35mm F2 as a standard lens?

[isaac sibson]

Presently I use a 24-85 USM as my standard lens. I have a 70-200 F4L

which handles the overlapping part of the range, since the 24-85

drops off at longer lengths.

 

However, I find I use the 24-85 most at 24mm and 35mm settings, and

occasionally around 50mm. I am pondering replacement of the 24-85

with the replacement for the 28-70 F2.8L, whatever that may be.

Alternatively, I could go for primes (although the amount of lens-

swapping involved wouldn't be appreciated). I am very intent on

buying the 20mm F2.8 USM, and wonder if I should just cover the range

up to the 70-200 with three or four primes (20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm (I

find I prefer the 24mm and 35mm perspectives to 28mm)), or look to

the new zoom.

 

My questions are these:

 

First, how does the 35mm F2 work out as a standard lens, in

comparison to the 50mm F1.8 (since I like the 35mm perspective more

than 50mm, and they are about equally close to the diagonal of the

35mm frame of 43.3mm)? Is the lack of USM on these lenses (24mm F2.8,

35mm F2, 50mm F1.8II) a big problem (given that I sold my sigma 70-

300 APO because of the AF)? Is there going to be a noticeable

improvement over the 24-85 at F8 (other than flare resistance)? The

real pie-in-the-sky question is other than the extra stop (or two)

and USM, are the 35mm F1.4L and 24mm F1.4L worth the (extremely

large) amount of money demanded for them?

[djphoto]

If you like the perspective of the 35mm lens, it works equally as well as the 50 f1.8. Mike Johnston says the 35mm f2 is one of the best 35s made. The internal elements are small and light, so lack of USM is no problem. If you use USM to fine-tune focus, your eyes must be much better than mine and you probably don't need AF at all. You will find the 35 to be noticeably sharper than the 24-85.

 

Only you can judge whether the f1.4L lenses are for you, but unless you absolutely and frequently need the extra stop, they're not worth the extra cost (not to mention weight).

[kweiske]

The only "standard" lens is the one you prefer to shoot with. I've taken a LOT of pictures with the 32mm lens on my Lomo LC-A, and like the perspective - I'd rather travel light, get the shot with one lens and crop later if need be.

 

Of course, with a non-removeable lens, my choice is much easier. :)

[carl smith]

Just so you know, you may be waiting a wee bit for the replacement/revision of the 28-70 2.8 lens.

[PuppyDigs]

After the EF 50 1.4 USM, the EF 35 2.0 is one of my fav lenses: extremely sharp, contrasty and flare resistant. I don't miss USM much as AF is very peppy, after all, the elements barely move in a 35mm design. In fact, it seems about as fast as the EF 50 1.4 USM. The only thing I miss is FT-M. The manual focus ring feels loose and grity. In fairness, the EF 50 1.4 USM is only a little better. Unlike the EF 50 1.8 II, it has a metal mount, distance window and DOF markings. You can dial in a small F-stop, set hyperfocal distance and bang way without AF. It uses a clip-on hood.

 

At B&H it's only $235, a real bargain as a few years ago it was $335.

[randy_samos]

While I've not shot the Canon 35/2, a 35/2 lens lives on one of my rangefinders, seldom coming off. It's really my standard lens for those cameras. But ... all that means is it's an ideal standard lens for <i>me</i>, because I happen to like the perspective.

<p>

I've got at least two non USM lenses. One of them doesn't bother me one bit, as it's my 100EF macro and I always manual focus for macro anyway. The other doesn't bother me any more, because I gave it to my wife. :))) ----- Actually, the lack of USM bothered me big time, but not just because of speed issues but because I couldn't do a manual focus w/o throwing a switch. But that's just the way <i>I</i> shoot - not everyone would miss the capability.

<p>

/randy

[chris_tennyson]

If you want the wide angle, you could also consider the 16-35 f2.8L.. or, you can get a decent deal on the 17-35 f2.8 L it replaced.... Just another thing for you to consider.. ;)

[yakim_peled1]

Replacing the 24-85 for a set of primes or the 28-70/2.8 will surely give you much better optical performance wide open but I suspect that you will not see any difference at f/8.

About the f/1.4 primes, the big question is: how often will you use them wide open ? If the answer is 'plenty' than go ahead and buy them. But if the answer is 'seldom' or 'I don't know' then their modest siblings will be just as good at much less weight and cost.

[lee_shively]

Isaac, I have experience with the lenses you are considering (24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 II). There's not a loser in the bunch. I really don't have a "standard" lens but I use the 35/2 more often than the others. Lacking USM is not a problem for me. They do make a bit more noise--which, initially, was somewhat surprising, having been used to the virtual silence of the USM motors. I got used to the whirring after about 30 seconds. They focus fast and accurately. I do miss "touching up" focus sometimes but not often. The M/AF switchs on these lenses are not ergonomically ideal--you need a good strong fingernail to operate them.

 

Optical improvement? I doubt you will seen any when comparing any of the lenses at f/8 to the 24-85 at f/8. I bought the 24 and 35 as smaller, higher speed supplements to my 20-35/3.5-4.5, a lens I almost always use at f/11 or smaller. Neither of these lenses look sharper to me than the zoom when compared at f/11.

 

I have no experience with the high speed L-series 24 and 35 lenses. If I could justify spending the money, I couldn't justify the weight and size of these lenses over the almost tiny 24/2.8 and 35/2 lenses. I find faster apertures are more useful in longer lenses than in shorter ones.

 

If you go the prime lens route over the 28-70L (or whatever the new lens might be), you might want to keep the 24-85 zoom. The range is very useful and it would make a great "walking around" lens for travel and such. I keep a little-used 28-105 zoom just for such purposes. Good luck.

[peterbg]

Don't you already have a couple Ls? You wouldn't want to step <i>down</i> to non-L primes...

[isaac sibson]

Thanks very much for all the useful replies so far.

 

I think the L series primes are way out of my reach, and unecessary also, since as a life-long zoom user the F2 and F2.8 lenses still seem very fast indeed, since the 24-85 is the fastest standard zoom I've owned.

 

I think the replacement for the 28-70 F2.8L will be announced very soon, since this is the only one of the big three pro F2.8 zooms which is not weather sealed, and also advances in technology (such as multi-aspheric constructions) would now allow canon to produce a higher-quality lens over the same range, or the same quality over a wider range. With the EOS 1D in the market also, Canon would do well to create a 24-something standard zoom, and of course giving weather sealing which that camera can take advantage of.

 

I think, with the prices the 35 F2 and 24 F2.8 demand, I might buy those lenses in addition to my 24-85, and then wait and see what happens on the zoom front, or if I find the primes to be what I want, I can get the 50mm, and I'd also have a much better idea then if the L series primes are what I need.

 

However, since I can get good performance from my 24-85 at F8-F11 (there are tests showing that this lens even improves from F8 to F11), I think I will still get the 20mm F2.8 USM first. Since they've not done so yet, I'm not going to hold out hope of Canon releasing USM versions of the non-L primes in this range.

[peter_phan]

I just bought the EF 35/2. Very sharp and compact. However, I was very surprised at how noisy it was. It's not so much the loudness of the noise but the pitch of the noise. It's a high-pitched whiney sound. It makes me really appreciate my quiet USM lenses. I was hoping it would be my new favorite standard lens, but because of its whiney sound it won't be replacing my 50/1.4 USM as my favorite lens. I primarily bought the 35/2 for landscape purposes anyway, where the noise doesn't matter. But for candids and people shooting where quiet autofocus can be very valuable, I don't think this lens is going to cut it. It's too bad Canon doesn't update this wonderful lens with USM and a 58mm filter diameter.

 

Believe it or not, I would seriously consider getting the 35/1.4L even though it costs about $1000 more. I just love L lenses, and the 35/1.4L is supposed to be stunning, edge to edge. Plus, I love speed, and that f/1.4 aperture means existing-light heaven to me. It would also, of course, be USM quiet. But, damned, that price! My rationalization is that I'm buying an heirloom-quality piece of equipment that will hold its worth for years and years to come. Oh well, maybe someday.

[adam_lang1]

It's a lovely lens with smooth bokeh, but I believe the old FD 35/2 (first chrome nose version and second version (first ssc, stopped to f16) are a smidgen sharper.

 

Be careful though, if the 35mm bug bites hard, it will only be a matter of time before you discover the 35/2 Summicron-M (v4). Then there's no turning back....