how does this lens compare ( in optical quality ) to Canon 35mm 1.4 ?
935596
I've shot with both; other than the 1 stop disadvantage, you are very unlikely to see any meaningful difference in optical quality.
935597
It's very close in quality to its 1.4 counterpart. The L version has a very slight edge in contrast and sharpness. I opted for the 35mm f2 IS because the difference wasn't large enough for me to justify spending twice as much for the 1.4.Hope this helps!
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
132381
Hi, I have no experience with The Zeiss 85mm 1.4 and can't make a comperasion, but The Sigma 85 mm 1.4 is a perfect lense and I am glad I bought it. Regards...
809691
In my experience, the 56mm 1.2 is every bit as sharp as the 18-55 at it's 55mm minimum aperture of f4, which is saying something. With the loss of depth of field in the crop vs. FF sesnor, I wouldn't care to own the 56mm 1.2 if I had to stop it down for sharpness and, fortunately, I do not have to. I use it frequently for wedding and commercial work and especially for the former, I am shooting wide open 80% of the time, and it is quite sharp. I find it to be the equal of my former Canon 85mm 1.2 II for sharpness wide open, while it, of course, behaves more like a 1.8 in terms of DOF.
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1838717
This lens is quite shart at it's focal length. Not take away from this lens but I have actually started to favor the 135L prime lens in terms of sharpness. It obviously requires much more room to get your subject in range (outdoors generally) but the picture come out sharp with a nice Bokeh.As you mentioned, the 35mm is a must have focal length and the sharpness of this lens won't disappoint. I would post an example but I am responding by mobile. You can probably find examples with a quick google image search.
382374
I have both lenses and they are both pretty good. I probably like the 50mm a bit more than the 35mm. The real question for you to answer is what will I be my primary use for the lens ? Remember, we're shooting with a crop-sensor camera, so the lenses convert from a 35mm to a 52mm, and the 50mm converts to a 75mm lens. My recommendation for General Purpose Shooting would be to go with the 50mm ! A great bang for the buck and terrific bokeh !
155654
I'm 50/50 on it. There are a lot of plusses for the 35 (1.3 stops faster, shallower DOF, phase detect autofocus points on the entire frame, image stabilization), but one big negative (twice the price). It's also less sharp, but it's not soft by a long shot. If you shoot in very low light, fast subjects, or video, the 35 is the better choice. Otherwise, the 30 is an excellent deal.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
790657
Mainly price. The Rokinon lenses are very good. I own a 35 and 24 Rokinon as well as some Canons. I think they perform extremely well.
887876
Comparable to Nikon's 50mm f/1.4? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1336679058&sr=1-2
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
2024383
This is a Macro Lens, if you have no need for Macro photography, then the 35mm f/2.4 is a better deal. This lens can shoot both regular and macro distant objects.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
40105
The 1.4 is going to give you better bokeh (that beautiful blurry light) and a shallower depth of field. It also lets more light in. Hope that helps!
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.