Announcement: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II

[Cheekysascha]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

 

[George D.]

"BR optics ... can produce sharp images by thoroughly reducing CA when combined with convex and concave lenses". As far as I can see the optical formula of 50/1.4 does not have such (convex/concave) construction, the 85/1.2L II does. I'm willing to see a 50/1.4 replacement but if BR is employed it would have to be an entirely different design, if at all.

 

[George D.]

50/1.4:

85/1.2L II:

 

[chromophore]

"BR optics ... can produce sharp images by thoroughly reducing CA when combined with convex and concave lenses". As far as I can see the optical formula of 50/1.4 does not have such (convex/concave) construction, the 85/1.2L II does. I'm willing to see a 50/1.4 replacement but if BR is employed it would have to be an entirely different design, if at all.

Virtually all lenses have this positive/negative combination of elements. It's not curvature (as in convexity or concavity of optical surfaces) per se that Canon is intending (this is what happens when marketing people oversimplify technical terms). What Canon really means is the combination of a low-dispersion positive element made of crown glass cemented to a high-dispersion negative element made of flint glass--this is what is termed an achromatic doublet. This is a common technique of correcting chromatic aberrations and is typically present in all properly corrected designs. Were it not for dispersion, lenses would be much, much simpler.

Here, when I refer to "positive" or "negative" it is in reference to refractive power. Loosely speaking, a positive element will cause parallel rays to converge; a negative element will cause them to diverge. A positive element need not be convex on both of its surfaces, nor a negative be concave on both surfaces. This is why Canon's use of curvature is technically imprecise. The net effect of such a doublet can be positive or negative depending on the relative magnitude of the powers of the constituent elements.

Sometimes, this arrangement is not cemented--an air gap is allowed in between to achieve other corrections.

You are correct that if this BR technology is used, it would require a redesign of existing lenses. This is actually a necessary condition for both the 50/1.4 and 85/1.2L designs regardless of whether there is an achromatic doublet already in the design. There is one cemented doublet (elements #4 and 5) and one uncemented (gapped) doublet (elements #2 and 3) in the 50/1.4. In the 85/1.2L II, the doublets are actually in the exact same position (with an additional front element): positive aspherical #3 and negative #4; then an aperture stop, then a negative #5 and positive #6. These two lenses belong to essentially the same design class (double Gauss).

Use of a BR layer would change the necessary corrections to other elements in the optical path. It's not something that one would just tack on in an existing design, unfortunately.

 

[LovePhotography]

Canon 35 f/1.4 ii MTF compared with Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5 ii MTF

 

[GMCPhotographics]

As for the BR element/technology. It will be interesting if this really has longevity. It's an expensive risk you'd take if you are an early adopter. There will be alot of sunlight passing through it, under hot conditions would it degrade.

I would imagine they have it worked out, but it would stink a bit if it turned out that it was designed to last only slightly longer than the service life-time for the lens.

Canon have made more and more consistent lenses that are much better put together, ref Roger LensRentals. I believe the 35 L II is probably THE most durable well built lens they have ever made.

I would wager that the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens would be like a toy in comparison too. Built and AF mechanics will be light years apart.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

 

[Viggo]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

 

[Viggo]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.

I suspect that it is the AF accuracy which is causing the softness. My current 35mm f1.4L, I can't seem to calibrate it's AF properly. If I calibrate it at MFD, then it miss-focusses at MFD and vice versa. It's been back to Canon twice and they can't seem to correct it either. With a slim DOF f1.4 lens, focus accuracy is critical and nearly impossible to visual correct with an f2.8 DOF limited view screen on a 5DIII.

 

[Viggo]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.

I suspect that it is the AF accuracy which is causing the softness. My current 35mm f1.4L, I can't seem to calibrate it's AF properly. If I calibrate it at MFD, then it miss-focusses at MFD and vice versa. It's been back to Canon twice and they can't seem to correct it either. With a slim DOF f1.4 lens, focus accuracy is critical and nearly impossible to visual correct with an f2.8 DOF limited view screen on a 5DIII.

Not mine, it's copy to copy variation, I have had 4 copies at the same time comparing them with liveview and MF, and it's very obivous.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.

I suspect that it is the AF accuracy which is causing the softness. My current 35mm f1.4L, I can't seem to calibrate it's AF properly. If I calibrate it at MFD, then it miss-focusses at MFD and vice versa. It's been back to Canon twice and they can't seem to correct it either. With a slim DOF f1.4 lens, focus accuracy is critical and nearly impossible to visual correct with an f2.8 DOF limited view screen on a 5DIII.

Not mine, it's copy to copy variation, I have had 4 copies at the same time comparing them with liveview and MF, and it's very obivous.

Yes, I hear you. I do think that different countries get whole produciton batches and as a result different countries sometimes gets different results due to batch to batch variations.

 

[Viggo]

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now

Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.

I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.

While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy.
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.

It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.

I suspect that it is the AF accuracy which is causing the softness. My current 35mm f1.4L, I can't seem to calibrate it's AF properly. If I calibrate it at MFD, then it miss-focusses at MFD and vice versa. It's been back to Canon twice and they can't seem to correct it either. With a slim DOF f1.4 lens, focus accuracy is critical and nearly impossible to visual correct with an f2.8 DOF limited view screen on a 5DIII.

Not mine, it's copy to copy variation, I have had 4 copies at the same time comparing them with liveview and MF, and it's very obivous.

Yes, I hear you. I do think that different countries get whole produciton batches and as a result different countries sometimes gets different results due to batch to batch variations.

That makes sense.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I hate to rain on the parade, but let's dial back the excitement several notches and look at things more objectively. There have been a number of questions asked and speculations made that I think need to be carefully addressed.

First, the comparison of MTF curves. The published curves are not comparable to any other curves (especially those actually produced from measurements of production lenses of other manufacturers) except for Canon's other published curves. That is to say, you can compare the 35/1.4L against the 35/1.4L II curves when they come from Canon, but you should not compare the Sigma curves against the Canon.

The curves that Canon produces are theoretical (as we should all know by now) in the sense that they are based on ray tracing simulated lenses and calculating the resulting spot diagrams. The most important thing to keep in mind is that these are a (reasonably good) guideline but not what you will necessarily achieve with a production lens.

Second, the BR element/technology. This is very promising. I do not think there will be longevity issues--that it is made of organic material doesn't necessarily mean it will degrade over time, but here we can only trust that Canon has tested the technology and decided it is stable enough for use in a camera system over the lifetime of the lens.

Third, your best indicator of performance at this time is the sample images. Don't look at the MTF curves for now: wait until measured MTF curves are made. Right now, sample images are the proof of performance that we should look for. The ones I've seen look very impressive. Chromatic aberration is much better controlled than in the previous design, without a doubt. It is not entirely absent, however. We are still lacking in the following types of samples: (1) shots taken at f/1.4 with low subject magnification: this is to reveal the bokeh at intermediate, non-macro scales; (2) shots taken at f/1.4 at infinity focus, of stars: this is to reveal the existence of coma wide open; (3) series of shots taken at f/1.4 to f/2 in high contrast situations: this is to reveal any spherical aberration, residual chromatic aberration, and focus shift. I can only assume that with the level of excitement over this lens, these samples will be coming VERY soon.

I'm excited but I'm not dropping $1800 on a lens that I can't yet quantify how much improvement exists.

So do these measurements show that the 35L-II is comparable to the Zeiss 55 Otus:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=VAR

 

[chromophore]

The MTF curves that LensRentals does is valid for comparing between brands because these curves are empirically derived from actual lenses, all on the same measuring device(s).

That said, the MTF tells you only so much: it is not, for example, going to directly tell you about chromatic aberration or the look of the bokeh.

So far, what we have seen is that the EF 35/1.4L II is indeed an impressive lens. I may have to get one for myself: I think if I could sell my EF 35/1.4L at a good price, I would go for the upgrade. Anybody want to buy mine? It's in excellent condition. ;D

 

[ben805]

The MTF curves that LensRentals does is valid for comparing between brands because these curves are empirically derived from actual lenses, all on the same measuring device(s).

That said, the MTF tells you only so much: it is not, for example, going to directly tell you about chromatic aberration or the look of the bokeh.

So far, what we have seen is that the EF 35/1.4L II is indeed an impressive lens. I may have to get one for myself: I think if I could sell my EF 35/1.4L at a good price, I would go for the upgrade. Anybody want to buy mine? It's in excellent condition. ;D

I had a hard time selling my 35L, even though it was in like-new condition and physically indistinguishable from a brand new one, took almost 3 weeks to get rid of it at $950. :-\