Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]

[privatebydesign]

As long as that claim didn't come from M.ST… :

Oh please! I am sure he has already tested it ;D

He sent it back because it wasn't as good on his 40D with the "special" 17-55 EF-S he had in the top corners at 35mm.

 

[Jesse]

So maybe an announcement in 2015? Delayed until 2016?

 

[tron]

So maybe an announcement in 2015? Delayed until 2016?

Something like that could be even CR2

 

[tron]

Now seriously, even if a new 35mm 1.4L II were a fact I would consider it only if it proved to not exhibit coma like the current 35mm 1.4L does. So I would wait for lenstip to test it and/or sites like extremeinstability (that guy has some really nice photos).

 

[BozillaNZ]

Not interested. When I need a 35 prime again, I will buy the Sigma.

 

[beckstoy]

Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon.

If Canon wants to sell something new in this FL, they should release a tack sharp 16-35L III. (sharp corner to corner). I'd buy that!

+1

 

[tron]

Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon.

If Canon wants to sell something new in this FL, they should release a tack sharp 16-35L III. (sharp corner to corner). I'd buy that!

+1

Can you please stop suggesting interesting lenses? You whet my appetite ... ;D

 

[dgatwood]

"Lagging behind" is a very broad/vague generalized statement. If we want to get technical about lag, we should take a look at the development of different brands. Yes, there are other companies (i.e. Sony, Olympus, Fuji) who have been doing a lot of innovative things which I am all for. However, it doesn't change the fact that Canon by far, has the largest, most fully developed ecosystem of all the imaging companies.

What you're missing is that Sigma's lens conversion service, coupled with their rapid move towards higher-end lenses, is a potential game changer. Whenever a Canon camera owner buys a Sigma lens instead of a Canon lens, that's not just a loss for Canon's lens division. It's a loss for Canon's lock-in, because it means that more of their hardware is not tied permanently to Canon's ecosystem. As Sigma lenses start to look more and more tempting, I expect the DSLR body market to get a lot more competitive. Folks won't be as loyal to one system or another, and will choose whatever manufacturer's camera body best meets their particular needs.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

"Lagging behind" is a very broad/vague generalized statement. If we want to get technical about lag, we should take a look at the development of different brands. Yes, there are other companies (i.e. Sony, Olympus, Fuji) who have been doing a lot of innovative things which I am all for. However, it doesn't change the fact that Canon by far, has the largest, most fully developed ecosystem of all the imaging companies.

What you're missing is that Sigma's lens conversion service, coupled with their rapid move towards higher-end lenses, is a potential game changer. Whenever a Canon camera owner buys a Sigma lens instead of a Canon lens, that's not just a loss for Canon's lens division. It's a loss for Canon's lock-in, because it means that more of their hardware is not tied permanently to Canon's ecosystem. As Sigma lenses start to look more and more tempting, I expect the DSLR body market to get a lot more competitive. Folks won't be as loyal to one system or another, and will choose whatever manufacturer's camera body best meets their particular needs.

Their recent major moves would be potential game changers with the emphasis on "potential." There are documented AF issues with most if not all of the new line of lenses. This is by no fault of Sigma. So I am not knocking them in the sense that I don't think they make sh*t products. I commend them for their efforts and feel they are doing a lot of things right. However, that doesn't change the fact that they have to backwards engineer the most integral part of any autofocusing lens....the autofocus protocols.

The lens conversion service concept is revolutionary. Again however, what good is converting from one backwards engineered AF system to another? I will be the first one in line to replace all of my lenses when Sigma or any other third party manufacturer is able to use OEM protocols and up the game with regard to IQ/quality.

 

[Invertalon]

I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions.

I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.

I will wait for rebates before I bite... Given the 24-70 II and 70-200 II dip to $1700 prices, I would wait until I could snag the 35L II for $1400-1500 before I do buy it.

This is all speculation of course, though! ;D


On the other side, "What If..." Canon surprised us with a 35mm f/1.2L.. If they could sell it at that $2000-2100 price range, I think people would have less of a problem for the increase in aperture. It would at least help justify it a bit more... As long as it performed very well, I think people would be a bit more happy with it at that cost.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions.

I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.

I will wait for rebates before I bite... Given the 24-70 II and 70-200 II dip to $1700 prices, I would wait until I could snag the 35L II for $1400-1500 before I do buy it.

This is all speculation of course, though! ;D


On the other side, "What If..." Canon surprised us with a 35mm f/1.2L.. If they could sell it at that $2000-2100 price range, I think people would have less of a problem for the increase in aperture. It would at least help justify it a bit more... As long as it performed very well, I think people would be a bit more happy with it at that cost.

I would love it if the Canon premium came justified with a larger aperture. I'd be quite impressed if they released a 35mm 1.2, but I highly doubt they will (and from what I gather it's extremely difficult optically). I'm currently considering the Sigma, but my main dilemma is OCD related, as despite its performance I don't want to ruin the aesthetic consistency of my primes (my 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm all have red rings). I'm one of those atypical weirdos who likes things to "match."

 

[tron]

I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions.

I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.

I will wait for rebates before I bite... Given the 24-70 II and 70-200 II dip to $1700 prices, I would wait until I could snag the 35L II for $1400-1500 before I do buy it.

This is all speculation of course, though! ;D


On the other side, "What If..." Canon surprised us with a 35mm f/1.2L.. If they could sell it at that $2000-2100 price range, I think people would have less of a problem for the increase in aperture. It would at least help justify it a bit more... As long as it performed very well, I think people would be a bit more happy with it at that cost.

Yes sure, f/1.2. Now the fact that it would be bigger and heavier in addition to pricier is a slight detail I guess. Not to mention the slower AF speed. Sigma would love all these....

 

[tron]

One could compare the price of 24 1.4L vs. 24 1.4L II though...

 

[Etienne]

still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that

 

[sanj]

still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that

Bokah?

 

[Dick]

Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!

Just don't stand there like a turkey, yawning in the rain until you drown. (In other words, does the Sigma 35/1.4 have weather-sealing, as the Canon 35/1.4L II is almost certain to have?)

I'm not sure if weather sealing really matters. I have taken the Sigma out in rain without any issues. I have also taken other lenses that are not weather sealed into rainy conditions with no issues.

What the Sigma fails at is focusing. The 35L is better at focusing than the "ultimate art lens". If the 35L II is better than the 35L in that aspect, I'd say it's most likely a better lens than the Sigma even if it isn't as sharp. There is no real point in sharpness, if the photos are slightly out of focus.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!

Just don't stand there like a turkey, yawning in the rain until you drown. (In other words, does the Sigma 35/1.4 have weather-sealing, as the Canon 35/1.4L II is almost certain to have?)

I'm not sure if weather sealing really matters. I have taken the Sigma out in rain without any issues. I have also taken other lenses that are not weather sealed into rainy conditions with no issues.

What the Sigma fails at is focusing. The 35L is better at focusing than the "ultimate art lens". If the 35L II is better than the 35L in that aspect, I'd say it's most likely a better lens than the Sigma even if it isn't as sharp. There is no real point in sharpness, if the photos are slightly out of focus.

Yup

 

[Menace]

still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that

Bokah?

Of course - what else could it be?

 

[zlatko]

The problem with Canon is they are still lagging behind in bringing lenses and cameras through the development cycle into the real world. This is a common problem when companies become huge and think they can either do no wrong or believe that people will wait for whatever they eventually come up with. Many companies have done this like Nikon and we know the story.

Take the 200-400f/4. It was pre-announced, marketed and hyped to death for what, 2 years?, before it became widely available. By then, I had tired of the relentless push and actually looked at what I needed, and got a 200 f/1.8 instead and relied on the smaller sensor size to gain added reach.

Speaking of lagging behind, Canon users have had an AF 35/1.4 since 1998. Nikon finally introduced theirs in 2011. Canon users have had an AF 24/1.4 since 1997. Nikon users had to wait for theirs until 2010. Of course, these things balance out. Nikon has offered some lenses that Canon hasn't (28/1.4).

But there's no need to imagine that they think foolish things, like that they "can do no wrong". The reality is probably more like: no matter how big they are, they aren't big enough to make everything that everyone wants exactly when everyone wants it. Each company has a finite number of engineers, production lines, storage facilities & other resources. They are always prioritizing something to get done now, something else to get done next year, and so on. The result is in fact a stream of new & better products, though not a fast stream. Some products take a long time to develop and test, and some buyers will inevitably be frustrated no matter what they build.

In the same way you looked at what you "actually needed", the manufacturer looks at what it actually needs to produce. Canon may have decided that a $12,000 200-400mm zoom wasn't urgent, and could wait until it was tested and refined a few more times. Or they may just have allocated key resources to other products, which then got made and satisfied other buyers' needs.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'd look at one, though the 35 f2 IS has me intrigued and at this point I, personally, like the idea of IS in an f2 wide angle more than twice the weight and size and cost, probably four times the cost, in an f1.4 wide angle.

If the 35 f2 IS was a 2.8, like the 28 and 24 then it would be less appealing, two stops is too much loss of dof control, but at only one stop slower the f2 IS is very interesting, and a deal at $550ish at the moment, (shame about the $50 hood! )

I have the Canon 35mm f/2 and I am very happy using it on my 7D. IS works terrific and 1 stop loss isn't a big deal. I was also thinking to purchase the S35 but my budget didn't reach it and I got a 2nd hand Canon 35mm f/2 at a bargain price. I am thinking to put on sale the Canon 40mm f2.8 I previously purchased now.