October 26, 2014, 04:05:35 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]  (Read 14653 times)

Grumbaki

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2013, 02:55:12 AM »
It will need to be damn good and priced well to make me swap my Sigma...but then I would just for the sake of red rings and giggles.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2013, 02:55:12 AM »

Chosenbydestiny

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2013, 03:51:46 AM »
I'm more concerned with color reproduction, CA, distortion, bokeh quality, and AF performance in low light (where it's supposed to excel anyway) A bump in sharpness and resolution wouldn't be too shabby but I wouldn't make sharpness a top priority as the old version of the lens is already quite sharp. I didn't buy the Sigma even if it has great reviews, because of the orange cast, and strong velvets. I much prefer the dominant reds from Canon L lenses. Add 9 rounded blades in the new version, somewhat faster and more accurate shots wide open, updated resolution and micro-contrast, and I'll buy.
Nikon electric fan, gas stove, and slippers. Canon Elan 7, 1D Mark III, 5D mark III, and 2x6D. Canon 24mm Samyang/Rokinon, 85L, 135L, and many other lenses. 2x Canon 580ex II, third party speedlites, studio strobes

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2013, 04:08:18 AM »
Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

ecka

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 664
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2013, 04:58:39 AM »
Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?

I hope so. Only f/1.2 would justify the price of a new 35L.
FF + primes !

melbournite

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2013, 05:06:09 AM »
Too late!  Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.

roimund

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2013, 06:46:49 AM »
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!)

now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 961
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2013, 06:48:56 AM »
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.

I agree with most everything you said...the current Canon lens is a good lens.  I recently bought the Sigma (mine seems just fine out of the box, uber sharp)...it's just refreshing to see an alternative for what should be a reasonably priced lens...it is just a 35mm after all.   I also splurged two weeks ago and bought a 17mm TSE (amazing) and that seems like a super bargain compared to Canon's post/tsunami pricing on newly released glass....but the lenses with the high pricing are phenomenal. I will say that.
If Sigma brought out an Art Series 50mm f/1.4 and it got GREAT reviews...I would not hesitate to buy it.
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #36 on: June 25, 2013, 06:48:56 AM »

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 961
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #37 on: June 25, 2013, 06:53:18 AM »
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!)

now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html


+1
  I own both of these...24-70mm is an amazing zoom...but honey...the  Sigma holds its own here and blows the former away with bokeh.  :-)
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma Art, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #38 on: June 25, 2013, 08:20:49 AM »
I came really close to buying a the Canon 35 f/2 IS (had it preordered at one point) then I thought long and hard about the Siggy 35 1.4, had it in cart and finger on the buy button but backed out last second. Now this rumor. It will likely be out of my price range though so I might still end up buying the Sigma. Can't decide if I'm actually a 35mm kinda shooter or more of a 24 in which case I might lean towards the 24IS. But damit I just want something fast and wide, don't make my buy more L glass! (Referring to 24L which is wide and fast). 

 :P
« Last Edit: June 25, 2013, 08:38:16 AM by Zv »
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

fstoparmy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
    • View Profile
    • FStop Army
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #39 on: June 25, 2013, 08:40:18 AM »
would love to see the improvements Canon make to a already awesome lens. Sigma sure did bring out a killer 35. Cant wait to see the head to head between the two

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4828
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #40 on: June 25, 2013, 09:23:34 AM »
and it may be held until a new full frame camera is ready to go in 2014.

Can anybody explain this to me - why would Canon hold the 35L2 even if it's ready? Because they're still making lots of $$$ with the mk1 and only a high-mp ff camera would really need a mk2?

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4484
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #41 on: June 25, 2013, 07:29:41 PM »
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!)

now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

No lies involved.

Regarding the test cases you linked...I see no mention of any kind of calibration to maximize the performance of each lens with the camera body they were tested on. As a matter of fact, the FAQ on that site quite explicitly states they only test with one copy of any given thing, and still makes no mention of optimizing each lens for the camera body that is used in testing. One has to wonder if the samples used were producing the best results...in both cases (Sigma's 35mm and Canon's 24-70mm). Second, the post of mine you quoted was comparing the Sigma 24-70 with the Canon 24-70. Your two links are, effectively, comparing the Sigma 35mm to the Canon 24-70...something I never attempted to do. My final statement is a prediction and projection, not a direct comparison of any 35mm lens to any 24-70mm lens. According to the MTF charts, the Canon 24-70 is quite a bit better, from a resolution standpoint, center to corner, than the Sigma 24-70. I am PREDICTING that, IF Canon releases a 35mm f/1.4 II, there is no reason to suspect it will not perform on a similar level...which would make it's performance slightly better than the Sigma 35mm (not necessarily by as much of a margin as with the 24-70...but enough over the old Canon 35mm f/1.4 to make the upgrade, and the price, worth while.)

Regarding the tests you linked...you are making the same mistake many people do, in thinking that a test, like those you linked, is truly indicative of THE LENS. Most review sites test "camera systems", not lenses or cameras. Combining a lens with a camera is going to produce a result that is a convolution of all the components in combination. Those particular tests both use a 1Ds Mark III...which, while it has a high megapixel count, is not particularly high in pixel density. The sensor is going to be the limiting factor there...diminishing returns have already set in. To truly compare the resolving power of a lens when tested as part of a camera system, you need to throw the highest density (highest spatial resolution) sensor you can find at it. One of Nikon's 24mp APS-C cameras would probably do the job well enough. I would bet money that the 24-70/2.8 II would start show it's strength there.

The only true way to get an idea of the real resolving power and sharpness of a lens is to reference a mathematically generated MTF chart from the mathematical models of the lens design itself, which factors in the optical materials, their refractive and dispersion indexes, etc. You can never produce an MTF from an image produced by a lens attached to a camera that truly represents the capability of the lens itself...you are only producing an MTF of that particular camera system...that lens and that camera specifically. You could compare your own MTFs of say a Sigma 24-70 and a Canon 24-70, so long as you produce those MTFs with the exact same camera, in the exact same lighting conditions, with exact precision in terms of sensor plan distance and angle from the test chart, so long as each lens is ideally calibrated for that camera. To improve the accuracy of such a test, several copies of each lens should be used with several copies of a camera body, and better yet, with a couple sets of camera bodies of differing pixel densities (say an 18mp FF and a 24mp APS-C), and each setup should be run through a test sequence multiple times, with statistical outliers discarded from final average results and standard deviations. Only then could one say a comparison of any one lens to any other lens is truly objective.

Such subjective tests are useful in a general sense, and are useful for a casual comparison of someone browsing the web for information on what lenses to consider buying. Personally, if I just want to compare two lenses, I opt to compare the manufacturer's mathematically generated MTF charts that demonstrate JUST the performance of the lens, and nothing else. I am not trying to "lie"...just trying to be as objective as I can. I'm not in it here to make a purchase...if I was, I'd factor in a whole lot more sources, providing a variety of viewpoints with a variety of test methodologies ("real world" tests, scientific/objective tests, etc.), including testing out the lenses myself, before actually making a decision.

jrista

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4484
  • EOL
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2013, 07:34:40 PM »

...

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!)

first of all, the 35/1,4 from Canon is a good lens but outside the middle - the corners and sides are week compared to others.
You don't have real corner sharpness at f-8
There are rooms here  for improvements
seconds, at 1,4 the canon 35/1,4 can not compete against the Sigma lens
There are also here  rooms for improvements
third, the canon 35/1,4 has lot of CA, also here the lens can be improved

You do realize I was projecting...predicting that the RUMORED EF 35mm f/1.4 L II, would probably be better than the Sigma...right? I know that the old 35mm f/1.4 L has its issues, I stated as much myself. However its CA in the corners does not change the fact that for over a decade, Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L has long been a highly regarded lens. I also clearly stated that Canon had no reason to redesign the lens until the last few years, as their lens, even with the CA in the corners, was still better than the competitions. It is no surprise that Canon is replacing it now, and it is also no surprise that it is taking a little while...they still have to spend the time and money designing a new lens that will be competitive, work out the kinks, field test it, and manufacture a boatload so that when it finally hits the shelves...its really ready to go for the masses.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #42 on: June 25, 2013, 07:34:40 PM »

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1277
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #43 on: June 26, 2013, 12:04:17 AM »
Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.

 ::)
6D | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1512
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2013, 02:09:04 AM »
Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.

 ::)

+1 ... well spotted!  ;D
5D3, 6D, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 600RT x 4
I come here to learn something new, not to learn how bad my gear is - I know that already ;-)!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
« Reply #44 on: June 26, 2013, 02:09:04 AM »