Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
privatebydesign said:
Agreed. I picked up the 35 f/2 IS, and it's a great little lens! A pleasure to use, the IS is awesome, it's a good price and light weight. If this lens didn't exist I might have gone for the 1.4, but can't really see it in my future now.
I'd much rather have a 16-35 2.8L mk III, or a 24 f/1.4 mk III, or a 20 f/2.0 (or 2.8). Even a new 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 IS
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F. Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.
I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.
I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.
Upvote
0
I am convinced that when/if Canon releases this lens to the market, it is because it beats the crap out of the competition. I am happy with the Sigma and it has performed a lot better than any Sigma I have tried in the past. But with this new 35L I expect weather sealing and that both AF and IQ will be exceptional. Anything else would surprise me. IS or not isn´t very important to me, but I´ll be happy to have it.
Upvote
0
Not sure if you could honestly improve much on the quality the Sigma 35mm delivers, honestly. Extremely sharp across the frame, stunning quality all around. However, They can surpass them in build, color rendition and AF of course...
Upvote
0
crasher8 said:
While this (brand loyaltyl/blind faith) may be true for some Canon users with regard to third party lenses, it is certainly not true for plenty of other people. Many of us have actually pulled the trigger on a $899 chance in hopes that they would be surprised. I myself did it twice (and thought it was optically awesome enough that I have considered trying a third....still). I even went so far as to consider whether it was worthwhile to use it in manual focus only. But that just didn't sense for what I use the 35mm FL for.
I didn't have to convince myself that the Canon was better. But the facts are the facts. My hit rate was well below 50% in varying distance and lighting conditions (on both copies). My 35L (my most accurate fast prime I've ever owned) and now 35/2 IS have been at 85-90% dead on consistently. Coincidence? Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that even some of the people that are happy with the Sigmas weren't happy until they went through multiple copies.
I currently own or have owned plenty of non-Canon lenses and have been quite happy with many. But the S35 was not one of them (with regard to AF).
Upvote
0
crasher8 said:
When the 6D was announced, a lot of people on this forum did not see its value and swore that they would get the 5DII instead. Now, few people would opt for the 5DII over the 6D. Right now the S35 is better than the 35L. I'll wait for the 35L II to be reviewed and then make the choice. Right now people can't see a lens much better than the S35, but what if the 35L II is much better? And if it's not, then S35 will continue to do well in the marketplace.
Upvote
0
Viggo said:Random Orbits said:
If an image is out of focus it really doesn't matter if it would have been sharper :
Exactly.
One of the curiosities I have had is whether the majority of people shooting with the S35 are actually achieving critical focus on a regular basis (or if they are merely focusing merely close enough). When I reference the issues I was having with the AF, I am referring it's inability to be dead on. I was able to get by with decent to good looking images with the S35 copies I had. I'd say "usable" shots were around 60-70%. But to have 30-40% be way off plus another significant portion of the keepers not be in critical focus, left me with zero confidence in the S35. This, in contrast to the 35L I had was night and day. Again, both copies I had behaved the same way.
Upvote
0
C
crasher8
Guest
And my copy is dead on 90% + without AFMA. So all in all I think this is a case that if you dig, sometimes deep others not, you will find all kind of stories and issues with ANY product. Praise the Internet!
Just because one person has issues with something does not mean those that do not are not as exact in their findings. I am very persnickety when it comes to focus accuracy and you cannot convince me I have a poor product just because you do.
btw, how was your experience with AFMA on your copies?
Just because one person has issues with something does not mean those that do not are not as exact in their findings. I am very persnickety when it comes to focus accuracy and you cannot convince me I have a poor product just because you do.
btw, how was your experience with AFMA on your copies?
Upvote
0
I want a 35 f1.4 that can keep up with erratic running children in all sorts of light and weather, does the Sigma work for that with the same fantastic dead on accuracy and consistency as the 35 L, no it does not, is it then "better, sharper for less money?" No.. To most people shooting One shot and slight moving subjects or simple movement the Siggy is "fast enough" for me, not even close.. That is the difference. It's not to say you can't shoot anything moving with the Siggy, but the consistency isn't there, and you'll be erasing a lot of images that would have been really cool, because it was oof.
Upvote
0
crasher8 said:
I didn't have to dig very far for stories about issues with the Sigma 35 as my own story unfolded right before my eyes. Also, as I have stated in another thread in the past, I had two friends that purchased the S35 as well (one on a 5d3 and the other in Nikon mount on a D800) both of which no longer own the lens due to similar issues.
Also, I fully recognize that there are plenty of potentially happy owners of working copies of the S35 and in no way believe that it is a bad product all around. I just know that there are many instances of AF issues with it. Myself and the only other two people I know personally that have gotten their hands on the S35 all came to the same conclusion. That is a pretty poor batting average in my world.
It takes no more than merely looking through BH Photo and Amazon buyer reviews to find that there are plenty of other people that had to go through multiple copies to find one that worked consistently well with their body. Again, I am not knocking Sigma as they have come up with some very exciting stuff in recent memory. Just saying that I've seen, read, and experienced for myself, the problem that results from backwards engineering of OEM autofocus protocols.
RE your question about AFMA. I use Reikan FoCal for all of my lenses including the two copies of the S35 that I had. I was able to obtain a recommended adjustment setting in the lighting and distance that was set in my living room. However, as soon as there were any scenario changes (light, distance), I started getting inconsistent results again. Just with my kids and other statics subjects around the house, I was having trouble getting more than 1 hit out of every four or five shots (on both copies). The dock was not yet released at the time I had the lenses. Even with the dock though, that only alleviates part of the issue which would be distance.
Upvote
0
All I can say is that I bought one copy of the Sigma. Sharp as a racer blade and AF consistently presise. Bokeh could have been nicer, but still acceptable. The sigma is the only non-L lens I have at the moment (waiting for the Zeiss 55/1.4) and a 35/1.4L II has to be good to tempt me.Viggo said:
Upvote
0
BLFPhoto
Canon EOS user since '91...
Perhaps I can help with those on the 35L vs Sigma vs wait for 35LII fence. I have both the 35L and the Sigma.
In practice, both are very similar in focus reliability on my 5D Mark III and 7D. On my 5D Mark II, the 35L is more consistent in the focusing. I have verified these results also through Focal testing. The Sigma routinely tests more consistent than my 35 L to focus on all focus points of my 5D Mark III. On the 7D the focus consistency results are about the same. On the 5D Mark II, the 35L will achieve 96-98% on Focal's test every time. The Sigma seems to be around 93-95% every time. It has never tested better consistency than the 35L on my 5D mark II. The takeaway for me is to use the Sigma on only my 5D Mark III and 7D. As I noted first, real world usage validates the tested consistency for the Sigma on my 5D Mark III. I simply don't miss focus with it in any meaningful amount. That includes both bright, open light and low-light concert shooting. It's been performing as well as any of my Canon lenses, across the available focus points. This is a wholly different experience than the Sigma 70-200 OS I used for a while, which tested in the very low 90s for consistency using Focal. I probably dropped at least 2-3 shots of every 10 for lack of acceptable focus in practice with that lens. More about that lens, later.
Which is a good thing, because my 85L exhibits just the opposite between my Mark III and Mark II cameras. It is much more consistent, at least on the center point, on the Mark II than the Mark III. The consistency test results are something like 98% on the Mark II's center point and only 94-96% on the Mark III's. The 7D is about the same as the Mark III consistency, but I don't use my 85L on that camera, ever. So the 85L goes on my Mark II for weddings/events.
Incidently, the AFMA on my Sigma is less absolute value(-5) than my 35L (+7) , as measured multiple times on my 5D Mark III. On the 5D Mark II, the results are about the same. The results are pretty consistent so I'm confident in the values. They certainly work well in practice.
My 135L and 70-200L focus consistency are about the same between the Mark II and Mark III cameras, so nothing to draw from those results, other than that they don't seem to agree with the other lens's results.
As someone involved in complex system Test and Evaluation, I recognize there are enough uncontrolled variables that making any definitive conclusion from the results of my equipment, no matter how consistently I get the results reported, is ill-advised.
Nevertheless, I suspect that my results point to the fact that the Sigma plays much better with Canon's more complex focusing systems in the 5D Mark III and 7D than it does with the 5D Mark II and other legacy 9-point AF systems. I'll have a 1Ds Mark IV next week to see how well it works on that body with the 45-point system.
Bottom line, I absolutely would not and do not hesitate to use the Sigma where I formerly used the 35L. I've had my 35L for the better part of a decade and I know it's capabilities well. The Sigma works better for me in nearly every situation.
Weather sealing, while it would be welcome on a 35L, is not a deal breaker for me. I've used my 35L in nasty, dirty, wet conditions without issue before. I can't imagine the Sigma will be any worse.
Color, rendering, bokeh, etc? I get what I need out of the Sigma and don't see much to choose between the lenses besides the better sharpness of the Sigma.
The only thing I can't really speak to yet, and I'm hoping Roger at Lensrentals can enlighten us on at some point, is the internal build. The Sigma seems really robust from the outside...on a level with the 35L. But are the internals really good enough? Will the focus internals stand up to decades of hard use? I'm not taking my Sigma apart to make a comparison. My 35L has never given a hiccup. I am certain the Sigma will stand up to hobbyist/serious amateur usage levels. Will it withstand the beating from even part-time event/wedding professional use where it is a main lens during the day? I don't know.
This is the first and only Sigma lens that I feel is really on par with the OEM top-shelf offerings. I tried the 70-200 OS against the Canon 80-200 and 70-200 IS II and it fell woefully short in several areas for me, including focus, and most importantly, image rendering. Roger's breakdown of the new version of the 120-300 steered me away from that since the internals are pretty much the same mechanically, and it happens to be one of his most-repaired lenses.
I'm taking the Sigma 35 on and will use it in the primary slot, but will keep my 35L at least until the new version comes out. It's been through a lot with me. If a new 35L hits the street and the image rendering is at least on par with the Sigma, I'll probably drop both and pick up the new Canon.
I'm pretty picky and love my red ring lenses. But if you have a 5D Mark III, 1DX, or 7D, I wouldn't hesitate to get the Sigma right now over waiting for a potential Canon update whenever that comes. It's that good, and exhibits none of the focusing issues that have given Sigma a bad rep. If you've got a 5D Mark II or one of the other 9-pt AF Canon bodies, especially without AFMA capability...probably stick with a 35L until Canon does it better. Edit: (Not sure about the 6D, although I can try it on my brother-in-law's 6D the next time he comes to the house and see how it plays there).
In practice, both are very similar in focus reliability on my 5D Mark III and 7D. On my 5D Mark II, the 35L is more consistent in the focusing. I have verified these results also through Focal testing. The Sigma routinely tests more consistent than my 35 L to focus on all focus points of my 5D Mark III. On the 7D the focus consistency results are about the same. On the 5D Mark II, the 35L will achieve 96-98% on Focal's test every time. The Sigma seems to be around 93-95% every time. It has never tested better consistency than the 35L on my 5D mark II. The takeaway for me is to use the Sigma on only my 5D Mark III and 7D. As I noted first, real world usage validates the tested consistency for the Sigma on my 5D Mark III. I simply don't miss focus with it in any meaningful amount. That includes both bright, open light and low-light concert shooting. It's been performing as well as any of my Canon lenses, across the available focus points. This is a wholly different experience than the Sigma 70-200 OS I used for a while, which tested in the very low 90s for consistency using Focal. I probably dropped at least 2-3 shots of every 10 for lack of acceptable focus in practice with that lens. More about that lens, later.
Which is a good thing, because my 85L exhibits just the opposite between my Mark III and Mark II cameras. It is much more consistent, at least on the center point, on the Mark II than the Mark III. The consistency test results are something like 98% on the Mark II's center point and only 94-96% on the Mark III's. The 7D is about the same as the Mark III consistency, but I don't use my 85L on that camera, ever. So the 85L goes on my Mark II for weddings/events.
Incidently, the AFMA on my Sigma is less absolute value(-5) than my 35L (+7) , as measured multiple times on my 5D Mark III. On the 5D Mark II, the results are about the same. The results are pretty consistent so I'm confident in the values. They certainly work well in practice.
My 135L and 70-200L focus consistency are about the same between the Mark II and Mark III cameras, so nothing to draw from those results, other than that they don't seem to agree with the other lens's results.
As someone involved in complex system Test and Evaluation, I recognize there are enough uncontrolled variables that making any definitive conclusion from the results of my equipment, no matter how consistently I get the results reported, is ill-advised.
Nevertheless, I suspect that my results point to the fact that the Sigma plays much better with Canon's more complex focusing systems in the 5D Mark III and 7D than it does with the 5D Mark II and other legacy 9-point AF systems. I'll have a 1Ds Mark IV next week to see how well it works on that body with the 45-point system.
Bottom line, I absolutely would not and do not hesitate to use the Sigma where I formerly used the 35L. I've had my 35L for the better part of a decade and I know it's capabilities well. The Sigma works better for me in nearly every situation.
Weather sealing, while it would be welcome on a 35L, is not a deal breaker for me. I've used my 35L in nasty, dirty, wet conditions without issue before. I can't imagine the Sigma will be any worse.
Color, rendering, bokeh, etc? I get what I need out of the Sigma and don't see much to choose between the lenses besides the better sharpness of the Sigma.
The only thing I can't really speak to yet, and I'm hoping Roger at Lensrentals can enlighten us on at some point, is the internal build. The Sigma seems really robust from the outside...on a level with the 35L. But are the internals really good enough? Will the focus internals stand up to decades of hard use? I'm not taking my Sigma apart to make a comparison. My 35L has never given a hiccup. I am certain the Sigma will stand up to hobbyist/serious amateur usage levels. Will it withstand the beating from even part-time event/wedding professional use where it is a main lens during the day? I don't know.
This is the first and only Sigma lens that I feel is really on par with the OEM top-shelf offerings. I tried the 70-200 OS against the Canon 80-200 and 70-200 IS II and it fell woefully short in several areas for me, including focus, and most importantly, image rendering. Roger's breakdown of the new version of the 120-300 steered me away from that since the internals are pretty much the same mechanically, and it happens to be one of his most-repaired lenses.
I'm taking the Sigma 35 on and will use it in the primary slot, but will keep my 35L at least until the new version comes out. It's been through a lot with me. If a new 35L hits the street and the image rendering is at least on par with the Sigma, I'll probably drop both and pick up the new Canon.
I'm pretty picky and love my red ring lenses. But if you have a 5D Mark III, 1DX, or 7D, I wouldn't hesitate to get the Sigma right now over waiting for a potential Canon update whenever that comes. It's that good, and exhibits none of the focusing issues that have given Sigma a bad rep. If you've got a 5D Mark II or one of the other 9-pt AF Canon bodies, especially without AFMA capability...probably stick with a 35L until Canon does it better. Edit: (Not sure about the 6D, although I can try it on my brother-in-law's 6D the next time he comes to the house and see how it plays there).
Upvote
0
BLFPhoto said:
Focal tells you nothing about tracking though. And the 35 L seemed to be focusing even faster on the 1d X than on the 5d3, although nothing like the difference in speed with the 85 L between those two cameras, it all helps.
Anyway, if people love their Sigma they love their Sigma, I applaud Sigma for the steps they have taken lately and keeps producing high IQ for cheaper money. But it's not the holy grail either. People use gear differently, for instance, I don't think I have EVER used One Shot focus. And I have used the 35 L on 1d3, 1d4 (btw, no such thing as a 1ds4), 1dX, 5d1,2,3 and it's by far the best 1.4 AF lens. It works where the 50 L won't, and the 24 L II is, well, I don't what's up with that, but after three copies I gave up.
YOu buy what you buy for your needs, I know that the Siggy doesn't fit my needs at all. And I'm preetty sure the 35 L II will have faster and even better AF for tracking erratic movment wide open, and combined with the weather sealing and all the other things that make for a great lens, this is on top of MY list.
Btw, I have nothing against third party lenses at all, I use a Zeiss 50 f2 because Canon have no 50 that I like. And the Zeiss is superb.
Upvote
0
Invertalon said:
I would much rather have a lens that is outstanding wide open at f/1.4 than one that can open up to f/1.2 but has severe vignetting and corner softness.
Weather sealing is a must for such a workhorse lens. 35mm is a useful FL for general video so IS would definitely be a helpful inclusion.
IMO, weather-sealed, IS and outstanding optically at f/1.4 will differentiate it from the current 35L and will justify a price tag of $2000-2100.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
