Anyone use the canon 35mm f2.0?

lisarhinehart

Hi folks

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it for it's bokeh, wide ap, clarity and low low price. I have a 50D, so on the cropped frame I have to be relatively far away from the subjects to shoot it. I'm thinking that the 35 might be a better all-purpose lens for my 50D, but haven't ever tried one myself or know of other who have. How does the 35mm compare to the 50mm 1.4 as far as clarity and bokeh in your oppinion? Any info on your experience with it woudl be helpful to me. How does it do with events and small group shots? Thanks!

NeilL

The 35mm is a legendary lens for all the criteria you mention. There is a lot of comment about it available on the net. However, it is designed for FF, so will be seen at its best only in that environment. A 50mm produces images that correspond most closely with what we experience from the lenses of our eyes. A 35mm lens is wide angle by comparison. Therefore, there will be distortion in images from it. I would not use it for groups of people for that reason.

Neil

lisarhinehart

Oh, I hadn't heard much about that before-- they mention a bit about closely cropped head shots having some distortion in noses, but it seems to be good for what I'd want and well suited for cropped cameras. Here is a detailed review. Does this differ much from your experience or am I missing something?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx

I was also considering the 28 1.8 but if the 35 distorts I''m thinking the 28mm would do even more
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Kris/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

craig_d

NeilL wrote:

The 35mm... is designed for FF, so will be seen at its best only in that environment. A 50mm produces images that correspond most closely with what we experience from the lenses of our eyes. A 35mm lens is wide angle by comparison. Therefore, there will be distortion in images from it. I would not use it for groups of people for that reason.

Uh... no. Sorry. Just... no.

A 35mm lens on a 1.6x camera gives the same field of view as a 56mm lens on FF. Therefore if you were to put a 50mm lens (close enough to 56mm for most purposes) on a FF camera, and a 35mm lens on a 1.6x camera, and then look through both of them while standing in the same place, you will see approximately the same image. There will be no more distortion. DOF will differ somewhat because the crop factor limits FOV but does not inherently change DOF, so on the crop camera you get the DOF of a 35mm lens even though you have the FOV of a 56mm lens.

Besides, 35mm isn't all that wide. Certainly if you use a 16mm lens on FF you will see considerable geometrical distortion around the edges; at 24mm it's still quite noticeable, but less so; by 35mm, even on FF, distortion is minimal, and on 1.6x it's non-existent.

The idea that a lens designed for FF won't be at its best on 1.6x is debatable; it really depends what you mean by "at its best". In some ways just about any lens is better on 1.6x than FF, simply because most lenses are better in the center than around the edges, and 1.6x throws away the edges. As for the 35mm f/2, I recommended it precisely because it approximates the FOV of a standard 50mm lens when used on 1.6x while providing the benefits of a fast f/2 aperture. For that purpose, I think it's the best low-cost lens available for Canon 1.6x cameras at this time.

craig_d

lisarhinehart wrote:

Hi folks

I have the 50mm 1.4 and love it for it's bokeh, wide ap, clarity and low low price. I have a 50D, so on the cropped frame I have to be relatively far away from the subjects to shoot it. I'm thinking that the 35 might be a better all-purpose lens for my 50D, but haven't ever tried one myself or know of other who have. How does the 35mm compare to the 50mm 1.4 as far as clarity and bokeh in your oppinion? Any info on your experience with it woudl be helpful to me. How does it do with events and small group shots? Thanks!

For sharpness, the 35mm f/2 is roughly equal to the 50mm f/1.4.

It is one stop slower (f/2), but on the other hand the 35 is sharp wide open, while the 50 is not. If your habit is to stop the 50 down to f/1.8 or more, then the 35 won't seem significantly slower to you.

The 35 has decent bokeh if shot wide open. It has only five aperture blades, so specular highlights turn into pentagons when it is stopped down, which people tend to find less pleasing than hexagons or heptagons because it's farther from a circle. When the lens is wide open, of course, the aperture is circular, so the number of blades doesn't matter and you get nice circles.

I have a few shots from the 35mm f/2 in my SmugMug galleries. Since I habitually use the camera and lens as keywords on my images, you can see my 35mm f/2 shots on my old 1.6x Rebel XSi with this keyword URL:

http://craigd.smugmug.com/keyword/canon ef 35 f2-canon eos 450d

Unfortunately there are no shots of people here, they're all outdoor scenes, but at least this shows what the lens is like on a 1.6x camera.

mrcoons

I got my 35 f/2 originally for my 40D to use for wide angle marching band shots and it does a spectacular job for those shots. I have not really used it for portrait or group shots. HERE is link to some of my photos some taken with a 40D and some a 5D.

kini62

I just got one for my IIN (1.3) crop. I think it's a great little lens for the price. Allows for some fun and creativity (at least for me) that I was missing by just doing the same old shots with my 70-200/2.8.

Get a used one and if you don't like it you can sell it for what you paid.

Here's a sample with some distortion from being up close. On a 1.6 there will be a little less. And one other thing is this lens focuses really close.



Gene

insanefred

Lisa, I was in your shoes at one point.

When I had my crippled sensor (yes, I said crippled), I got a 50mm 1.8 but it didn't give me enough FOV. So, I opted for a 35mm 2, I love the lens, but something just wasn't the same. I never got what I hoped for from a 35mm 2. The clarity is nice, but you'll never get even close for bokeh. And, yes, there is something about the subtle distorting to be mentioned.

FWIW, when I finally made the jump to FF, I was in haven.
Those lenses, especially the 50mm, was like I hoped it was and the 35mm became a more for it's original purpose. It's a shame I don't use either as much since due to my 24-70 2.8 lens now.

When I go for a walk and such, I do have my 50mm mounted on my camera, I can't tell you how much better it is.

jrmyrnsm

Granted I'm on the Nikon side of the world but was in a similar position when deciding on my primes. Before switching from Canon(because my new studio shot all Nikon) I was using a 40D and a 50 1.8 and just felt it was always too long or too short for what I wanted. I ended up with the Nikon 35 f2 and then bought the new 35 f1.8 and absolutely love the field of view on a crop camera(using a d80 and d200). For weddings, the 35mm has become my primary lens, with a wide(17-50) on my second body and I love the combo! An 85 1.8 is also a pretty sweet lens on the crop cameras so if you find yourself missing the long end at 35mm/85mm combo is a sweet normal to tele combo in low light and when traveling light. Good luck and I think you will enjoy the 35 if you end up with it!

Tee Why

Build wise, it's very similar to a 50mm f1.4 with a distance scale window, metal lens mount, and a usable MF ring. AF is ok but it makes a high pitch/grind sound, which some don't like.

Optically, it reminds me more about the 50mm f1.8 lens with a 5 aperture blade set up.

It's a very sharp lens and optically I can't really fault it.

Recently took these shots with the 35mm f2 on a 5D.
http://lashooters.org/showthread.php?t=1325&highlight=35mm