Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Image Appears
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
ajfotofilmagem said:I am a Brazilian citizen, ??? and do not know what would be a "BR element." Outside of Brazil, people know the Brazilian waxing, Brazilian bikini, Brazilian football, Brazilian music. :rrcphoto said:
Oh, of course I could not forget:
The Brazilian butt.
LOL ;D
Don't forget; Brazilian coffee
Upvote
0
Image Stabiliser in a wide angle lens, I do not think something so important. However, there is a great Canon 35mm F2 IS.Bennymiata said:
Upvote
0
Forgive me.Click said:LOL ;Dajfotofilmagem said:I am a Brazilian citizen, ??? and do not know what would be a "BR element." Outside of Brazil, people know the Brazilian waxing, Brazilian bikini, Brazilian football, Brazilian music. :rrcphoto said:
Oh, of course I could not forget:
The Brazilian butt.
Don't forget; Brazilian coffee
I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I think I'd count in the camp of people who really want this.
As a photojournalist who works almost exclusively with natural light and needs fast shutterspeeds, I've always tried to make due with the 24-70mm F/2.8 II and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II, but I've struggled in some really dismal lighting situations at night where I've had to use 51,200 ISO just to get a non-blurry shot of the action. Now while I'd never complain about the 24-70mm, it's sometimes just too dark for the job. F/2 isn't much better, it's an improvement, but it's not really enough to warrant putting away my 24-70mm. I've tested out the 35mm F/1.4, and I loved the way that aperture lights up the dark. It's also a good focal length, since I'd rather have a wide lens and walk closer.
The 35mm f/1.4 has always attracted me, but it's not weathersealed. That's a problem for me, because I can't stop shooting just because of the weather. I was out at the scene of a large house fire in heavy rain and heavy smoke for about four hours last week, and I had left my weathercover at home thinking it wasn't going to rain. Though my 5D3 and 24-70mm took an absolute beating by the rainstorm, not a drop of water ended up inside my camera or lens, even after a very close inspection. I'd also like to mention the smoke, which coated my camera bag, throat, and the inside of my nose with dust! That would've been nasty inside my lenses.
Had I been using a 35mm F/1.4 or a 35mm F/2 IS, it would've likely been ruined in the heavy rain. I like having the peace of mind that weather sealing gives me, even though I understand it's never 100%, it's at least enough to keep my gear safe if I'm vigilant enough about the strength of the rain.
Upvote
0
H. Jones said:
As a generalist I thought so too, and I had eagerly awaited this MkII for a long time as I was also never happy with the lack of weather sealing on the MkI and the CA is atrocious, so I picked up a used f2 IS in the mean time. Turns out the 35 f2 IS is doing the job very well and is going the course much better than my average L lenses. And I love the look of the thing with no lens corrections at f2.
Upvote
0
Bennymiata said:
Chromophore explains why:
"Why is it that there are no optically image-stabilized lens designs at f/1.4?"
This has to do with a number of difficulties related to the way lenses focus light at small f-numbers.
Lenses that gather more light do so by increasing the cross-sectional area through which light rays are refracted. When we look through the rear of a lens, we are seeing the exit pupil, the diameter of which is inversely proportional to the f-number. The exit pupil diameter must be sufficiently large to achieve a particular light-gathering ability, regardless of what is going on anywhere else in the lens design.
The way optical image stabilization works is to use a group of corrective lens elements that are free to react to movement of the system to compensate for vibrations in real-time. This correction works in large part because these movements are small and the degree of displacement required is also small; however, another factor contributing to resultant image quality is that, because these IS elements are always present in the optical path, they must also permit an acceptably uniform degree of correction across the image plane.
Consequently, the problem with adapting IS technology to very fast apertures is that, say, at f/1.4, the correction is much more difficult to achieve than at f/2 or f/2.8, where in the latter case (1) the image-forming marginal rays are not so oblique; (2) the aberrations dependent on image height are not as severe; (3) the size of the IS group does not need to be as large (and therefore have less inertia). Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2, and the required IS group must therefore be at least twice as large in area and at least 2.8 times as massive (conservatively).
It doesn't make a lot of sense optically to try to implement IS in a very fast lens, because the challenge of correcting marginal ray aberrations adequately even without such a group is difficult enough; requiring that a hypothetical IS group operating at f/1.4, at least 3x as heavy, to maintain image quality, is not economical. Does that mean it isn't possible? No. But is such a design going to deliver excellent results, or do it at a reasonable cost? I doubt it.
Upvote
0
+1Luds34 said:
It has to be a stellar lens to recover part of the market that has migrated to the Sigma 35mm Art and add about US$ 1K on top. Is it worth it?
Upvote
0
I bought a Zeiss 50 f2 when there was no great 50, but 2.0 just is so not the same as 1.4, it lacks the pop I want.
And IS is really not needed. I hardly ever use it on the 16-35, and wouldn't miss it for more than 1% of the shots.
I would rather have a really great and solid 35 L II, and people that need is and don't care about 1.4 buy the already available 35 f2 IS.
And IS is really not needed. I hardly ever use it on the 16-35, and wouldn't miss it for more than 1% of the shots.
I would rather have a really great and solid 35 L II, and people that need is and don't care about 1.4 buy the already available 35 f2 IS.
Upvote
0
If it matches the Sigma optically, has proper weather sealing and top of the line AF, it will be worth it.sanj said:slclick said:
I just hope it has the Sigma for lunch.
Upvote
0
Let's see how this performs against the Sigma Art.
I am still afraid that it won't meet people's expectations.
I am still afraid that it won't meet people's expectations.
Upvote
0
vscd said:
No, it's just 1,41 times that big.
Even if the Canon is not superiour ot the Sigma, the weathersealing is the reason for me to get it... 35mm is the best lenght for streetphotography and the best pictures come with the rain
It's still twice the light in, twice as fast shutter, half the iso etc.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
