after the baby lens 40mm f/2.8 for me a little big and heavy (but it's a matter of habit). for a couple of days of use, here is such a review, after isolation, I can add / change the rating, but so far so :) Has some pros - convenient focal length of 35 mm - f/2.0 aperture - working stabilizer - autofocus seems to work - the picture is quite clear Different cons: - in a dark room, overexposure is noticeable, even at -1: objects are quite bright. - if it is quite quiet, then you can hear the…

This is definitely my favourite. I use it on crop almost constantly, because of the rather convenient (for me) focal length. But on ff, it seems to me, he reveals himself even better, though his goals appear slightly different. It seems to me that in the shadow of the promoted Sigma 35 art, this lens was lost. I have not tested the Sigma, but I really like the picture that this lens gives out.

I've wanted a 35mm for a very long time. I looked at used elks, and the first old 35mm f / 2 and Sigma. But, after weighing all the arguments, I took this one. The kit was immediately with a hood and a case, ironically, I never use them. I shoot a lot of travel, and I really wanted to find a convenient staff member for everything. The 24-70 was very heavy, the sigma 35mm is not lighter, but it had trouble focusing, especially on the side points. The reasons for buying this lens were meager…

Bought the lens a couple of months ago. For a long time I wanted to buy it for my 6d mark II, I read reviews and feedback from the owners, which were completely positive. General positive first impressions of the purchase (appearance and design) quickly gave way to disappointment. Photos came out blurry, regardless of the aperture. As much as this lens is more expensive than the EF 50 / f1.8 STM, sharpness turned out to be just as worse. As an amateur photographer, and not a professional, I…

I have been using it for almost a year, about the spent 40t. R. I don’t regret it, I really liked the lens and I plan to switch to full frame with it with a macro ring this THING! draws eyes in flies I don’t know how it will behave in full frame, but on crop it’s better to keep the aperture from 2,8 and higher someone wrote that the lens is convex - how can it be convex if I have a UV filter on it . they come up with everything =) worthy of a red ring and a letter L =)

Lens 35mm f2 is at a price of 31 the picture is like that of 50mm f1.8 stm at aperture 2. Why pay 3-4 times more, probably for a stub. Inadequate price, Does not justify the cost. Picture quality with 35mm of this glass can be achieved with other cheaper glasses. Not worth the purchase for sure. for example, below I give a photo from 35 mm (31 tr) and 50 mm stm (7.6 tr) on canon 6d mark2 (aperture 2, settings are the same). why is the example photo not visible to users?

I liked the glass even before the purchase. And when it fell into my hands, I just couldn’t tear my hands off. Pictures come out good. I'm using a canon 50d camera. Yes, old model. I don’t know how it will be on newer ones, but on my carcass it suits me perfectly. It is very convenient to remove the subject, food. I did not try to shoot with elks, but this lens certainly surprised me. I recommend.

In general, the lens is satisfied. Does the job) would put 5 stars nooooooo: But this company has big problems with delivery! The courier is ok, but here is from the company: They called me and said that they were postponing the delivery according to the operator: maybe for 2 days, maybe for 3 . We'll see there. Great guys! No excuse, the unimaginable happened, they just call and boorishly put before the fact. Very angry about this situation! And they gave me the reason that their driver got…

I am writing (in my wife's account) for those who do not know what kind of animal this is - a fix of 35 mm and used 50 mm or more before. I would never have thought that a difference of 15 mm in FR with fifty dollars could be so radical. So: forget about the cupcake. Blurring the background is not at all here. Of course, the object separates from the back when the aperture is open, but this is not an artistic "haze" at all. Forced perspective certainly "bulges" what is directly in front of the…

I bought instead of the mentioned Sigma, which I sold at one time to buy a second camera (mirrorless). I use it on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III, I'm quite satisfied with the result, so I don't see any point in paying more for either the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art or the 35mm Elka, especially since this one cost about 31,000. ))) I recommend to purchase! Buy or not, everyone decides for himself!

I sold all the fifty dollars, they were all like a bad dream I remember them. Never, you hear, never buy fifty dollars! Until they release a modern poltos. Especially beginners should not be given them, the pros will figure out how to tame half a toss, and will make duplicates just in case. With this lens, just a new life began! There was also sigma 18-35, and other glasses, but I don’t shoot this lens! Yes, 1.4 would be more interesting in terms of picture, but not for all situations, we don’t

If you want a faster aperture of 35, then take 1.4 of the 1st version or 2nd, but before you take a step towards a larger hole, think about whether you are ready to overpay twice or three times for an increase in mass and size, a little more blur at F1.4 and the ability to lower the ISO by a step when shooting at dusk? If you don't need it - 35 2.0 IS USM is practically the same Elka only without the red ring, cheaper, lighter, more comfortable, one step darker. (Examples taken at f2.0)

Bought a used one year old in new condition. To buy it, I sold canon 28 / 1.8 and sigma 50 / 1.4 (not art). I bought a subject for 28 (new from 34). Saved a little of course, but 6k is also money). By the way, I bought it right away with my own lens hood! Sigma art was not considered due to bad reviews. Elka was not considered because of the price tag and dimensions. In addition, I had a lot of glasses with a hole of 1.4 - for my needs such lordship is unnecessary. I still clamped it to two so

After the vaunted Sigma 35mm F / 1.4 Art is simply magical, for comparison, the autofocus hit percentage is 99% versus 10% for the Sigma, and then in good daylight conditions. And there is no need to compare the grandfather 35F / 2 and the modern 35F2 IS USM car, it's like comparing a car from 1980 and 2022. According to the resolution of optics, it can even do 35L of the first version. One of the few modern high-quality fixes from Canon, perhaps with the best price / quality ratio. All of the…

In short, are you choosing between sigma art and this canoe? Take this canoe. It’s lighter, a little weaker in sharpness, but you don’t take pictures on billboards either. Does not smear in focus from the word almost. It happens to miss once, BUT knowing Sigma, this can not even be considered. I have a sigma 50mm art, I don’t regret buying it, although there are drawbacks. But it's still much better than the original 1.2. You will not really use either 1.2 or 1.4 (infa weave). 2.0 is enough for

An excellent lens, I chose between this and Sigma Art 35 1.4, in the end I chose kenon, the sigma of a friend smeared with autofocus terribly, this one has everything super, razor sharpness, at 5.6, so generally throughout the frame. In general, I recommend, you will definitely be satisfied. Sigma is sharper, but it’s of no use when the focus is blurry and you’re not sure that there is a good shot or in the basket due to a miss . I want to be more confident in technology, and this lens…

I use a 100D camera, that is, a crop. I really needed a lens for handheld shooting in low light conditions. Object shooting. In general, what I wanted from him was what I got, with a shutter speed of 1/20, 9 out of 10 photos are not blurred. On the crop, I also use it as a reporter, although it’s hard indoors. The focal length is not exactly ideal for portraits, but acceptable for an amateur level. Sometimes I think that if a stub were stuck in a fifty-fifty 1.8 stm, it would not have a price…

After several years of using the previous version 35 / 2.0 on the crop, with the purchase of 6D I decided to ate the glass. I chose between Sigma and the subject. I chose my own optics. I bought it for $ 560. I think the price is adequate. quickly, almost silently, the picture is sharp, I like the colors, I'm used to the FR-35. I'm very pleased with the glass, paired with 85 / 1.8 allows you to get a good result.

I'm not a professional photographer, so I don't see the point in expensive lenses. I was looking for a universal fix for crop 🤔 The choice was not great. Initially I took 50mm - not a bad lens. However, autofocus leaves a lot to be desired in low light. This handsome man suits everything. Good optics. I'm happy👍 But I'm not in a hurry to part with fifty dollars either. It's good for portraits

I don’t like using flash, but I often have to shoot in low light conditions, so I have long dreamed of a fast normal lens with an image stabilizer. And finally, Canon has released such a model. Hooray! A small test showed that in terms of sharpness this lens is about the level of the EF 50mm f/1.8. Some would say that this is terrible: a $1000 lens is as sharp as a $130 lens! But it's not. 50/1.8 is a very sharp lens. But with a very nasty focusing system . It was because of autofocus misses…