Is there a noticeable difference in image quality compared to its predecessor 35mm f/2 non-IS (when used on a Canon 5D Mark iii body)?
1253597
Strictly image quality, Nothing a non professional would notice. The lens is much more sturdy and the IS has saved me on more than one occasion, especially in low light. The IS version is worth it IMHO
1253598
Can't answer directly, but I have used this lens with a 6D, and have gotten pin sharp images with typically spectacular Canon color rendition. The AF is almost instantaneous. The image quality, IS, and a more substantial look and feel would make me choose this lens over the older version every time.
358174
Not really. The is is the only thing different and that is nominal at these focal lengths. I use it for High vibration environment when shooting video.
2186827
Hi Carlos, Just a slight improvement and longer focal range. If you want a noticeable improvement on image quality, we recommend using prime lenses. -Anthony
735069
It definitely has a far superior build quality. I feel more confident with it on my camera. I have taken quite a few shots wide open at 2.8 and have been very pleased. The focusing motor is also a lot quieter than the nifty fifty. I would like the extra stops but i feel i picked the right starter prime lens and plan on a 30 mm sigma 1.4 in the future. (my brother owns the 50 1.8 and this is what i base my opinions on as I have shot some with his lens on my camera.)
809690
There is definitely a noticeable difference. The 56 has most definitely been my go to for portraits. On top of the sharpness there is also a creamy character to the bokeh. Overall this lens brings a magical quality to the images.
2103069
Yes! I have both these lenses and i think it's so much better than the 35mm 1.8. Plus i use it with the Metabones SpeedBooster on my BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera and it's Killer!!!
189735
If you shoot in low light or you enjoy bokeh (look it up), yes -- pick up the 35mm, it's more versatile for getting everything in the frame. Otherwise, no.
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.
1964185
It is much slower than using a DSLR. I have a K-5 and still occasionally use my K100D Super, and the X-5 has a considerable delay with respect to those. But for applications such as close-ups of wild flowers, landscapes, pictures of family, etc., it's a lot lighter both in terms of the camera body and you have just one lens, and the result is decent. And you don't have to worry about having a lot of high cost gear with you. So, like everything, there are trade-offs.
666201
The difference is larger than "adding an image stabilizer" to the IS model. In other words, the internal lens elements are not identical (in design or in quantity) between the f/4L and f/4L IS. Perhaps some of the glass elements are shared between the models, but the addition of IS technology requires the addition of more lens elements. Look at the Canon site and compare the number of "elements" and "groups" internal to each lens to see what I am talking about. If you poke around the internet you should find a graphic demonstrating the optical arrangement internal to each lens. I have owned the f/4L, the f/4L IS, and the f/2.8L IS II. If I had to rate these lenses on a scale from 1-100 for image quality: I'd rate the f/4L at 85 because it lacks a little sharpness and has a small amount of chromatic aberration. I'd rate the f/4L IS at 95 because it has a small amount of chromatic aberration toward the corners. I'd rate the f/2.8L IS II at 98 because it is almost perfect with no real flaws to speak of. The f/4L IS is noticeably better than the standard f/4L (but doesn't "blow away" the f/4L model). If you can afford the f/4L IS model it is definitely worth the price premium. If you can only afford the f/4L you won't find a better lens at the price point.
1309665
the T 5 i has better speed when using the movie function and it has more monitoring capabilities for better viewing of shoot then older versions!Lenses are different as well!
1611414
I have had both versions of the lens and definitely preferred the one with IS. With that said, the difference in price is significant and the non-stabilized version produces superb images. If you are shooting outdoors with plenty of light it is perfect. If light is an issue when shooting I would definitely save up for the IS version.
1616516
I general 5d3 has a better focusing system so I'm sure you'll get better results w a 5d3, but I tested my copy w the 70-200 2.8 is ii and the 5d2 and 7d cameras. Very very accurate, fast focus. Extremely pleased with the results. I would recommend this combo for anybody who has the new 70-200 2.8 is ii.
446654
I did not notice any vignetting, but I was using the 14mm f/2.8L II version, which supposedly eliminates that, espically when stopped down to 5.6 - 8.0 range. What I DID find was an absolute unacceptable sharpness falloff about 1/4 from the edge. I thought for a while that I was shipped the original 14mm, because it was notorious for that. Alas, it was the II version and Amazon accepted it back, no questions asked. I am considering ordering another, because there *is* the occasional lemon. I may have just gotten one. A good site for comparisons: &lt;http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=280&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4&gt; or http://tinyurl.com/ygt355j Good luck!
1002099
Hi, I ccqn't answer the question sinceI'm using the lens with my Canon 5d mark III.
503709
I have only shot it with the 14-35 f/2 and it was VERTY fast to AF even in indoor conditions. It is much much faster than the E-M5 from what I hear. Maybe not as fast as the E-5 but the 14-35 was plenty fast for me. I can not comment on other lenses as I have not tried them, and probably will not be as A: I am not a fan of large lenses and B: I can not afford to buy them all to test them :)
1556862
I am a 5D MKIII user and I have picked Canon 2 option. it works fine for me.