beauh44 Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Yep, I did a search and came up with zilch. Does anyone have any first-hand experience with the Canon 35mm f/2 lens? I see it gets a very respectable 3.9 rating from Photodo and its MTF chart on Canon's page looks pretty good too. The 35mm 1.4L ($1,119 at B&H) barely squeaked by, performance-wise with a score of 4.0. It appears the 35mm f/2 does not have USM and is a stop slower, but it's $220. (I could get 5 of 'em for the cost of the 1.4L!) I'd love to see a sample shot or two taken with this lens wide open so I could check out the OOF areas - if anybody has one handy. Thanks very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Beau, i bought one used and the focus has never been quite right on it in manual, and it is loud and noisy in autofocus. i think the manual problem is unique to my lens. it takes exquisite photos, on par with any prime. i think its a very good choice for portraits with some environmental influences. it does not show distortion like the 24/2.8. the fast aperture is really handy indoors. with the light weight i've had success indoors at 1/30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bens Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 that's handheld 1/30. i think the blacksmith shop photo in my architecture, etc. folder was taken with it. i don't use it a lot, but when i do its very good optically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Thanks Ben - did you mean to post a shot? I can't find it! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_swanson Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 This lens has been much discussed in the Canon Lens forum over at dpreview.com. The reviews have been glowing enough that I want to buy one. But go there and ask the people who own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 D'oh - gotcha - architecture folder. But I just went to look (nice shots btw!) and didn't find any taken with the 35mm - perhaps there was one which did not have the lens listed. I'll check out the other forum too. If any wide-open shots are out there somewhere, I'd love to see them. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_lam Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 It is a bit noisy but it takes great pictures. I have never used the 1.4 but this thing is SOO much cheaper and SOOO much smaller. It is a great discreet lens to carry around for street shooting. You can also get really close.. I think the closest focusing distance is .25m. Great lens and if you don't need the extra speed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I've owned one for 9 years and it's one of my fav lenses for film and among my sharpest and most flare free. I don't like it nearly as much on my 10D (1.6x messed up things). The motor does make a soft sound I'd describe as pianissimo. It certainly ain't noisy and is softer than my EF 50 1.8 (MKI)! An 8008S or N90 driving an AF lens is noisy. You can hear it in a silent room but it's inaudible on the street or surf side. Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 This page has links to subjective review of both lens your interested in, with some comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 23, 2005 Author Share Posted January 23, 2005 Thanks everyone! I'm not a big fan of that 5-sided "star" (due to the 5 aperture blades) in the OOF areas - but the price is right! I'll have to sleep on this one. (ouch!) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I use it quite a bit. Seems to be a fine lens, a bit slow on the focus and, like all the non-USM lenses I've used, a bit balky at focusing in low light. I'd ignore those photodo ratings, I've never seen anything in them that correlates to what someone might do really shooting. Here's a pic.<p> <center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/roots/images/roots4.jpg"><br><i>Roots at the Fillmore, EOS 35/2, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</i></center> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_ho Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I own one for 5yr. Except the noisy (compare to USM) focus, It's perfect. Practically flareless, small and light, really close-up (0.25X). It's be reviewed at "the 37th frame" with exceptional comment, compared to Leica, Zeiss, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklights Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Beau, if you got to Pbase.com and use the search engine you'll get tones of example shots. That's one of the places I use most researching actual lens shots. I won't say all the pictures have any artistic merit, but even a bad art shot can help determine lens quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west_cork Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I love mine, both with film and with my 20D. Use it wide open all the time. Great boke. Even if I get a 35mm 1.4 some day I will never sell the 35mm f/2. See this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00A25Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jreades Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 <p>I bought mine used for about $120 from B&H and it's a flat out great lens for street and low-light shooting. I do find the 24-85 a bit more versatile but the 35 goes into my bag every time I travel because it's so fast and light that it's always good to have around. A lot of my older B&W shots were done with the 35.</p> <p>Let's see, without holding any of these out as great shots, the following were taken with the 35/f2:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2736155">Detail</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2736219">Detail</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2736205">Landscape</ a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=2706204">Architectural</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=2706190">Architectural</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=2706211">Architectural</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo? photo_id=2701462">Architectural</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2701479">Detail</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2736237">Street</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2736231">Street</a> <li><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2701511">Sculpture</a> </ul> <p>HTH</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Thanks very much to all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_langfelder Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I have had one for some time. Great lens, subjectively as sharp as my 50/1.8, somewhat beter than my 24/2.8. I'm not sure I have ever shot it f/2, but <a href="http://tachyon.uwaterloo.ca/~plangfelder/TKDTestMay04/Neg05/TKDTestMay04-05-23.htm">this shot</a> was taken at 2.8 if I remeber correctly (shot on Reala). As far as bokeh goes, take a look at <a href="http://tachyon.uwaterloo.ca/~plangfelder/Vancouver04/Vancouver04-173.htm">this</a>. I don't think this was nearly wide open, more like f/4 (or even 5.6). Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_chow Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 I have the 35mm f2 lens. It is very respectable and good value for money. If you want a 35mm from Canon, this is the way to go. The L lens on the other hand is much more bulky apart from the sky high price. Some people say it is even better than the f2 but I suspect distortion may be a bigger problem with the L lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now