5D and 35mm/f2 ?

[sebastien_ardo]

Hi everyone,

 

I do mostly urban landscape/street/travel and currently use a leica M6 with

35/f2 lens, in which I mostly shoot 100 iso slides. I also own a nikon D70 with

a 24mm/f2.8 (~35mm equiv) which I bought a couple of years ago, to experiment

with digital. On my last trip to tokyo, I only took the D70 and took a lot more

pictures, which translate into more keepers. Basically digital has worked its

wonder, and I am thinking of completely switching to digital.

 

I print big (24x36") and try to get my work shown, so I do want top quality. The

slides scanned are great at this size, but as expected, the D70's 6MP files

(although not has bad as most people on the forums would say) are not so great.

 

So I am looking a upgrading my digital setup, BUT (and this is a big but) I want

a small camera+lens setup. I am not fan of zoom as they get in my way and no I

don't have the money for an M8 nor do I want to pay so much. I am considering

just getting a D80 and keep my lens, but was also considering a 5D with 35mm/f2

which should give me much better quality (and also importantly depth-of-field I

understand).

 

my question is: does the 5D with the 35mm/f2 EF lens will give me top image

quality? I have heard of the lens shortcomings in terms of built quality, but

what about image quality on the 5? Otherwise I hear the 24mm/f2.8 canon is not

so great (say on the 40D) due to focusing shift problems.

 

 

Would you guys think of any alternative COMPACT camera/lens setup?

 

cheers and thanks!

 

sebastien

[drew_para]

<p>The EF 35 f/2 has a pretty good optical reputation from most of what I have seen. I tried a copy on my Rebel XT, but I think I had a soft copy and am not 100% that ~56mm is where I want to be any way. With the 5D, my understanding is that you'll have some vignetting to deal with</p>

<p>I would guess the 35L would be the ideal option if you have the cabbage to burn.</p>

<p>You could also look at an EF 20 on a crop body camera like the new 40D. That would give you ~32mm.</p>

[denny_wells]

Here's a site with canon lens reviews I've found helpful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

 

His 35/2 review in 10 words or less "good value, sharp but soft at the edges, pentagonal bokeh"

 

Since you are on a budget, you might consider getting a 40D & put the extra money into a 24/1.4L.

[zigzag]

I don't own one but here's a review: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_35_2/index.htm">35mm f2</a>

[sebastien_ardo]

ok thanks everyone. I have seen the reviews, I wanted more user experiences. Denny thanks for the 24.1.4L which I'm not sure why I had discarded, it might not be that big considering how fast it gets. Thanks again everyone, sebastien.

[PuppyDigs]

"Otherwise I hear the 24mm/f2.8 canon is not so great (say on the 40D) due to focusing

shift problems."

 

I just sold my 24 2.8 last week, but it worked great on my 40D and had absolutely no

focusing problems. It was of 1989 vintage, one of my first lenses, but I decided to upgrade

to an L prime (middle aged thing).

 

I also have a 5D and an EF 35 2.0 of early 90s vintage. I don't know about the current crop

of 35 2.0, but mine is pretty sharp wide open--blowing my EF 50 1.4 USM and 50 1.8

outta da water at F2--and really sharp stopped down to F2.8 and beyond. The AF is decent

but not as surefooted as a modern ring-type USM. I've gotten spoiled by USM and will

probably sell it too and get an EF 35 1.4L USM. I really miss FTM on the 35 2.0.

[elliot1]

The D70 was my first DSLR. I was never happy with the image quality and inconsistent exposure of the D70. I found my pictures at ISO 200 too noisy!

 

I currently have D80's and just bought a used 5D (expecting delivery today) after testing one at a local camera store. Image quality is excellent and will without a doubt be superior to that of the D70. The extra resolution will also improve the image quality of your large prints.

 

No lens experience yet but I have been advised here to stick with L series lenses for the 5D. If you don't have to shoot wide open and have good PP processing software (I use DXO), vignetting and distortion is not an issue.

[dave chew]

I've had the 35 f/2 for several years (7?). I used it with a 1N and now with the 5D. I suppose you will get a variety of comments about the image quality. Mine is quite good, much better than any zoom I have in that range including the 17-35 f/2.8L, although that is an older design from the '90s. I'm sure the 35 f/1.4L is better, although I doubt you will notice the difference without a tripod. I have several other very good primes to compare it to, although not in that focal length (for example 24TS, 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, 180macro).

 

There are a few caveats: Most of my photography is stopped down on a tripod, manually focused. In these situations I am able to get "top image quality." Street/travel photography can mean many different things, so if you are often shooting candids wide open, expecting the lens to accurately focus quickly, you may not be satisfied.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about build quality. This lens is so small and light it rarely bumps into things even with the hood on. I've taken it on multi-day trips in a backpack with no problems. It was the one lens I carried to the top of Mt. Rainier last year.

[peza]

This might help you: http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

 

I love my 35/2 for it's size/weight/price/peformance characteristics. I love low light, but don't do it often enough to spend on 35/1.4. As for Leica/landscape shooter, 35/1.4 might give you more satisfaction.

[sebastien_ardo]

this is great thanks to all !

 

Eliott, what made you go to the 5D? Have you done large prints by any chance? I know this is apple and oranges but why getting a 5D if you had a D80 (let's try to avoid a canon vs nikon thing :-)

 

basically I'm now wondering whether just getting a D80 body and keeping the M kit, or selling the M and getting a 5D+35/f.2

 

cheers! sebastien

[chris_chow]

I have both the 5D and the 35/2 and 35/1.4. The 5D is a great camera with very sharp files, which can be upsized comfortably. But if you want to print big, like 24x36, you will need the very best glasses.

 

The 35/F2 is a good but not a great lens. It may give you nice 8x10 prints but beyond that, you will need a lot of help from Photoshop.

 

The Canon 35/1.4 is noticeably sharper.

 

The alternative is to get the 5D and use non-Canon lenses via an appropriate adaptor. For 35mm, the Leica R 35/2 and 35/2.8, the Contax 35/2.8 and the Nikkor 35/2 AF are IMHO better than the Canon 35/2.

[omar_fernandez]

Quote from above: The 35/F2 is a good but not a great lens.

 

I would not write this lens off so quickly. The Canon EF 35 /f2 is at least as good as the Nikkor AF 35/2D, and both of these are better optically that the Leica R35/f2.0! Check it out for yourself at the old photodo site: http://old.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html (If you do not know how to interpret MTF graphs, photodo also provides a simple numerical rating.) Their testing methodology is listed on that site, and they note that Zeiss was their client for their lens testing service.

 

Other testimonials come form lens maven Mike Johnston, who in his old postings noted this lens to be ?the most technically perfect lens 35mm/f2.0? in his roundup of 35mm lenses, and in his lens bokeh ratings Johnston noted the bokeh of this Canon to be 8/10. I believe that both articles are available at Lulu either for free download or for a fee. Johnston is the former editor of Camera and Photo Techniques and has evaluated more lenses that you can shake a stick at.

 

All of Bill Castleman?s lens reviews are well considered, and one should note that the review noted above keys in on lenses for use in a very specific technical application.

 

Quote: This evalution was initiated to test the use of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L lens for wide field astrophotography with film and digital cameras. I have been using an EF 35mm f/2 lens and wanted to see if I could get comparable or better quality images with shorter exposures using the EF 35mm f/1.4L.

 

A complaint is that this lens is ?buzzy? sounding and therefore distracting. In situations where silence is essential, I turn the autofocus to the ?off? position, select the center focus point , and turn the focusing ring by hand until focus is confirmed in the viewfinder.

 

My use of the EF 35mm/f2 is largely in the old days of slide film, and this lens was and is a brilliant optic. Prints and projected images are all that one could ask for from such 35mm lens.

 

If you expect top quality 24?x36? prints from slides, few lenses are up to the task, but at f5.6 and above the EF will do very well. For street and travel photography, this lens is light and portable. For only $230 at B&H, so you won?t be taking a big hit if you decide later that this lens is not for you.

[chris_chow]

My copy of EF 35/2 does not give me very sharp corners, even down to f8. YMMV. Also, it suffers from CA.