It may end up being the bargin that you missed if you decide to wait. I have one and can't image that they'll improve the optical quality much. I'm sure they'll add their latest micro-coatings to the elements (plus their incredible price increase!) and bring the weathersealing up to the current level of the other L glass introduced recently but it's still a well built, sharp lens "as is".
July 29, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
Pages: [1]
Topic: cannon 35mm 1.4L now or wait for 35 f/1.4L II? (Read 10946 times)
dirtcastle
- 7D
- Posts: 391
-
I will wait for the new one to come out, even if it takes a few years. Either I will get the Mark II or I might even get a Mark I if the used price drops to the point where there is no risk in buying it. The reason I'm willing to wait is that this will likely be my default lens, I want the best possible performance at f/1.4 (low CA would be a big plus), and I'm already covered in this range with an f/2.8 lens. The price tag will surely be severe, but I would keep the lens forever, no doubt.
Logged
DJL329
- 6D
-
- Posts: 467
-
When in doubt over buying the "current" version of a body/lens/gadget versus waiting for a yet to be announced replacement, please be sure to check out the (un)Official Canon Rumors FAQ:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2783.0/topicseen.html
Good lenses hold their value and, in some cases (especially for good/popular lenses), even go up after they have been discontinued. (This usually occurs because the replacement costs so much more than the original lens that individuals are willing to pay more than what the old one cost when it was new. Being a "collectors" item also drives up the cost.) So don't be worried about buying the "old" one, if you have to.
That being said, you state that you won't "need" it until your trip in June, so you can afford to wait for at least a month. Expect at least 2 months between announcement and availability, however.
My best advice is find a camera shop where you can compare the two. You stated you already like the 24mm focal length, so getting the 24mm f/1.4L Mark II isn't a bad choice.
Also, there are instant rebates on both the 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 II, but they end on March 31st!
Good luck, have fun in Alaska and bring back some pics to share!
I believe some sub-200mm "L" lenses, such as the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, are "sealed," but only if they have a filter on the front.
From the 16-35mm f/2.8L II manual:
Since the front element of this lens moves when zooming, you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust-and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water resistant.
(I think a good UV filter will suffice.)
The manual for the 24mm f/1.4L II simply states:
Tight seal structure ensure excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance.
Not exactly what I would call "weather resistant," but it's got to be better than the 50mm f/1.4!
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2783.0/topicseen.html
Good lenses hold their value and, in some cases (especially for good/popular lenses), even go up after they have been discontinued. (This usually occurs because the replacement costs so much more than the original lens that individuals are willing to pay more than what the old one cost when it was new. Being a "collectors" item also drives up the cost.) So don't be worried about buying the "old" one, if you have to.
That being said, you state that you won't "need" it until your trip in June, so you can afford to wait for at least a month. Expect at least 2 months between announcement and availability, however.
My best advice is find a camera shop where you can compare the two. You stated you already like the 24mm focal length, so getting the 24mm f/1.4L Mark II isn't a bad choice.
Also, there are instant rebates on both the 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 II, but they end on March 31st!
Good luck, have fun in Alaska and bring back some pics to share!
Regarding the weather sealing, If I'm right no lens shorter than 200mm has weather sealing.
I believe some sub-200mm "L" lenses, such as the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, are "sealed," but only if they have a filter on the front.
From the 16-35mm f/2.8L II manual:
Since the front element of this lens moves when zooming, you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust-and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water resistant.
(I think a good UV filter will suffice.)
The manual for the 24mm f/1.4L II simply states:
Tight seal structure ensure excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance.
Not exactly what I would call "weather resistant," but it's got to be better than the 50mm f/1.4!
Logged
Canon EOS 5D Mark III | EF 14mm f/2.8L | EF 28mm f/1.8 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8 | EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | EF 300mm f/4L IS
chengpenguin
- Guest
I have the 35L currently and it is razor sharp at f/1.4, full frame. The only thing I think Mark II can improve on is the weather sealing.
Logged
scottb
- Guest
Thank you all for the replies so far. Since weather sealing was brought up (and filters for that matter) I have another question. Is this lens be fine for use in moist conditions? I'm thinking light rain or the splashes from boats/paddles. The parts of Alaska I'm going to be in (Kenai peninsula) is a temperate rainforest so the odds of me being out in some sort of rain are likely and I'm chartering a boat to go fishing and going out in a kayak. I dunno how ballsy I will get about taking the camera out on the kayak (or at least leaving it in a dry bag until on shore) but definitely on the boat and possibly in some light rain. How does the weather sealing in the lenses that have it work exactly?
And is it common practice to put a simple UV filter on a L lens to protect it, or is that like taking the engine out of a Ferrari and replacing it with a civic just in case you get in a wreck?
If so, what are some decent filter brands? I think I have B+W filters on my cheaper lenses.
Logged
jwong
- Guest
I've taken the 17-55 which is less rugged than the 35L to Ketchikan, Alaska and it did all right. It rained the whole time there, but I kept the camera out of the elements by keeping it in the bag or under a jacket most of the time.
Taking the camera fishing might be OK, but I'd avoid the kayak unless your experienced. If you capsize, the equipment is ruined. It might be worth looking into a P&S with a "waterproof" housing for the kayak.
UV or skylight filters are a good idea. UV filters are easier to find, but there is no difference for a digital camera. A lot of people like using them to protect the front element, others prefer lens hoods. Good filters should not degrade IQ perceptibly -- B&W is a good brand and multicoat is preferable to single coat. I'd rather clean a filter rather than the expensive front element of a lens.
Taking the camera fishing might be OK, but I'd avoid the kayak unless your experienced. If you capsize, the equipment is ruined. It might be worth looking into a P&S with a "waterproof" housing for the kayak.
UV or skylight filters are a good idea. UV filters are easier to find, but there is no difference for a digital camera. A lot of people like using them to protect the front element, others prefer lens hoods. Good filters should not degrade IQ perceptibly -- B&W is a good brand and multicoat is preferable to single coat. I'd rather clean a filter rather than the expensive front element of a lens.
Logged
canon rumors FORUM
mjp
- Guest
You'll certainly be happy with this lens no matter which version you get. I have used this lens extensively for both street and travel photography and as a general walk around lens and love it. It's a great one for both full frame and crop, too. I only wish it was weather sealed - though this hasn't stopped me from using it in the rain, cold, extreme heat.
Logged
canon rumors FORUM
Pages: [1]