Pfreddee
Well-known
I've been using a zoom which was gifted to me with an old Canon body. It's the EF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and I'm currently using it on my Canon EOS1n which I bought some time back, and wrote about on this forum. I've always been a fan of the 50mm lens, but using this old zoom has been an eye-opener (bad pun intended 
) I'm using it at 35 mm, and now 50mm seems too constricted to me. What happened?
I'm looking for recommendations for a 35mm prime. I prefer autofocus; the lens does not have to be the latest model or very fast. I shoot mostly Tri-X or HP5. What lenses would you all recommend? Canon lenses greatly preferred, but I will consider other makes, particularly Zeiss, although I would really like autofocus (there it is again!)
Thank you to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
) I'm using it at 35 mm, and now 50mm seems too constricted to me. What happened?I'm looking for recommendations for a 35mm prime. I prefer autofocus; the lens does not have to be the latest model or very fast. I shoot mostly Tri-X or HP5. What lenses would you all recommend? Canon lenses greatly preferred, but I will consider other makes, particularly Zeiss, although I would really like autofocus (there it is again!)
Thank you to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
rscheffler
Well-known
You only have three options from Canon for 1) prime and 2) autofocus.
EF35/1.4L
EF35/2 IS
EF35/2 (discontinued)
The 35/2 IS is relatively new, from the last couple years or so, and is an optical improvement over the previous non-IS (image stabilized) version. I have the old one. It's a decent lens centrally, though not terribly good at the edges, until well stopped down. It also vignettes a fair amount and has the old non-USM focusing style probably similar to the 35-105 - very scratchy and annoying motor sound while focusing.
Of course the 35/1.4 is the high end model, so up to you if you need that much speed and want to spend the money. It's a nice lens, though some digital shooters seem to think it's getting long in the tooth.
The only non-Canon AF capable option that comes to mind is the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Like the Canon 35/1.4, it's rather large, though a fair amount less expensive. It's considered to be extremely sharp, though some are not fond of it's 'plain' rendering characteristics.
If it's in your budget, I would aim for the 35/2 IS. It is a decent size, with great performance for a relatively good price. With it being so new, I would expect it should work fine with your film camera, but you might want to be able to test it first before committing. I believe Canon is quite good for backwards compatibility within the EOS system, including film bodies, at least with their lenses...
EF35/1.4L
EF35/2 IS
EF35/2 (discontinued)
The 35/2 IS is relatively new, from the last couple years or so, and is an optical improvement over the previous non-IS (image stabilized) version. I have the old one. It's a decent lens centrally, though not terribly good at the edges, until well stopped down. It also vignettes a fair amount and has the old non-USM focusing style probably similar to the 35-105 - very scratchy and annoying motor sound while focusing.
Of course the 35/1.4 is the high end model, so up to you if you need that much speed and want to spend the money. It's a nice lens, though some digital shooters seem to think it's getting long in the tooth.
The only non-Canon AF capable option that comes to mind is the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. Like the Canon 35/1.4, it's rather large, though a fair amount less expensive. It's considered to be extremely sharp, though some are not fond of it's 'plain' rendering characteristics.
If it's in your budget, I would aim for the 35/2 IS. It is a decent size, with great performance for a relatively good price. With it being so new, I would expect it should work fine with your film camera, but you might want to be able to test it first before committing. I believe Canon is quite good for backwards compatibility within the EOS system, including film bodies, at least with their lenses...
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
I used to have the 35/2 EF. I had an R-35 Summicron at the same time. My casual comparison showed me no difference, so i kept the AF lens. Also had a 35/1.4 L then, too. It was significantly better at wide apertures. But, the size/weight of it deterred me from using it outside of the 'studio.' Great lens, though. But, if you're considering it, look into the rumors of the 35L II. No one knows when it'll be out, but there is a bit of speculation.
I haven't tried the Sigmas. I did have a Sigma 50/1.4 for a very short while. One for Canon and one in a Nikon mount. Neither could focus accurately, so both were returned. Sigma is supposedly 'better' about such things more recently, though, so i'd probably try one of them again, as the price and performance seem more palatable than with Canon's Ls. I would also consider the 35/2 IS. If it performs as well as the current 35L, that's a very nice option.
I used to have an EOS1n, but it was replaced by an EOS3 a long time ago. So, i don't remember how well that screen does with manual focus. Do you have any problems with it, if you manually focus your zoom at the 35mm range? Is that something you'd be willing to do? I really don't see much about the Zeiss 35.
Maybe read reviews on FredMiranda.com?
I haven't tried the Sigmas. I did have a Sigma 50/1.4 for a very short while. One for Canon and one in a Nikon mount. Neither could focus accurately, so both were returned. Sigma is supposedly 'better' about such things more recently, though, so i'd probably try one of them again, as the price and performance seem more palatable than with Canon's Ls. I would also consider the 35/2 IS. If it performs as well as the current 35L, that's a very nice option.
I used to have an EOS1n, but it was replaced by an EOS3 a long time ago. So, i don't remember how well that screen does with manual focus. Do you have any problems with it, if you manually focus your zoom at the 35mm range? Is that something you'd be willing to do? I really don't see much about the Zeiss 35.
Maybe read reviews on FredMiranda.com?
Bill Clark
Veteran
I have the 50mm f1.4 lens which is a bargain considering how much a new one costs.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html
Addy101
Well-known
I also own the Canon 50/1.4 and it is a problematic lens as any version of the 50/1.8 is better and the USM implementation is so-so. On the other hand, it is a f/1.4 lens and I do like its B&W rendering due to its rough OOF look. If I was in the market for a 50mm in Canon EF-mount, it would be the new Canon 50/1.8 STM.
Back on topic: the Canon 40/2.8 pancake lens is a bit longer then a 35mm, but noticeable wider then 50mm. It would be the one I would go for. Else the options already got mentioned and I think of those real 35mm lenses the old 35/2 (non-IS) probably is the best bang for your buck.
If you like 35mm, you might love 28mm. Options are even less: 28/2.8 and 28/1.8. The 28/2.8 is the cheap option, the 28/1.8 is interesting: f/1.8, USM, reviews are so-so, but owners love it.
Back on topic: the Canon 40/2.8 pancake lens is a bit longer then a 35mm, but noticeable wider then 50mm. It would be the one I would go for. Else the options already got mentioned and I think of those real 35mm lenses the old 35/2 (non-IS) probably is the best bang for your buck.
If you like 35mm, you might love 28mm. Options are even less: 28/2.8 and 28/1.8. The 28/2.8 is the cheap option, the 28/1.8 is interesting: f/1.8, USM, reviews are so-so, but owners love it.