Canon ef 35mm f/2. Did I get a bad one or am I expecting too much

Hi all,

 

I just got my canon 35 f/2, and I am a bit dissappointed. It seems to be very soft from f/2 to f/4-ish. The issue seems to be more noticable with AF on. Could I have gotten a bad copy or am I expecting too much from this lens? I bought it for the speed,but if the lens is no good wide open, I really see no point in owning this lens. Then I think I'd rather return it and trade my 17-85 for a 17-55 f/2.8 instead.

 

So, what do you Think of this?

 

Renards,

Morten

<p>My copy of the 35 f/2 isn't terribly sharp wide open. But it's not a terribly expensive lens and I didn't expect total sharpness at f/2</p>

<p><Chas></p>

<p>I evaluate my images based on my print size needs. As my 35mm f/2 hasn't been used very often and even less often for making prints, I couldn't care less about pixel peeping the images I take with it. So for me, it's a perfectly fine lens. </p>

<p>[[i bought it for the speed,but if the lens is no good wide open, I really see no point in owning this lens.]]</p>

<p>You appear to have made up your mind already, so I'm assuming you're just posting in order to have people validate your opinion?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue seems to be more noticable with AF on.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In that case you have a focus issue, not a lens sharpness issue</p>

@Rob,

 

No, I have not. I am still a rookie, and I genuinely do not know what to expect from the 35mm. Thus I am unable to judge

whether the lens i faulty or just performs as expected. And as I said, I wanted the speed. I am not that interested in its

perfomance from at f/5.6 and on.

 

Regards,

Morten

@Bob.

 

Tanks. I think I will explore this possibility further with some more controlled tests.

 

Regards,

Morten

<p>[[in that case you have a focus issue, not a lens sharpness issue]]</p>

<p>Which could be a lack of understanding/experience with shallow DoF? </p>

<p>[[No, I have not. I am still a rookie, and I genuinely do not know what to expect from the 35mm.]]</p>

<p>I would recommend more testing.</p>

<p>[[Thus I am unable to judge whether the lens i faulty or just performs as expected.]]</p>

<p>Would you not judge it against your requirements for your images? Web-based snapshots or wall-sized prints? What are your actual needs? Pixel-peeping is a waste of time and energy if you don't know how you're going to be using the images.</p>

<p>My 35 f/2 isn't all that great at f/2 and f2.8, but it's not too bad. I also have a feeling that the AF (5D and 5D Mark II) may have something to do with the apparent unsharpness... even though the AF is never all that great with f/2 and faster lenses, it does seem to work better on 100 f/2 than the 35 f/2.</p>

@Rob,

 

I think I know DoF- but softness is at the focus point/points as well.

 

Regarding pixel peeping: this is not an interest of mine. The softness I see is almost visible on the camera screen.

 

Finally, I hear you on the testing.

 

 

:-) Morten

<p>It's certainly possible that the lens is front or back focusing, which is easy to confirm (or reject) with a tripod and a little bit of time. If you have a 7D, 50D, or 5D2, you may be able to remedy that problem with sufficient AF microadjustment, so it is worth finding out.</p>

<p>But I think you should trade it in, and sell your 17-85 to get a 17-55/2.8 IS (or a tamron 17-50/2.8 - just as sharp and 1/3 the cost). zoom land is not that bad a place to be these days, and, as you said, if you can't get sharp images at f2->f2.8, there's no point in using the 35/2 over the 17-55/2.8. plus, then you aren't limited to one focal length (what a bore!)</p>

<p>OTOH, a 35/2 on a crop sensor camera <em>should </em>be very sharp, even @f2 & f2.2. maybe you want to try another?</p>

<p>I have a 1990 EF 35 2.0 and it is very sharp in the center at F2, not so much in the corners. It is a lot sharper wide open than the several EF 50 1.8 I have owned. I also have the EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM and both are very close at 35mm/F2.8. That is to say, the zoom is pretty darn good. The main advantage of the prime is it is tiny and light whereas the zoom is a mini bazooka and costs 4 times more. Oddly prime IQ is a little better at close focus. However zoom AF is faster and more surefooted in low light and the IS feature is worth every penny extra if you like to hand hold your shots. My 17-55 review:<br>

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs17-55.htm</p>

<p>The Canon 35mm f2.0 is known for being sharp in centre but soft in the corners. Mine, on a 5D II, is pretty darn good in the centre even at f2.0 but the corners are pretty bad wide open and it takes all the way to f5.6 to get the corners looking good. Still it works well for me as I find the close minimum focusing distance and nice bokeh wide open with a sharp centre makes for some very nice creative shots. I've seen it mentioned a number of times that the 35mm f2 is comparable to the 35mm f1.4 "L" in the centre but that the corners of the f1.4 are far superior especially wide open.</p>

<p>What Peter says. I am at the moment debating whether to get this lens, and so have been looking at reviews and tests. Here's what I found...</p>

<p>the review<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

the tests<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=122&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0</a><br>

on the test chart, play with the f values and compare the differences</p>

<p>If you look at the comparisons, (be sure to choose the same camera when you choose a comparative lens) the 35mm is ALWAYS sharp dead center, but wide open is very soft at the corners, even softer than the zoom I compared it with. However, as you stop down, the tide changes and the corner sharpness significantly improves at f/4 and f/5.6. I would be using this lens mostly stopped down for landscape so the wide open sharpness isn't a big deal for me. I know, the 17-40mm (which I already have) and the 35mm have negligible real world difference in IQ, but I always produce better photos with a prime. I guess the whole, "I have to be more creative" thing kicks in and I can no longer be lazy by zooming.</p>

The 35mm f/2.0 is a great lens. <P>

 

I worked on a photojournalistic <a href= "http://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/213998">project</a> last year with a friend where half

the photos were shot with a 35 f/2.0, the other half with a 35 f/1.4. Outside of a couple portraits shot wide

open with background greatly thrown out, I would challenge anybody to accurately pick which photos were from which lens.

<p>I bought 35/2 lens and went to shop next day to test two more pieces. One was as bad as mine and the third was superb at stops 4 and 5.6. 90% of shots I do with this lens. Nevertheless at stops 2 and 2.8 it is not very sharp, but the scenes I take at these settings do not require much sharpness (for instance street in the night). The problem with Canon is that they do not test products individually (maybe they test L types?). BTW if You do not use zoom You have to walk and this is the right path to follow.</p>

>>> The problem with Canon is that they do not test products individually (maybe they test L types?)

 

Really? May I ask for more details on that?

<p>I'm sure Canon don't do optical tests on every single lens. In general manufacturing once you have a production line setup for consumer goods you usually do sample testing, say 1 out of every 10 or 100 items. If you find a bad one then you check to see what's going wrong on the line. I'm sure it would be too expensive to put every single lens consumer lens on an optical bench and run it through a battery of optical tests. I guess they might do simple tests to make sure the electronics work and that there's nothing grossly wrong.</p>

<p>I suspect that some of the more expensive lenses <em>are</em> individually tested though.</p>

<p>BTW for the original poster - you might find something useful on these pages I wrote describing how to test a lens: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/testing_lenses.html">Did You Get a Good One</a>?</p>

<p>This is response for Brad.<br>

I can recommend raport on test of several lenses (50/1.4) from Canon done at optyczne.pl (international version is lens.tip?).</p>

<p>I was terribly dissapointed with my 35mm f2 when I first got it. Outdoors the colors were muted and sharpness below f5.6 was very questionalble. I was expecting something closer to my plasticky 50mm f1.8 which beats this lens hands dow. Indoors this lens does shine even with large apertures, the colors are contrasty and snappy, the only problem is the noise. This lens is very noisy , but for the price you can't complain too much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can recommend raport on test of several lenses (50/1.4) from Canon done at optyczne.pl</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a bunch of "user" tests. What does that have to do with individual product testing at the manufacturing plant?</p>

<p>ALthough I love the 35mm focal length, and use a Leica 35 f2, with all its inconveniences on a 5D2, I bought the EF 35 f2. If I need really great edges and corners, I use the Leica. I got the EF 35 because I had too many family shots and fun stuff that, although not critically important, needed autofocus. I found manual focus for quick shots, even w Live View, too cumbersome. For light carry, it's unbeatable.</p>

<p>Here are some shots comparing my 35EF/2 to a 35/1.4L, which I rented a few years ago to see if it was worth the money to me. My EF is pretty impressive considering the cost. It was the small size that won me over. These are made on the original 5D:<br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/53604458@N00/sets/72157604840499721/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/53604458@N00/sets/72157604840499721/</a></p>

<p>The 35 F2 is not a bad lens as it is cheap and compact. I find that I do not use mine very much as my copy is really not much better than my 24-70 F2.8 zoom. Of course my 24-70 is a lot more expensive but the 35 F2 is perhaps not the best performing prime in the Canon line up. My 50 f1.4 and 85 F1.8 are clearly better than the zoom and were also not that expensive.</p>