Which 35mm?

<p>I've been going through Canon's selection of 35mm focal length lenses. I will be using this focal length for documentary and journalistic purposes. The body that I'll be using is the 5D Mark II. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Mark </p>

<p>Mark, I presume you're asking for recommendations for a prime, since you've specified only the 35mm focal length. The EF 35/1.4 L is a marvellous lens and one of my favourites, but it is pricey. I have heard that the much cheaper EF 35/2 is quite good as well, but I've never used it.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 35mm f/2 is an old design and makes a fairly quiet buzzing noise when auto-focusing due to the old-fashioned non-USM focus motor, but it's a very good lens for the price and it doesn't cost much ($300 or so new). My copy is surprisingly sharp wide open in the center and has good color and contrast. Optically, its worst feature is its five-bladed aperture, which produces pentagonal bokeh, but that may not be your biggest concern for documentary work.</p>

<p>The EF 35mm f/1.4L is a better lens, but it costs 4x the price. It's also significantly larger and heavier, and actually has somewhat worse CA than the cheap f/2 lens according to published tests.</p>

<p>hi Mark Pierlot :) yes, I'm researching primes. So one vote for the EF 35/1.4 =^)<br>

Craig, I'm surprised the 35/1.4L has worse CA ? It should be correctable with Canon software, I hope. <br>

</p>

<p>I have the 35mm f/2 and have found it to be very useful. Despite its age in design, it works well in low light.</p>

<p>From the SLRGear.com review of the Canon EF 35mm f/2:</p>

<p>"At a price of about $250, the Canon 35mm f/2 lens is a winner. In a few words, here's why. In blur tests, it's a standoff with the Canon 35mm f/1.4 ($1150) and measurably better than the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX ($420). The Canon f/2 slightly outperforms the other two lenses in both chromatic aberration and geometric distortion comparisons. And it (Canon f/2) holds its own quite well in the light fall-off measurements against the other two lenses."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/147/cat/10">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/147/cat/10</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>Aloha, Mark! Sorry, but if I was in your shoes, I would purchase the 24mm F1.4 L II instead. In all situations, it is better to have a little wider angle and to crop if needed, then to cut off shoulders and ends with the 35mm. In the end, too, there is piece of mind knowing you already have one of canon's finest to work with instead of getting a lesser grade model and not being happy or wanting to experience the "L" lens anyway.</p>

<p>Both lenses (35 f/2 and 35 f/1.4) will give you good results. I used to have both with my EOS 1V, and the f/2 was great due to its small size; it makes for a much lighter overall package if you are going to carry the camera on your shoulder the whole day.<br>

The f/1.4 is overall a better lens; one stop of extra light/speed can make a big difference either practically, or aesthetically. If you have the money, and do not worry about the extra weight, go with the 35 f/1.4.</p>

<p>Thank you JDM, Craig, Eddie (aloha!), and Paulo =) <br>

Eddie, the 24mm sounds tempting. <br>

I wonder if Zeiss makes a 35mm for Canon Eos mount?</p>

<p>I have both lenses and a 5D also. For Journalism and Documentary purposes I would usually choose the 35/2 for use on my 5D - and I would remove the Battery Pack from the camera, normally. I bought the 35/2 because I wanted it specifically for unobtrusive street / journalistic / reportage work – and there were a few other considerations, but that was the main reason I bought the 35/2, already owning the 35L – which is basically the main thrust of your question.</p>

<p>I am not too concerned about the measuring or lossing sleep over any IQ differences between the two lenses when used at sensible Apertures for Documentary work - your description of "Documentary" might be different to mine - I like "unobtrusive": the 35L + (Lens hood) on a 5D is "obtrusive" IMO. I use the 35/2 without any lens hood, usually.</p>

<p>If I only could have one of the two, I would choose the 35/1.4L, because mostly above all else I value Lens Speed and I do not do “Journalistic” work as my main fare - I do use F1.4 lenses at really large apertures.</p>

<p>Maybe it is worthwhile mentioning I also owned the 24LMkII when I bought the 35/2 – perhaps if I had the time over again I might have purchased the 24LMkII and the 35/2 – that would be a good pair and satisfy my need for a fast wide lens – that would have saved me money, also. So in this regard you need to consider what other lenses you have, as I think it is important to consider the whole kit and how it all works together – and not just think about a one lens purchase.</p>

<p>Anyway, my 35/2 is often being borrowed –and before I use it I seek to have it returned – but that is another story.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>After posting I just read Eddie's comment about the 24LMkII.

<p>

<p>Basically that is my sentiment also, I would rather have a little wider.

<p>

<p>I use the 24L on my 5D more than I use my 35L on my 5D for street work . . . if I gotta carry a big lens then I want it to get everything in shot and I can play “crop the shot”, later:

<p>

<p>Shot from the hip, cropped later - the 24L on a 5D: "My Favourite Barista": <a href="../photo/11164431&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11164431&size=lg</a>

<p>

<p>WW

 

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Yes, Zeiss does have a 35mm f/2 Distagon for Canon EF mount. Manual focus only, but that aside it seems competitive. Here are two reviews:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/503-zeiss35f2eosff">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/503-zeiss35f2eosff</a><br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1145/cat/98">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1145/cat/98</a><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Basically that is my sentiment also, I would rather have a little wider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For some situations, sure. That's always the issue when choosing a single prime, isn't it? 35mm is nice because it's usable as a standard lens (just a bit wider framing) but also usable as a moderate wide angle. But I don't think Mark has told us enough about the work he plans to do for us to be able to second-guess his choice of focal lengths.</p>

<p>>>> I wonder if Zeiss makes a 35mm for Canon Eos mount?</p>

<p>Yes, Zeiss does. It's their 35mm f/2 ZE Distagon. And it's what I use on my 5DII for street photography and street portraiture. A lot of pix <a href="http://www.citysnaps.net/blog">here.</a></p>

<p>The 35mm f/2 has the advantages of fine optical quality, small size and weight, low price. The disadvantages are minor: need to manually switch between AF and MF modes, you won't look really cool using such an unobtrusive lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Isn't looking cool the whole point of PJ work?</p>

<p>Hello William; <br>

As long as the IQ difference between the 35L & the 35/2 isn't a big concern, then i will have to decide in favor of the 35/2. I do intend to use it for J & D work, and coming from a rangefinder background, the stealthy qualities of equipment play a large role. </p>

<p>Looking cool is effortless in PJ work, Craig =)<br>

Ah, the Zeiss is in 35mm? Lovely. MF, though, but still, wow.</p>

 

<p>Hello Mark B:</p>

<p>The AF on the 35/2 is a little noisier but only noticeable in quiet surrounds, the DoF scale on the lens barrel is more useful than many on modern lenses - if you use Manual zone focus technique or manual pre focus it will be helpful though I know what I get at F/8 and I guess you do too.</p>

<p>I suspect any <em><strong>"second guessing"</strong></em> I did on this thread - and thus the information I provided was worthwhile after all? :)</p>

<p>I am sure the 35/2 will give you good service.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>I have tried both, and found the 35mm f/1.4 was fabulous, and seemed much better than the f/2. On photodo you can see reviews on both lenses, with the 1.4 getting a higher rating than the f/2 (4.72 to 4.05), but of course there is no definitive answer from one source.</p>

<p>If you are very finicky about IQ, and/or hope to make exhibition quality prints, I would highly recommend the f/1.4. Otherwise get the f/2 if convenience and/or price are more important.</p>

 

<p>Definitely was worthwhile, William W. thank you :)<br>

Mac Moss, I'm leaning towards the f/2 for the convenience. The IQ isn't terrible, either. Thank you for your eval of both lenses; it's very helpful =)</p>