They won't be on the very edges of the corner as well.

But that's the thing.. How edgy are the edges?!

Hey, i'm in your corner. After the first trip to the repair center, it actually became usable lens.

I make no exaggerations- it was completely 'broken' as sold. I have been caught by that a number of times from canon, and its unnerving.

When first returned, they didn't bother to fix the scratch on the front element (from first purchase), and upon the second return , it's very usable. I like it because it has the same field of view as the EFM 22/f2. However, i feel like this setup (on FF body) gains more distortion closer up to subjects than the crop.

The ghosting thankful has been minimized now, and i have enough confidence to use it on critical shoots. In the end, this lens simply has nothing on the stalwart 50 1.4 besides IS. Nada. I wish it was at least sharp in the center though :(

Vignetting is not "very bad" nor "extreme". That's an exaggeration.

Thanks Toni Salmonelli.

My comment was primarily directed to Father Bouvier for his sweeping statements. I wanted to know specifically which images in the gallery could highlight the issues he claimed as on a cursory glance I could not see the issues.

I have the 28 IS, 35 IS and 35 f1.4L II. I prefer the 28 IS for street / landscape photography. The 28 IS has more of a planar design (flat field) while the 35 IS has a light field curvature with the front corners being a little sharper. Both are sharp in the center wide open. By f7.1 the corners are equally sharp. I hardly use the 35 1.4L. It's the sharpest out of the 3, but it gets heavy after a while.

I have both. The 28 f/2.8 IS is sharper and has higher contrast, and it's smaller and lighter. But the 35 f/2 IS can do shallow DOF, although to be honest it's rarely shallow enough, and the results I get from the 35 are nice but never special. Other than the shallow DOF and extra stop for low light, the photos from 28 grab the eye better.
It's a tough call but I think the best way to go is 28 f/2.8 IS paired with a fast 50.

The 1.8? It has awful CA that makes the lens unusable in many backlit situations. The bokeh, sorry but it's not that great, specially with busy backgrounds. And until f2.2 it's not that sharp.
The 1.2 again is not really that sharp until you get to f1.8

They were great lenses for less demanding cameras. But for +30mp, they need a little update.

The 85 has a tendency for PF in extremely high contrast situations, but in real life I have only seen that in white on dark shooting wide open in bright sunlight. I rarely shoot in light like this and if I do I stop down or use another lens. If you shoot wedding for a living then just take the 85 L, other people just don't shoot in that kind of light.

As for sharpness, I must disagree strongly. From 2.8 on it is so sharp even on 50MP that it beats some much more expensive lenses. Wide open it is still very good. Which $300 f1.8 Lens is better? The Bokeh is a very subjective matter but I am surprised you disagree so much with me in this aspect. Even on very busy backgrounds, backlit tree leaves and such I have always have a creamy bokeh. Almost all of the other lenses I had or have were much worse.

For me a 85 1.8 IS with more sharpness wide, less PF but a $1.000 price tag and an ugly bokeh like the 35L II I would not see as an improvement of this very fine budget lens.

I've seen the PF on a campaign shoot. 90% of the images of the models with backlight had very visible PF even in lower resolutions.

And from 2.8, the lens is very sharp, but it's a 1.8 lens... Other brands offer much better 1.8 solutions. Are they $300? No. But they work from 1.8 to 2.8....

The problem with the canon is that you have a great 85 2.8, but not a very good 1.8. I've used the lens for years. f2.2 was the maximum I would go with it..

@breschdlingsgsaelz
Both Canon's 85s are film-era designs. The 85/1.2 is very little changed since the 1970s. PAntunes is right, these lenses are not competitive with modern designs.

I believe an 85/1.4 EF is rumoured? You will see the difference when you compare those two. It's very easy to imagine something is a good as it can be when you don't compare it with anything else.

Thanks and yes I meant aperture :) I am testing it and it seems to be 7.1 so far.

The best center resolution is at f/4, the best corner - f/5.6
http://www.lenstip.com/365.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

To say its a general purpose lens is no excuse for anything. What's the point of wide lenses if they are lame wide open? 500 dollar general purpose? Cmon man.

When you build a lens, the hope is that you're building the best at the price you can sell it for. This lens, is certainly not that. It's okay, with extra crappy bokeh.

I honestly bought it out of necessity, and it's just not a terribly impressive piece of kit. When the lil gem 22/f2 has wayyyy more color and rendering character than a 500 dollar lens, yeah, they did something wrong here. And i dont appreciate these reviewers just ignoring the lens problems. I found out about these issues after purchase. Thanks for nothing, guys. That goes for this site and Dustin Abbot @ CR. No mention of these issues.

Dont even get me started on the ghosting...its ridiculous.

Well Edward if you are that fed up with the lens why don't you just ditch it and try the Tamron F1.8 or put up with the cost and weight of the F1.4's?

I guess I grew up in the film era when next to no lenses were any good at their maximum aperture compared to stopped down a couple of stops. Having the maximum aperture of F1.4, F1.8 or F2 available was almost a kind of bonus that let you get some sort of shot in poor light but the main advantage was a brighter viewfinder and easier focusing.

Today while we can get excellent performance wide open with F1.4 lenses there is still a trade off. For sure it is size, weight and cost but also can be as you stop down the performance drops off quicker. They have not squared this circle yet.

Given your obvious disdain for this lens and the fact it annoys you so much I think it would be good for your blood pressure if you sold it :)

What camera did it hunt on, it could be the AF of the camera. Won't do that on a 5D4 for example and yes it is sharp wide open, certainly sharp enough. How do you know it wasn't back/front focusing. Most people know this is a great little lens and not just for size or IS>

Everything IQ related is overrated. Ask the ~5 billion cell phone users.

I shoot mostly with a FF 6D body and a 24-105 lens, but I'm also in it for quality of experience and not just results, and as I mentioned in my post above, the 35 and 50 have given me wonderful experiences. The 24-105 is certainly more universally useful - it guarantees better coverage at events, but the 35/50 are just so charming and fun to shoot with. With those lenses I just feel more engaged. Same when I'm shooting stage events with the Canon 135mm F2 instead of a long zoom - it just feels like a more focused experience, and it definitely affects the quality of the pix. I think we talk too little about that - how mental states (calmness, concentration, and what the HeartMath people call heart-brain entrainment) affect our photography.

Its actually not that small a lens, not like a 40 pancake is anyway. It is however light enough that it rarely leaves my bag. In 'bang per buck' terms its been a great lens for me and i've rarely found it in anyway limiting.

I have both the 16-35F4LIS and the 35IS to go with a 6D. The 16-35 actually has very good IQ at 35mm-difference is acceptably small even at f/4, and becomes even less as you stop down--but it's much longer, heavier and two stops slower. The 35mm+6D package is light and handles very well, albeit not at the "almost a compact camera" level that the 40mm enables.

The $1700 lens was better than the $600 lens? You're kidding right? lol

Crazy, right!?
To me, it's more about delivering on what's unique. And the 35mm f/2 IS didn't deliver sharpness at its unique wide-open aperture.
Also, at launch, it was an $850 lens.

I have it for a year now, and I can confirm that it's not tack sharp @2.0. It's acceptable, but it could be a bit better.

Photozone sharpness results here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1

This lens was priced much higher at launch and sold like hotcakes... Which were being crapped on by rodents. Once they lowered the price, sales took off.

@ Cary Rose

See my comment about this lens. It's nowhere as good as these articles state.

As far as Im concerned, if you're not mentioning the rather crap bokeh and the ghosting effects, and the flat color and sparse rendering character, then you're doing a disservice to the readers.

AND it's not sharp wide open, which is the worst part.

The old hat 50 14 massacres this lens @ 2.8, and that's why its stuck to my 5d3. Unfortunately this is a lens that is ways better than the original, but barely deserves any praise and is too freaking expensive for what you get.

@ozturert: Yes, the Tamron 35/1.8 adds weather sealing and a third of a stop, while the Pentax-FA 35/2 (plus IBIS on K-mount) is $200 cheaper.