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

Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
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.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Funny how things leak out ;)

The performance of the 35 L II is quite interesting to me, because it'll show how Canon is rating the performance of Sigma and how they think to react.

The EF-M will surely be interesting to those looking for a small travel lens or an always-on-body lens.
For the latter I sometimes think if they really need a system camera.
For me the F6.3 would be the dealbreaker, allthough I can understand the compromise for smaller size.
 
Upvote 0
#26
Maximilian said:
For me the F6.3 would be the dealbreaker, allthough I can understand the compromise for smaller size.
Click to expand...
^^^ That .... and...
bholliman said:
If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end.
Click to expand...
^^^that

The lenses I am actually tempted by for my "M" kit are the M11-22 and M55-200. I could see those combining to be a very nice travel kit. But, I still do not use my M enough to justify much more of an investment. It is a very good camera, but my 5DIII is great. But, at some point I may upgrade to the M3 and add a couple more lenses to fill out my "M" kit. We'll have to see about the M 15-45, to see if it worth swapping out my current M18-55.

BTW, it is surprising that this thread is mostly about the M and not the 35 L II.
 
Upvote 0
#27
docsmith said:
I still do not use my M enough to justify much more of an investment. It is a very good camera, but my 5DIII is great.
Click to expand...

+1 This is where I'm at with my EOS-M. Its a nice little camera, but I'm always going to use my 5DIII or 6D unless I'm just wanting something really small and light. Looking at my picture stats in LR6, I'm only using the M for 4% of my pictures in 2015, so at this point, I really don't feel like I can justify spending much to expand my M kit.

docsmith said:
BTW, it is surprising that this thread is mostly about the M and not the 35 L II.
Click to expand...

This surprises me as well. Personally, I have very little interest in the 35L II. I own the terrific 35/2 IS and it's everything I want in a 35mm prime. I value size, IS and moderate price over ultimate IQ.

As others have pointed out, it will be interesting to see how this new lens performs and is priced in response to the excellent Sigma Art.
 
Upvote 0
#28
ahsanford said:
bholliman said:
If I didn't already have the 18-55, I would consider the M 15-45. But, unless it has a significant advantage over the 18-55 (size or IQ) I will pass. The extra 3mm on the wide end would be nice at times, but not sure I want to go from 55 to 45 on the long end. Even though I have an EF-M adapter, I almost never use it since when I use the M, I'm looking for small size and portability.
Click to expand...

+1 on the blue stuff. Kit 18-55 lenses are 28.8mm in the FF equivalent, so I think there's a huge change between ~29 and 24mm.

After all, there's a reason Canon offered that 15-85 EF-S lens -- the kit lens handcuffed folks quite a bit on the wide end.

- A
Click to expand...

Agreed, 15mm vs. 18mm is a big deal. I'm used to shooting with my 24-70 on my FF camera's so when I use the 18-55 on the M, I'm often wishing it would go wider.

An EOS-M 15-85 would be awesome, especially if it was constant f/4! That said, this lens would be somewhat pricey, so not sure I'd buy give my limited use of the M.

The M lenses I'd most like to see are fast primes that are fairly compact.
 
Upvote 0
#29
ahsanford said:
CW/PR/Digicame believe that we have our two new lenses for next month:

http://digicame-info.com/2015/07/ef35mm-f14l-ii-usmef-m15-45mm.html

EF-M gets a 24-72 equivalent zoom... and they put STM on it. Classic. Probably should have expected it for a non-constant aperture lens like this, but the 24-70-ish equivalent had me hoping it might be USM.

And the 35L II looks like it's finally happening. If the 100-400 II was the White Unicorn, what do we call this long overdue follow-up? The Black Badger, perhaps?

- A
Click to expand...
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L II USM, I unofficially dub thee: "Nightfury"

I always wanted a Nightfury, it's finally coming <tears-of-joy> :'( </tears-of-joy>
 
Upvote 0
#30
If the 15-45 is as sharp as the 11-22 then it would be very interesting as a general walk-around travel lens. I own the 11-22, 18-55 and 22/2 and a 15-45 might fill that gap nicely - although 6.3 on the long end really sucks. I understand the longer glass often requires this to keep the weight down but not on a short zoom.
 
Upvote 0
#32
privatebydesign said:
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.
Click to expand...


And that the MkII doesn't have IS blurs the lines for me too. I'd much rather have it than not I don't see wide apertures and IS mutually exclusive they both expand a lenses repertoire
 
Upvote 0
#34
dilbert said:
privatebydesign said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#36
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.
 
Upvote 0
#38
privatebydesign said:
dilbert said:
privatebydesign said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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. :P
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ahsanford
New EOS M Camera & Lens Make an Appearance
Replies
150
Views
73K
AvTvM
A
Canon Rumors
A New L Zoom is Coming [CR2]
Replies
48
Views
28K
zim
zim
Canon Rumors
  • Locked
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
Replies
54
Views
43K
Pi
Pi
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu