I almost titled this post “In Praise of Cheap Little Lenses” – but that would have been inconsistent with my other lens report posts, so I’ll leave the title as is.

I recently picked up a copy of this lens for several reasons. First, it is very small and light, and there are times when a single slightly-wide prime can be just the thing. It is also fairly inexpensive, especially compared to other Canon alternatives. On top of that it is a fine optical performer, especially if you use it where it is strongest – shooting at relatively small apertures on full frame and/or using it as a essentially a “normal prime” on a crop body.

I have had a few weeks to use mine now. I’ve mostly used it for landscape photographs where I had some flexibility to compose the shot by moving forward/backward or in which the 35mm focal length turned out to be exactly right. (In some cases I first did the shot with my 24-105mm L zoom, and when I noticed that I was at 35mm I switched to the prime.) In general terms the optical performance of this little lens is quite decent, but when stopped down to f/8 or smaller it really shines – it is capable of producing photographs with very good resolution.

Are there any negatives to this lens? Of course, but for my purposes none of them are “deal breakers.” The AF system of the lens is (notoriously) noisy. Users have described it as sounding like “buzzing bees.” I don’t think it is that bad, but it is not as quite as most other Canon lenses. In addition you must move a switch if you want to focus manually rather than rely on autofocus – other more modern lenses will let you do either with out choosing between them. Its performance wide open is nothing all that special. Finally, it is a small and cheap looking lens! But that doesn’t really matter, as far as I’m concerned. I’m far more interested in what it does than in what it looks like.

One interesting note… Canon makes a much more expensive and highly regarded 35mm f/1.4 L lens. Some who think they need the “best” go straight for that excellent lens – but not everyone will benefit from that choice. While the f/1.4 L is reportedly a very fine lens and excellent at the larger apertures, if you don’t need f/1.4 it may provide no real advantages at all. For example if you mainly need a 35mm lens to shoot stopped down there is little or no advantage to the more expensive lens. Tests I’ve reviewed suggest that the f/2 cheapie produces equivalent IQ at the smaller apertures.

G Dan Mitchell Photography
About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

Text, photographs, and other media are © Copyright G Dan Mitchell (or others when indicated) and are not in the public domain and may not be used on websites, blogs, or in other media without advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

(Basic EXIF data is available by “mousing over” large images in blog posts. Leave a comment if you want to know more.)