Canon 35mm f2.0

bob100684 · Oct 25, 2008

Just wondering, it seems to be a decent lens, especially at the price, but what is the consensus for general use instead of "lens tests"? Also, how is the 20-35?.....not the L.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 25, 2008

I used to have the FD version of the 35/2.0. It was one of my favorites. I suspect it's been updated.

2F/2F · Oct 25, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
I used to have the FD version of the 35/2.0. It was one of my favorites. I suspect it's been updated.

It is a great lens, in all of its versions. The only drawback is that it isn't a 1.4, which is now made for Canon bodies. It is your fastest choice for FD, however. If you don't need to use f/1.4, this won't really affect you. If you feel that you need an f/1.4 lens, you can adapt a Nikon 35mm f/1.4, but if you don't need it, I doubt you will have any problems with the Canon one. Also, they are very cheap. Sometimes they will even come on a body.

In response to David, Canon also has an EF 35mm f2.0, and it is fine optically, but is of a really crummy build quality and has no USM.

P.S. I earlier posted that the FDn and EF models might be optically similar, but I just checked the specs, and they appear quite different. I did not find cross sectional diagrams, but I did find that the FDn is 10 elements in 8 groups with 8 diaphragm blades, and the EF is 7 elements in 5 groups with 5 diaphragm blades.

SilverGlow · Oct 25, 2008

No need to adapt the Nikon 35mm F1.4 because the Canon EOS 35mm F1.4 is nearly perfect....

2F/2F · Oct 25, 2008

SilverGlow said:
No need to adapt the Nikon 35mm F1.4 because the Canon EOS 35mm F1.4 is nearly perfect....

....except that it is of no use on an FD body unless used wide open. I don't even know if there are adapters made for doing this. There are, however, adapters for putting Nikon lenses (and may other lenses) on FD bodies. Some were even made by Canon back in the FD daze.

bob100684 · Oct 26, 2008

I should have specified. I am looking at the EF version. My eyesight isn't the greatest, so auto focus is high on my list. Additionally, I am trying to make the lens double duty....as a roughly "normal" lens on my d*gital, as well as a somewhat wide on my film EOS. Further, the price, even with a canon employee purchase program of the f1.4 is WAY out of my reach.

2F/2F · Oct 26, 2008

bob100684 said:
I should have specified. I am looking at the EF version. My eyesight isn't the greatest, so auto focus is high on my list. Additionally, I am trying to make the lens double duty....as a roughly "normal" lens on my d*gital, as well as a somewhat wide on my film EOS. Further, the price, even with a canon employee purchase program of the f1.4 is WAY out of my reach.

Ah. I thought you meant FD. In that case, the new one is fine optically, but built like crap. Canon should be rather embarrassed by this one and the 50mm f/1.8. It does not have a USM, which a drawback if using AF. I think it is a perfectly usable lens that will give you good pix if you take them, but don't expect it to survive any sort of routinely hard use. You certainly can't beat the price, however, especially if you get a used one.

gbadman · Oct 26, 2008

I've got the 50mm f/1.8 mk1 - it's an excellent lens - one of my favourites. The build quality of the mk1 is better than the mk2 - it's got a metal mount and distance scale. Mine came from ebay, if you keep an eye out the mk1s come up from time to time at a good price.

benjiboy · Oct 26, 2008

I have the original FD 35mm f2 Thorium lens that is probably the sharpest FD lens I own, but I don't think it bears any relation to the current EF optic, I also have the later FDn 35mmf2 lens that is closer in design to the EF version and this is an excellent and most useful wide angle.

EdSawyer · Oct 29, 2008

EF 35/2

This lens is really in need of a redo. It's pretty lame, overall. The 24-70L @ 35mm is as good or better.

unless you need autofocus, I'd consider getting something older, manual focus and using that. The Olympus 35/2 is perhaps one of the best choices. Nikon 35/1.4 is not too bad either. I also have adapted the MInolta Rokkor 35/1.8 to EOS mount and that's a pretty sweet combo too.

-Ed

Mark Fisher · Oct 31, 2008

EdSawyer said:
This lens is really in need of a redo. It's pretty lame, overall. The 24-70L @ 35mm is as good or better.

unless you need autofocus, I'd consider getting something older, manual focus and using that. The Olympus 35/2 is perhaps one of the best choices. Nikon 35/1.4 is not too bad either. I also have adapted the MInolta Rokkor 35/1.8 to EOS mount and that's a pretty sweet combo too.

-Ed

I'll second this. I bought a 35mm f2 EOS lens and it was the most unpleasant piece of $%*#(^&$ I've ever used......and I am fairly happy with my cheap 50m f1.8 Mk2 lens. It is loud and slow. I sold it almost as quickly as I bought it. I am currently using a 17-40mm L zoom instead.....much nicer, but it is heavy......mostly, though, I stick to my 50 and 85mm 1.8....they are both great and inexpensive lenses. I'd love to see a decent 35mm f2 lens offered by Canon. It would be a nice length for a lot of the digital cameras too.

Mark

Canon 35mm f2.0

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency