The Canon EF 35mm 1: 2.0 is in my opinion by far the most underestimated famous Canon lens. The fault lies, not least, anything but impressive Datasheet: The lens is ancient by today's standards (Development 1990!), Does not have ultrasonic motor, no image stabilization and only five diaphragm blades. A rather chaotic seeming bokeh (background blur) is therefore inevitable. In addition, it is extremely strong and has vignetiert toward the edge a clearly perceptible sharpness waste. The recently on the market Canon EF 35mm lens 1: 2 IS USM has contrast technically all the trump cards: development of 2012, ultrasonic motor, an ultra-modern image stabilizer and eight diaphragm blades - photographer heart what you want more! I would now like to describe briefly why I decided nevertheless for the Methuselah of 1990: Point 1: image quality. Frankly my expectations were at the old 35 more than clear. As a lecturer in photography, I recommend my students, however, regularly purchasing a 35ers and have therefore easily accessed times. The result is more than astounding. In the middle of the old 35er is even at maximum aperture very sharp - on the edge of the full-frame camera, however, is not. Since I also present new Canon cuts on test chart or the shallow bookshelf significantly better. Only: The truth is rarely flat and image important elements are seldom found on the outermost edge. For me, this difference does not fall outside the laboratory significant. Point 2: ultrasonic motor. If the old 35er achieves focus, this is accompanied by an amusing creaking and humming. This has admittedly technically somewhat backward. But: The focus is seated, and the better and faster than some in my Canon EF 50mm / 1.4 / USM lens (58mm filter thread). The new 35er focused here much quieter, but my subjective impression here any faster. Point 3: Image Stabilization. This is the real crux of the matter in a direct comparison. If you want to film with the lens, the new 35er first choice. Videos succeed from his hand felt better - a nice touch. I film but only for illustrative purposes with my mirror reflections, privately I photograph. Since it has never happened that I would have missed an image stabilizer in a moderate wide-angle lens. Times from beyond the 1/40 second I also quite unregulated easily, with long lean also. Since even slow movements at the latest blur inevitably, the uses for the stabilizer are more manageable. Point 4: Diaphragm Blades. I will not deceive you. The bokeh in this lens looks kind of wild and discordant. For this, a brute Vignetierung comes at the edge at maximum aperture. In both fields the successor model looks much better. But subjectively I like Vignetierungen and am delighted when I can lead the eye with a spot in the middle without image editing. For me, the old lens has character. Even macro of cigarette large objects succeed - surrounded by a great exemption effect. Item 5: PRICE. Where I need it, I invest, not least, for professional reasons in high-priced lenses. But here I get for about 500 euros extra loud features, which I do not in the photo calls everyday. In addition, the new lens is difficult, requires larger filters, draws when the image stabilizer more power and is by my standards about 25 percent too expensive. CONCLUSION. The Ancient Canon is lightweight, reliable and draws rich colors. The list of his weaknesses is long - but each of these shortcomings can be overcome with experience or be turned into a strength. It will get a permanent place in my pocket, which truly does not apply to many lenses. It has an excellent price-performance factor - and I do not therefore worth five stars. Should you wish to share your impressions with me have any questions or, I look forward to your comments!