EF 35/2 or Tamron 17-50/2.8?

[songtsen]

I've had the EOS 400D for almost a year now. I have the EF-S 18-55mm (non-IS)

and EF 50/1.8 lenses and recently added the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens. I tend to use

the 50/1.8 regularly for shots of my 2-year-old boy, both indoors and at the

playground (usually just before sunset). The kit lens is too slow in both these

situations but adequate for daytime shots (at f5.6-8).

 

I'm thinking of adding the 35/2.0 as the 50mm is a bit too long for comfort

indoors with the 1.6x crop factor (it's great on my old 300V/Rebel Ti though).

I've seen comments on the web about the 35/2.0 borders being pretty soft until

f5.6. This isn't terribly encouraging as I would need to use it at around f2.8

(or wider) but would prefer to place the subject off-center.

 

Am therefore also considering the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and would appreciate any

advice or comments.

 

Thanks.

[mark f]

I bought and sold a 35mm for film use. It is probably the noisiest, slowest focussing lens around. I'm using a 17-40mm f4 Canon now and the image quality is better and is much more pleasant to use. I expect to get the 28mm f1.8 at some point, though, to get a faster, smaller lens. The 28 is a USM lens so it might be worth considering if you want a lens smaller and faster than a zoom. I really wish the Canon 35 f2 was a USM lens ):

[bobatkins]

The 35/2 is a very nice lens. I can't believe anyone with a typical copy would say it's soft until f5.6, escpecially on a cropped sensor camera. It's a sharp lens, comparable to the 50/1.8. Of course people also say the 50/1.8 is soft, but they are generally wrong. It is softer wide open than stopped down, but you can say that about almost every lens that's ever been made.

 

The only downside is the somewhat noisy AF. We've been spoiled by silent USM lenses I guess. The comforting fact is the the noise of AF has absolutely no effect on image quality! Focus speed is generally just fine since you don't have to move the elements in a 35mm lens very far to change focus.

[picturesque]

I have both the 35mm f2 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The 35mm is everything Bob says. Pretty sharp and focus speed and noise don't bother me at all. A very under-rated lens. I would not hesitate to use it wide open, although as Bob says, any lens is a tad less sharp wide open (even the L lenses). Whether to get the 35mm f2 over the Tamron would depend more on the use and whether you need the zoom. The Tamron is also pretty sharp throughout and that zoom range is extremely useful.

[aucoins]

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is also a great lens for most indoor situations

mine has a faster and more accurate af than my 50/1.8 . I still use

the 50/1.8 for low light school concerts ,for most everything else i

prefer the Tamron .

[fotograf]

Bob- how is the contrast, and color on the 35mm f/2?

[PuppyDigs]

I've owned an EF 35 2.0 since the early 90s and it is sharp wide open and deadly sharp by

F2.8. I've owned 2 EF 50 1.8 and both needed to be stopped down to F5.6 to be as sharp as

the 35 2.0 at F2.8. As for AF, the 35 2.0 isn't noisy by any stretch of the imagination. Sure it

ain't silent but I'd have to rate it pianissimo. While AF doesn't rip, it is faster and more

surefooted than my 50 1.8 was.

 

With all that said, I'm thinking of getting the EF 35 1.4L USM. Very natural perspective on my

5D, a little edge in IQ and USM and FTM will be appreciated.

[songtsen]

That's reassuring. I did notice that the 35/2 was rated highly on LensPlay but some of the reviews on other sites were a bit worrying (Photozone in particular). Perhaps this lens is not ideal for shooting test charts!

 

The Tamron 17-50 is tempting but I seem to use the 30-50 mm range most of the time with the kit zoom, so perhaps I should opt for the extra stop on the 35/2 instead. Thanks, everyone, for the helpful comments.

[bobatkins]

It's probably a lens that gets a bad time from photo pureists who don't like that it doesn't have a USM motor and it's not an "L" series lens and it's fairly cheap. It's not nearly as "impressive" as the 35/1.4L. On the other hand a lot of users of the 35/2 really like it a lot.

 

If you don't mind buying Sigma, there's always the Sigma 30/1.4 if you want a fast "normal" prime for an APS-C body. It also gets some decent user reports (I've never used one myself).

 

Many lenses are a little soft wide open, but depending on what you're using them for that's not always a problem. For example I frequently use my 50/1.8 wide open for portraits. Even then it's sometimes a little too sharp and I need to soften the image somewhat for the most flattering look.

 

I've also used the much praised 70-200/2.8L IS, and that too is a little "soft" wide open.

 

By soft I don't necessarily mean unsharp. Softness probably comes mostly from residual uncorrected spherical aberration which lowers contrast a little, but generally dosn't significantly affect resolution in digital images (because DSLRs are limited to around 70-80 lp/mm resolution by their pixel spacing).

[mendel_leisk]

I got one for my wife with her 30D, and I've used it a bit on my 5D, where it's a nice moderate-wide. The noise is *not* that bad. I'd heard a lot on this issue, but the first time I used the lens I thought: That's it? What's all the fuss.

 

It's a nice sharp prime at center, and sharp enough anywhere, at least on crop factor. On full frame I believe the corners are pretty soft, but depending on your subject even then it doesn't matter.

 

Very compact, and for around $200, not a tough decision.

[john_fox13]

I had a Canon 28-105mm Ulta IIand it was great. I got a Tamron 28-50 and it was sharp, and fast, and I really didn't notice the noise, but I missed the longer focal range. I would reccomend it highly.

[yog_sothoth]

If you go by photozone and photodo, Canon is not the best brand for FF wide angle lenses. Canon's long lenses are essentially the best out there, but their wide-angles are not in the same class.

 

Based purely on reading too many lens tests I would get the Tamron 17-50 2.8 if I was ever going to buy a non-FF lens. A nice and inexpensive sharp FF zoom is the Tamron 28-75, which I can vouch for.

 

A cheap alternative is to get an inexpensive used film body and some of the newer 400-speed films for the 50mm 1.8 lens. Getting the photos developed is a bit of a pain, of course.

[mark_hahn]

I agree with Puppy Face... the lens is great, especially for $200. The EF 28/1.8 which cost twice as much is much much softer...

 

The only really bad thing about the 35/2 is the bokeh... but even the 35L's isn't really any less harsh...

[m_barbu1]

I bought the 35mm f/2 as a gift for a friend, and have seen some pretty good results from her on a 20D.

[andre_reinders]

I started with a Elan 7n and a 28-105 . I loved the range. I also got a 50mm f1.8 because it was fast and cheap. When I moved to the 20D I missed the wide end from the zoom, and didn't use my 50mm much - I did not find that "80mm" prime useful. Eventually I got the 85mm f1.8 for portraits on both cameras.

 

I eventually got myself a 17-50 Tamron f2.8. I now rarely use the 50mm f1.8, and mostly use the Tamron - it is more flexible, and in most cases the extra stop (and reduced dof) are not required.

 

It is nice to have a fast normal zoom! (regardless of the brand) The flexibility of the focal length and aperture range covers many situations.

 

I was considering selling my 50mm f1.8 - but they are so cheap I am not sure it is worth the effort.

[ed_kellogg]

I can not speak to the EF 35/2 but if you are mostly concerned about low light work with it then be aware the Tamron is a bit soft wide open so I would look at some resolution charts that compare the two lenses and perhaps find a camera store that you can do some test shots with both.

 

The color and contrast of the Tamron is not dead on but its fixable in post processing. Once it gets stopped down the sharpness is excellent. Overall its a very good lens but suffers all the limitations you would expect from a wide angle zoom of good quality.

 

PLUS... if you ever advance to full frame the Tamron isn't up to the task.

[phule]

Add me to the list of 35mm f/2 users who are happy with the lens. I'm using it on a 350D and purchased it for photographing my toddler indoors (replacing the 50mm f/1.8).

[songtsen]

Ed, thanks for the suggestion about doing some test shots in the store.

 

Stephen, I do have an inexpensive used film body (my old 300V) but I would need a reasonably good scanner if I were to start using film again. If the newer flatbed scanners are any good with negatives, I would probably pick the 28-75/2.8 over the 35/2.

[manuel barrera houston,]

The 35 f/2 is my choice in most low light on my 1Ds, very seldom miss a shot, normally with flash, no flash use on my 30D with the same results.I have the Tamron and find that it hunts too much in low light, great lens when there is sufficient light. Color and contrast are excellent on the 35, a little soft wide open, but you have the image that you may have missed with the tamron.

[alexdi]

The 35/2 focus noise is irritating and noticeable to subjects. Optics aside, try to listen to a copy before you buy it. I personally find the Sigma 30/1.4 far more interesting in that price range.

[allen_walker]

I love my 35mm f/2. I don't understand people talking about the slight and brief noise it makes while focusing. That's nothing compared to the noise any SLR makes when it takes the picture! I guess it depends on what you're listening for. For non-photographer subjects, the SLR mirror crash (and the flash, if used) are the biggest things to notice.

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I have not used either but I use the 50 1.8 and the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 on a Canon 5D2. I am looking at getting the 35 F2.0 and the 28 1.8 for the extra speed. Personally I use the Tamron more often than the 50 but I prefer the 50 1.8 when I am doing street photography as it is so small and dosn't attract attention like the Tamron. I really like shooting fast primes in low light primarily because they are easier to focus as you see a brighter picture in the viewfinder / liveview. However, If I could only buy 1 I would have to go with the zooms. </p>