortable using my T7i any higher than 800 or 1600 ISO. I‘ve lately been mostly, but not exclusively, shooting events and live music, and I’m finding that my setup’s low light capabilities are the weakest point right now (a new camera is way out of my budget at the moment).

Image stabilization is a hard requirement as I shoot almost exclusively handheld or with a gimbal, and so I’ve narrowed my choices down to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM and the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. They’re the only IS lenses I’ve been able to find within my price range (about $300 refurbished from MPB or KEH), and are in the range of focal lengths that would be most useful and flexible to me.

I’ve mostly set my mind on the EF lens (the longer focal length

The focal length will be identical on your camera - 35mm is 35mm, period. ANY 35mm lens fitted to your APS-C body will have an effective FF FoV of a 35 x 1.6 = 56mm lens. So both of these 35mm lenses will have identical (at least theoretically) focal lengths and FoV on your camera.

on my APC-S camera would be helpful for events where I might not be able to get close up to the subjects, and the f/2 aperture would be wonderful to make use of), however, I’m concerned about the old autofocus system for video.

Old AF system ? AFAIK the AF system on the EF 35mm f2 IS is a modern AF system and works well. Maybe you are referring to the quietness of the STM AF system which may be better for video ? I don't know because I don't shoot video at all.

There is nothing wrong with the AF on my EF 35mm f2 IS - it works just fine (for stills at least).

I’m having trouble understanding the documentation for the older ring-type USM autofocus, and I’m not very familiar with how they work. Does this lens have the same continuous tracking autofocus that my newer STM lenses have, or is it only one shot, and I would constantly need to be manually readjusting it? This is particularly important for video, and while on a gimbal, where both the subject and me are moving all around and I need the focus to be constantly adjusting for that.

I am sure that there are different ring-style USM systems, but broadly the USM AF is widely used on EF lenses, including many L series lenses. To my knowledge all of my EF lenses (24-105L ii, 100-400L ii, 35mm f2 IS, & 100L f2.8 Macro) all use the ring-style USM, and in most cases it is faster and more accurate than STM, but it can be noisier.

Aside from that, is the old focus motor too noisy to use for video?

I wouldn't think so, but it may depend on the lens and the quietness of the video setting ?

Are you perhaps getting confused with the much older EF 35mm f2 (non-IS) lens ?

I don’t need very high quality audio for the content I’m currently making, but I currently record with either the onboard microphone or a mounted shotgun mic, and so I don’t want the focus motor to be noisily whirring in all of my footage.

Those two concerns are what make me hesitant about the EF lens and lean me toward the EF-S, but I’d really like to have something that’s as bright as possible, to give me the flexibility to use faster shutter speeds and lower ISO, so any advice that would assuage my concerns about the EF f/2 would be very helpful.

Perhaps this could be useful;

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1133&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thank you,

Ezra

(I hope this post wasn’t too lengthy, this is my first time posting to DPReview.)

In general, macro lenses are often not known for their fast and silent AF but maybe the EF-S 35mm f2.8 Macro is an exception - I have never used one ?

The two lenses do have a number of other differences, with the EF being quite a lot larger, heavier and particularly so with a hood fitted. It is not a large lens however, just larger and heavier than the EF-S. The filter thread of the EF-S is much smaller.

The EF-S lens does have a much smaller MFD and goes to 1:1 for macro, which may or may not be important for you.

If low light is concern, take the f/2 option

Andy01 wrote:

Torschlusspanik wrotr

Are you perhaps getting confused with the much older EF 35mm f2 (non-IS) lens ?

I have the old 35mm f2 no IS lens. It's an ok performer for still.

However for video the focus motor is definately too loud.

Torschlusspanik wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Torschlusspanik wrote:

I’m looking to get my first fast prime lens, as I really want to have better quality low light photos and video. My current EF-S lenses only go to f/4 (kit 18-55mm IS STM and 55-250mm IS STM), and I’m not very comfortable using my T7i any higher than 800 or 1600 ISO. I‘ve lately been mostly, but not exclusively, shooting events and live music, and I’m finding that my setup’s low light capabilities are the weakest point right now (a new camera is way out of my budget at the moment).

Image stabilization is a hard requirement as I shoot almost exclusively handheld or with a gimbal, and so I’ve narrowed my choices down to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM and the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. They’re the only IS lenses I’ve been able to find within my price range (about $300 refurbished from MPB or KEH), and are in the range of focal lengths that would be most useful and flexible to me.

I’ve mostly set my mind on the EF lens (the longer focal length

The focal length will be identical on your camera - 35mm is 35mm, period. ANY 35mm lens fitted to your APS-C body will have an effective FF FoV of a 35 x 1.6 = 56mm lens. So both of these 35mm lenses will have identical (at least theoretically) focal lengths and FoV on your camera.

Really? I must have horribly misunderstood how crop sensor focal lengths work.

Probably you have.

I had thought that lenses for APS-C cameras, for example, EF-S, were modified or calculated differently so that, for example, an EF-S lens listed as 35mm when used on an APS-C camera would have the same field of view as a 35mm EF lens on a full frame camera.

No no no... The focal length number on a lens is always a full frame equivalent. All manufacturers do so.

I thought that full frame lenses didn't have this adjustment, so if you used a 35mm full frame lens on an APS-C camera it would have a field of view equivalent to that focal length times whatever the sensor's crop factor is (such as 1.5 or 1.6).

Correct.

If this isn't the case, then, aside from market segmentation, what is the point of having a dedicated lineup of APS-C lenses if they have the same field of view as the lenses designed for full frame cameras?

Smaller image circle. That gives the space for APS-C lenses to be smaller, lighter, cheaper.

Sittatunga wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

Torschlusspanik wrote:

Andy01 wrote:

Torschlusspanik wrote:

I’m looking to get my first fast prime lens, as I really want to have better quality low light photos and video. My current EF-S lenses only go to f/4 (kit 18-55mm IS STM and 55-250mm IS STM), and I’m not very comfortable using my T7i any higher than 800 or 1600 ISO. I‘ve lately been mostly, but not exclusively, shooting events and live music, and I’m finding that my setup’s low light capabilities are the weakest point right now (a new camera is way out of my budget at the moment).

Image stabilization is a hard requirement as I shoot almost exclusively handheld or with a gimbal, and so I’ve narrowed my choices down to the EF-S 35mm f/2.8 IS STM and the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. They’re the only IS lenses I’ve been able to find within my price range (about $300 refurbished from MPB or KEH), and are in the range of focal lengths that would be most useful and flexible to me.

I’ve mostly set my mind on the EF lens (the longer focal length

The focal length will be identical on your camera - 35mm is 35mm, period. ANY 35mm lens fitted to your APS-C body will have an effective FF FoV of a 35 x 1.6 = 56mm lens. So both of these 35mm lenses will have identical (at least theoretically) focal lengths and FoV on your camera.

Really? I must have horribly misunderstood how crop sensor focal lengths work.

Probably you have.

I had thought that lenses for APS-C cameras, for example, EF-S, were modified or calculated differently so that, for example, an EF-S lens listed as 35mm when used on an APS-C camera would have the same field of view as a 35mm EF lens on a full frame camera.

No no no... The focal length number on a lens is always a full frame equivalent. All manufacturers do so.

No, for interchangeable lenses it's always the actual focal length in mm or inches, never a full frame equivalent. My RX100 uses full frame equivalent when it describes its 10.4-27.1mm lens as 28-100mm but every interchangeable lens that I've ever used gave its actual focal length. That's very important when the same lens mount supports different sensor formats as it means that, for the same sensor size, you can compare focal lengths and fields of view directly no matter what sensor size the lens was originally designed for (as long as it wasn't smaller than the sensor you're using)..

I should have written "FL on FF" instead of "equivalent". But I suppose my point is clear.

I thought that full frame lenses didn't have this adjustment, so if you used a 35mm full frame lens on an APS-C camera it would have a field of view equivalent to that focal length times whatever the sensor's crop factor is (such as 1.5 or 1.6).

Correct.

If this isn't the case, then, aside from market segmentation, what is the point of having a dedicated lineup of APS-C lenses if they have the same field of view as the lenses designed for full frame cameras?

Smaller image circle. That gives the space for APS-C lenses to be smaller, lighter, cheaper.