[Klaus]

Here we go ...

 

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...on35f2isff

[Guest]

Interesting; so with the sigma you get +1 fstop and higher resolution but with the canon you get IS and nicer bokeh; all for the same price And then there is the zeiss with similar performance to the canon (but slightly higher CA) and a bit more expensive than both the canon/sigma - i won't bother mentioning the zeiss 35f1.4 which is an arm and a leg but probably has nicer bokeh than the sigma.;

-

Well I think the 35mm is well covered. So how's the fuji 55-200 looking ?

[Rover]

Looks like a swell lens. I've heard a lot of complaints about "toy lens corners" on the old one, surely this is not the case anymore.

Interesting; so with the sigma you get +1 fstop and higher resolution but with the canon you get IS and nicer bokeh; all for the same price And then there is the zeiss with similar performance to the canon (but slightly higher CA) and a bit more expensive than both the canon/sigma - i won't bother mentioning the zeiss 35f1.4 which is an arm and a leg but probably has nicer bokeh than the sigma.;

-

Well I think the 35mm is well covered. So how's the fuji 55-200 looking ?

It's the "should I buy the 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 IS?" argument all over again. Personally, if I'd been in the market for a 35mm I'd get the Sigma because I have 35mm covered by the 16-35/2.8, only one stop slower.

[Brightcolours]

Well, as You know I kinda disagree with your characterization of the bokeh of the old 35mm f2. But you do not have the standard test scene shot with it. My estimation is that it would master the standard test scene quite smoothly (because I use mine often at close distances, and then it actually shines).

 

A bigger problem, apparently, is the extreme corner performance of the old 35mm f2, which get very soft very abruptly on FF. Your review did not catch this, but I have seen numerous photos which show it. I will have to verify it with my copy once I have a 6D.

 

On the new lens, a shame you found out it is a very good lens. Now I will probably have to change my old one to the new one. Also a shame the new one got to be so much larger, from a 52mm filter size to a 67mm filter size is quite a big step!

[Rover]

If you have something like a 70-200/4 you probably have all the necessary specialized filters, and a simple UV filter shouldn't be too expensive - not compared to the lens itself, at least! But you'll be probably getting so much more of a lens in the 35/2 IS. Filter issue shouldn't be stopping you.

[Brightcolours]

If you have something like a 70-200/4 you probably have all the necessary specialized filters, and a simple UV filter shouldn't be too expensive - not compared to the lens itself, at least! But you'll be probably getting so much more of a lens in the 35/2 IS. Filter issue shouldn't be stopping you.

Well, yes, my B&W 67mm pol. filter will be right at home on it. I was mostly mentioning the filter size to illustrate how much the lens has grown . And I do not use UV filters (even though I have a 52mm one, but that is from the film days).

 

For now I ordered a 20mm Voigtlander. I'll first see how bad the corners are of the old 35mm f2. And I want a large aperture (f1.2) 50 or 55mm lens. But after that it may well be that I will get a 35mm f2 IS USM. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is a bit too expensive for now. Or maybe a Nikkor 35mm f1.4 Ai(-S).

[Rover]

Howsabout a Sigma 35/1.4? Looks like it's da lens if you need 1.4

[Brightcolours]

Howsabout a Sigma 35/1.4? Looks like it's da lens if you need 1.4

Well, I don't like its bokeh character much, so that makes its f1.4-ness for me rather useless. And to use it stopped down only makes little sense

Then the Canon 35mm f2 IS USM is a better choice for me.

[Rover]

"There is no substitute for a fast lens except a faster one".

But then again, the 2x difference in weight might tip the scales a bit more...

[Guest]

And once again we see that there is no lens so perfect (including price) that it is the right lens for everyone.