35mm f/1.4L II rumors?

[DPMphotog]

There have been rumors for some time.  Personally, I think it's due for a replacement and has been for a while.  Between 2006 and 2011, every Canon L-series prime lens of 100mm or shorter, except the 35L, was either updated or newly-released. 

Having said that, even if they announce one tomorrow, it could be many months and multiple delays before it's actually available - so, I'll give my usual advice: if you want/need it now, buy it now.   If history is a guide, recent updates (70-200 II, 24-70 II) the price of the updated lens will be significantly higher than the original, which means that after the MkII release retailers raise their prices on the MkI while they still have stock, and used prices go up accordingly.  That happened with the 70-200 II, and I'm already seeing used prices of the 24-70 trending up.  So if you get the 35L now, and do decide to upgrade, you'll likely at least break even.

Personally, I thought the 35L was due for replacement over a year ago...that didn't stop me from buying the current version 15 months ago, and I would have missed out on a lot of great shots if I had waited for a still-just-a-rumor replacement.

This is exactly what I was thinking, thank you for putting it into a easy to read argument in my head.  I have events booked for the coming months, that based on knowledge of the locations/past experience could bode well for the lens' abilities as they stand (sharp wide open, etc).

I've used this site for awhile now, but obviously this is the first post to the forum and I just wanted to thank everyone for their responses/input so far.

I was wondering if anyone could post some more sample images or direct me to a good place to find a collection?

I don't know how to make a sig otherwise I'd have my gear down there, but FYI, I'd be using it on a 5D Classic/7D along with the 70-200 2.8 IS, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and 24-70L.

[neuroanatomist]

the soft 35mm I received to evaluate

I suspect that's the point - you received a bad copy, or it just needed a big AFMA which it didn't get.  Mine is very sharp in the center, although less so in the corners on FF.

[RLPhoto]

the soft 35mm I received to evaluate

I suspect that's the point - you received a bad copy, or it just needed a big AFMA which it didn't get.  Mine is very sharp in the center, although less so in the corners on FF.

Possible but It did sharpen up perfectly by 2.8 and tested it using liveview to see if it was the AF. The lens Date code was 2010 so it wasn't that old and didn't looked too banged up when I got it. It's performance was still disappointing considering the advantage of primes is wide open performance and the 35mm wasnt cutting the mustard for me. I'd like to see a revamp but I've already got the 24mm, which is a much better lens IMO.

[JR]

Personally, I thought the 35L was due for replacement over a year ago...that didn't stop me from buying the current version 15 months ago, and I would have missed out on a lot of great shots if I had waited for a still-just-a-rumor replacement.

I did the opposite and regret not getting it before xmas when it was on sale.  Now i feel it is too late or close to the new version being announced for me to pull the trigger but i hope i will not regret it some more in case it still delayed!!!

[birdman]

My 35L delivers beautiful pictures on my 5dII. I don't think much could be improved, except:

1) exotic fluorite coatings
2) little sharper across frame wide open
3) less color fringing--an issue with all fast primes

My copy was purchased 100% new and I will not upgrade for a LONG TIME.

I only want an excellent Canon Wide Angle. My 17-40L is mediocre

[Marsu42]

I'd like to see a revamp but I've already got the 24mm, which is a much better lens IMO.

Is your preference based on your personal experience (with your possibly bad 35L copy) or on reviews? I'm asking because I'd like to get a 35L as my next lens but I'm unsure if the 24L isn't more versatile for event photography. But the reviews I read say the 24L is very similar to the 35L or the latter even has an edge.

[neuroanatomist]

From what I've seen, the 35L has a very slight IQ edge, and definitely less vignetting, too.  Practically speaking, I think it's foolish to pick one of the two over the other based on IQ, they're too equivalent.  The real difference is focal length - I set my 24-105mm to each FL for a while, and preferred the 35mm framing (found myself cropping the 24mm shots). Also, the 35L can be used for environmental portraits, whereas with the 24L you'd probably need to be close enough to result in distortion of the subject's features.  Another factor is weather sealing if you need to shoot in the rain - the 24L has it, the 35L doesn't.

[prestonpalmer]

Another factor is weather sealing if you need to shoot in the rain - the 24L has it, the 35L doesn't.

Another reason im waiting for the 35L II!  I get caught in the rain all the time with wedding photography.  Ruined only 1 5d2 last year from rain.  Stoked about the new 5D3 sealing.  And a sealed 35 with a little better IQ than the current one would be a wonderful addition!

[RLPhoto]

I'd like to see a revamp but I've already got the 24mm, which is a much better lens IMO.

Is your preference based on your personal experience (with your possibly bad 35L copy) or on reviews? I'm asking because I'd like to get a 35L as my next lens but I'm unsure if the 24L isn't more versatile for event photography. But the reviews I read say the 24L is very similar to the 35L or the latter even has an edge.

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.

For 1300$ My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm. It didnt and these  self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open, which the 50mm didnt have much of a problem doing. Whatever, people have there preferences and the 24mm 1.4L II is a much much better lens if you don't mind that focal length. Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

[Random Orbits]

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.

For 1300$ My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm. It didnt and these  self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open, which the 50mm didnt have much of a problem doing. Whatever, people have there preferences and the 24mm 1.4L II is a much much better lens if you don't mind that focal length. Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

You probably have a bad copy or one that needs to be retuned by Canon.  My 35L focuses more accurately and consistently than my 50L.

[RLPhoto]

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.

For 1300$ My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm. It didnt and these  self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open, which the 50mm didnt have much of a problem doing. Whatever, people have there preferences and the 24mm 1.4L II is a much much better lens if you don't mind that focal length. Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

You probably have a bad copy or one that needs to be retuned by Canon.  My 35L focuses more accurately and consistently than my 50L.

Please post some examples of the 35 1.4L @ 1.4. I'd love to see them and it may sway me to get another CPS loan for re-evaluation. Its a lens I'd like to like and see what it can do.

[lessmore]

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.

For 1300$ My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm. It didnt and these  self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open, which the 50mm didnt have much of a problem doing. Whatever, people have there preferences and the 24mm 1.4L II is a much much better lens if you don't mind that focal length. Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

You probably have a bad copy or one that needs to be retuned by Canon.  My 35L focuses more accurately and consistently than my 50L.

Please post some examples of the 35 1.4L @ 1.4. I'd love to see them and it may sway me to get another CPS loan for re-evaluation. Its a lens I'd like to like and see what it can do.

There is a full group (with updates daily) for the 35mm f/1.4L on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/27449914@N00/pool/

You can get a good idea of how versatile (and sharp) the lens is by checking its actual use by a bunch of different photographers.

[neuroanatomist]

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.
My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm.... self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open...Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

I can't say for sure that you got a 'bad copy' but assuming the setup for the two shots was the same and your intended focus point was on the near eye, judging by the reflection of the light source, it seems that the 35L is not focused where you intended.  Most likely, this just means the lens needed AFMA on your body.  The shot with the 35L is suffering from misfocus, meaning you can't fairly judge sharpness (of course, you can certainly unfairly judge the lens to be soft based on a misfocused shot!). 

[RLPhoto]

The proof is in the pudding for me. Here is the 35mm 1.4L compared to my 50mm 1.4 at the time.
My expectations were the 35mm at least meet the same sharpness level as the baseline 50mm.... self-portraits i did that night showed the 35mm's weakness, sharpness wide open...Then again, it could have been a bad copy but i doubt it.

I can't say for sure that you got a 'bad copy' but assuming the setup for the two shots was the same and your intended focus point was on the near eye, judging by the reflection of the light source, it seems that the 35L is not focused where you intended.  Most likely, this just means the lens needed AFMA on your body.  The shot with the 35L is suffering from misfocus, meaning you can't fairly judge sharpness (of course, you can certainly unfairly judge the lens to be soft based on a misfocused shot!).

Ok here are three photos linked from pixel-peeper.com (not my photos) <-------Great website if your looking into lenses.

This is the similar performance of my loaned 35mm 1.4L.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inaffablegong/4020051441/#sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelmixture/3959096398/#sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelmixture/3957146026/#sizes/o/

These are the best performers I could ever find.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inaffablegong/3682397859/#sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelmixture/3859486209/#sizes/o/



Once again, Here I go again on my own.

My point is that i still don't understand why the 35mm 1.4L is praised so much. If you compare the very best photos from the 35mm to the 24mmII, Its a no brainer.

The 24mmII is a much better piece of glass than the 35mm.(Id expect it to, afterall the 24mmII is NEWER!)
The 24mmII has the color of the 85L, its tack sharp wide open, its weather sealed and its newer.

Here are some 24mm 1.4L II Examples to compare to the 35mm 1.4L

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex12ga/6249236255/#sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/instantvantage/4596003923/#sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/instantvantage/4924693402/#sizes/o/

I've also did a quick photo outside also to add these 24mm 1.4L II shots. For 1300$ the 35mm 1.4L couldn't even match what I was getting out of my 350$ 50mm 1.4. The 24mm II did that and even more!

Plus if your on APS-c and full frame is a great combo with the 50L and 135L because...

24mmL - Full Frame

35mm FOV w/24mmL - APSC

50mmL - Full Frame

85mm FOV w/50mmL - APSC

135mmL - Full Frame

200mm FOV W/ 135mmL - APSC

Its a perfect three lens setup w/ 2 Bodies.

[keithfullermusic]

i don't think waiting would be wise for this.  look at the reasons:

1) canon has been dirt slow at releasing things after announcing them (1DX, 24-70II, etc.)
2) canon hasn't even announced one, let alone CR announcing any serious rumors.
3) canon has increased their prices like woah - and you bet a new 35L, a lens that everyone wants, is going to be priced like woah.
4) buy it used now, and you can sell it if the new one ever comes out.  it is a beloved lens, and you would have absolutely no problem selling it because the new one will be waaaaaaaay more expensive.  you might lose a 100 bucks, but that would be like paying 100 bucks to rent it for a year or so.
5) the current one is old, but amazing. how much can a new version really be improved (which is probably the reason they haven't made a new one in so long)?