Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]

[KyleSTL]

there's always a market for cheaper stuff.

And there's always a market for the best-of-the-best at any price, but you already knew that.  And that is why these things can co-exist, and each can be successful doing what they do.

[roadrunner]

there's always a market for cheaper stuff.

And there's always a market for the best-of-the-best at any price, but you already knew that.  And that is why these things can co-exist, and each can be successful doing what they do.

And currently, the best of the best happens to be cheaper (The Sigma 35mm f1.4). I'm not a sigma fanboy by any means, as the 35mm is the only sigma I own, but it is absolutely excellent, and cheaper to boot. That is why everyone is saying canon has their hands full.

That said, the sigma isn't perfect. I had to buy 2 copies, as the first one's focus was way off, and the focus slows down greatly in really dark environment. Since I'm a wedding photographer, that's really important to me. So, if this new canon can be just as good optically as the sigma, better quality control, is weather sealed, and maintains quick focus in low light, I would gladly pay a premium over the siggy, maybe around $1300-1500. The problem is, canon will likely price this new lens much higher. It will definitely be interesting.

[shutterlag]

With the Tamron and Sigma lineups, many of the core lenses everyone buys (18-35 APS-C, 24-70, 70-200, 35, etc.) are as good if not better from 3rd parties. 

Except for the Sigma 35/1.4, 'decent or nearly as good from 3rd parties' would be a lot more accurate than 'as good if not better'.  Of course, they're cheaper...and there's always a market for cheaper stuff.

I would submit the Tamron 24-70 definitely better than the Canon, depending on your use case.  The equivalent to the 18-35mm F1.8 Sigma doesn't even exist in the Canon or Nikon lineups, so that would also be "better" if not "holy crap better".  That leaves the Tammy 70-200, which dxomark has as edging out the Canon mk2 by a hair.  I'll stand by my "as good if not better" statement.

[Etienne]

I'll probably get the 35 f/2 due to it's smaller size and lower weight, if the price drops.

Other than that, I'd rather have a new and improved, cracking sharp 16-35 f/2.8L III, 50 f/1.4 II (L), 50 f/1.2L II, or a really good 20mm f/2.8 (L), a 135mm f/2L IS II that can take teleconverters, a 200 f/2.8L IS II that can take teleconverters ... In that order. The 35 f/1.4 II comes after all these for me.

[switters]

Not a Sigma fan boy by any stretch of the imagination, but have to agree that it will be difficult to improve on the Sigma 35 optically. The thing is razor sharp at f/1.4 and doesn't really have any optical flaws to speak of. There's a reason people rave about it.

AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens). This 3rd copy is better, and using the USB dock I think I've been able to calibrate it so that it's very accurate. Still, that's taken a lot of time and effort (and 3 copies, to boot). If the Canon 35L II was out now, I probably would have been willing to pay $1,500 for it if it matched the Sigma's optics but had more consistent AF out of the box (like my other Canon lenses typically do).

[drjlo]

AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens).

That's the kind of thing I just don't have the time or patience to deal with.

Something has also been bothering me the more Sigma 35 photo's I look on various forums.  Those photos certainly seem very sharp, but at the same time they tend to look a bit "muted," not as 3-D and popping off the page as 35L photo's.  Not sure if this is contrast and/or color-rendering difference; it could even be the fact Canon 35L was/is a more expensive lens, likely being used more by professionals, presumably with more experience/skill.

[Pi]

If Canon improves the bokeh, I would replace my 35L with it. Yes, I know that this would cost me, I do not mind. But I will keep both for a while to make sure that the new one focuses as perfectly as my 35L.

I am glad that the Sigma exists. This may drive the cost of the 35LII down. There is a downside though - Canon may decide to compromise on the bokeh to please the chart shooters and to "beat" the Sigma. Well, this would save me $1K.

[RGomezPhotos]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

LOL!  I was thinking the same thing!

[RGomezPhotos]

I rented the current version once...  I thought it was quite soft...  Compared to the Zeiss 35mm f1.4.

You can bet that the new version is going to cost at least $2k.  But then again, the Zeiss already does   

[infared]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

...but they won't be on the same playing field as Sigma when it comes to pricing....and, in this case possibly performance.

[jrista]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

First, the previous 35mm f/1.4L was an excellent lens. Claiming it wasn't good at all is completely laughable! The 35/1.4 L was one of Canon's best-regarded lenses for, what...at least a decade??

Second, Canon is not necessarily updating this lens solely because of competition. It is probably a factor, for sure (third party lens makers have never been as aggressive as they have been the last five years, and they are starting to produce some great stuff.) I believe Canon has been updating their entire lineup of L-series lenses in order to prepare for a future world where the EF mount is matched with very high density sensors that will be demanding much more from lenses than DSLRs have to date (keep in mind, it was only about four years ago that CMOS pixel density reached levels where it started producing images that surpassed the resolution of a drum-scanned 135 slide.)

Third, even IF Canon only made this lens in response to competition....well, that is the very nature of a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE! One shouldn't be surprised by any competitor in a competitive marketplace holding out as long as they can so long as they continue to have a superior product, or a product that their customers are not regularly complaining about (and, in my experience, most people seem to love their 35/1.4 Ls...I'm surprised by the comments in this thread so far. My personal experience with several rented copies has been nothing but excellent...does no one use AFMA?) The best time to one-up the competition is when the competition is trying to one-up you. No point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing new lenses when neither the competition, nor marketplace, nor sensor technology are demanding them.

Those factors have only RECENTLY changed...so, Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

[neuroanatomist]

Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

At least, since we've all been paying attention to Canon's recent releases, the 35L II's price tag won't come as a sticker-shocker.

[jrista]

I am not sure if what I've been reading is sarcasm, but a number of comments seem to be stating that the new lenses from Sigma and Tamron are better than the latest similar lenses from Canon. While I am happy to note that Sigma and friends are producing better lenses, and in some cases excellent lenses, when Canon competes and produces a new version of the same lens, it is usually much better. As an example, the Sigma AF 24-70 mm f/ 2.8 IF EX DG HSM Lens:

Sigma Wide:


Sigma Tele:



Canon Wide:


Canon Tele:


The newer Sigma 24-70/2.8 is definitely better than it's predecessor, but the Canon 24-70/2.8 II is still kicking the crap out of it in general, with superior center and mid-frame resolution, as well as better corner resolution. People complain about the price of Canon gear...but you get what you pay for. Even the older 24-70/2.8 still offered center-frame resolution that was on par with the newest Sigma 24-70/2.8 in most respects (although the Canon definitely had worse corner performance):

Canon Wide (old):


Canon Tele (old):


I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it is an excellent lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)

[jrista]

Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

At least, since we've all been paying attention to Canon's recent releases, the 35L II's price tag won't come as a sticker-shocker.

And yet, I'm quite sure (and again, unsurprised) that quite a number of people will complain about it nevertheless. ;P

[tnargs]

When was the last time Canon released a general purpose prime L? It was the 24mm in 2008.

I'm not sure they are still prioritising L primes like they used to, when 4 were released from 2006-2008 in 14, 24, 50 and 85mm.