35L II and New EF-M zoom coming on 8/14?

[privatebydesign]

The product differentiation between a 35 f1.4 L MkII at around $1,500, and the 35 f2 IS at $500 makes the L MkII a hard sell imho, especially seeing as how the IQ from the f2 IS is so good and the size and weight so small.

The differences between the 35 f1.4L MkI, which I never was happy with on digital cameras, and the old 35mm f2 made the L a comparative easy sell. Certainly the 35 f2 IS out performs the MkI 35 L by a long way in everything but that one stop.

There is a lot of room for improvement in Canon's 35mm designs and the 35/1.4L II could differentiate itself there - especially in the corners.

Clearly you haven't used the 35 f2 IS, the 24 TS-E MkII with 1.4TC, or the 16-35 f4 IS, all of which are excellent 35mm lenses.

In fairness I think Dilbert was referring to 35mm (preferably fast) primes:
1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.
2. the TS-E 24L-II with 1.4xTC has a max aperture is of f/5.6 and by that setting most 35mm primes are showing decent performance in the corners.
3. The 16-35 is not a fast and not a prime.

P.S. The 24-70L II is also not a prime but is reasonably fast and pretty much like a barrel full of primes. That should have been your go-to lens if zooms were on the table.

That might be what you took him to mean, in which case he is still missing the 35 f2 IS which is a very good design and vignetting is simplicity itself to correct, but that isn't what he said so isn't what I replied to.

As for the 24-70 f2.8 MkII, yes it is a good and many many people have also compared it to some of the best primes in the range, but dilbert has previously dismissed it because of barrel distortion so I didn't include it.

 

[bholliman]

The product differentiation between a 35 f1.4 L MkII at around $1,500, and the 35 f2 IS at $500 makes the L MkII a hard sell imho, especially seeing as how the IQ from the f2 IS is so good and the size and weight so small.

The differences between the 35 f1.4L MkI, which I never was happy with on digital cameras, and the old 35mm f2 made the L a comparative easy sell. Certainly the 35 f2 IS out performs the MkI 35 L by a long way in everything but that one stop.

There is a lot of room for improvement in Canon's 35mm designs and the 35/1.4L II could differentiate itself there - especially in the corners.

Clearly you haven't used the 35 f2 IS, the 24 TS-E MkII with 1.4TC, or the 16-35 f4 IS, all of which are excellent 35mm lenses.

In fairness I think Dilbert was referring to 35mm (preferably fast) primes:
1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.
2. the TS-E 24L-II with 1.4xTC has a max aperture is of f/5.6 and by that setting most 35mm primes are showing decent performance in the corners.
3. The 16-35 is not a fast and not a prime.

P.S. The 24-70L II is also not a prime but is reasonably fast and pretty much like a barrel full of primes. That should have been your go-to lens if zooms were on the table.

That might be what you took him to mean, in which case he is still missing the 35 f2 IS which is a very good design and vignetting is simplicity itself to correct, but that isn't what he said so isn't what I replied to.

+1 The 35 f2 IS is an excellent lens and vignetting is almost a non-issue.

i'm not sure the new 35 with do that well after sigma's. the 35 art is incredible, and it'll be 1/3 the cost of the 35LII.

A new Canon L will certainly have excellent autofocus which is something the Sigma Art's lack. Their AF is considered average at best and poor/erratic by others.

I imagine the IQ of a 35LII will be very close to the Art given the quality of Canon's recent L lenses, and yes, the intro price will be probably be in the $1,600-1,800 range. Buyers will have to decide if a red ring, better AF, Canon's excellent service support network and weather sealing are worth the delta in price.

Personally, I'm very happy with my 35/2 IS.

 

[TeT]

1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.

No?! It isn't as huge as you say....

2.3EV wide open and 0,5EV closed down to 5.6 according to photozone.

Its is easily noticeable many charts and tests confirm this...

Its a canon non L prime (as well as many non L zooms). it has dark corners... that's what they do...

Most non L (non top of the line for any maker) caliber lenses are dark in the corners as well...

 

[StudentOfLight]

1. the 35 f/2 IS has dark corners (massive vignette, about 3Ev) wide open. Even closed down to 5.6 it is still there at almost 1Ev.

No?! It isn't as huge as you say....

2.3EV wide open and 0,5EV closed down to 5.6 according to photozone.

I guess it depends on how you define "the corner". If the corner is the the value at the corner then this chart may help:

Alternatively, if the corner is a zone near and including the corner then 2.3 EV is a fair value to quote.

 

[PureClassA]

Had I never bought the Canon 16-35 f4L after buying the two ARTs, I'd still use it. And the 50 is a wee bit sharper than the 35, but barely distinguishable. That's not my reasoning though. I do tend to do more portraiture and 35 frankly just doesn't do it for me, unless I'm shooting really wide and my subject is merely a small piece of the framing. That's more rare for me. But if that happens, I'm not shooting at 1.4. I'll be down to f4 .... and thus the Canon zoom does the same job for me. Plus it's just another lens I have to debate over when traveling "which three do I take this time...hmmmm" and more and more I'm favoring my personal trinity of the Canon 16-35 F4L, 70-200 f2.8 IS II, both flanking my standard Sig Art Prime at 50mm. I get wide coverage for landscaping, tele zoom for reach, and one ultra fast bad ass prime for general street and artistic shots.

I'm already considering selling my 35 Sig now, but I'm waiting to see what I want to replace it with.

I think the new 35L2 is gonna be in the $1500 range +/- $150. SO, maybe 10% more for the 50 when it shows up. Canon knows they have real competition from Sigma. They make more per unit at $1800 but I bet they only sell half as many or less than they would at a slimmer margin of $1400.

PureClassA, why don't you use the 35 Art much now that you have the 50 Art? Just your style of shooting? It is hard for me to imagine that the 50 Art can be much better than the 35 Art, which I find terrific. I rather like 35mm as a general fast lens. Just curious. I don't do portraiture.