[JimJ]

Little background - I have a 60D crop body, mostly do street/cityscapes/nature/travel stuff. I bought a non-IS 35mm f/2 a year ago, and it's been a dog. Looking to upgrade, and I've decided between the 2012 revision, the 35mm IS, and the first generation 35mm L lens.


The L has much better build quality, of course, but has anyone compared these two lenses directly? I see that the f/2 is obviously pretty bad wide open as far as vignetting goes, but I'll probably be stopping down to at least f/4 most of the time anyway.

[thunderbrick]

Skip the 1.4 and save money.

And what's the "dog" problem with the old lens?

[JimJ]

It's reasonably sharp in the center, but the corners don't look very good at all.

[thunderbrick]

Well, that's a pretty good definition of a "dog" lens.    

[Folsom]

I'd go with the L, for sure.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/index.htm#35

[JimJ]

Going with the non-L 35mm IS. I just can't justify the extra for how little I'd be shooting either of them wide open.

May be shopping pretty heavily locally tomorrow - nearby camera shop is a B+W and Blackrapid dealer, too...could be trouble...

[Folsom]

The L will be worth something in the future. The IS shoots as low or lower light, But isn't going to retain value. I'd go with L for quality of image and value retention.