Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]

[drjlo]

AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens).

That's the kind of thing I just don't have the time or patience to deal with.

Something has also been bothering me the more Sigma 35 photo's I look on various forums. Those photos certainly seem very sharp, but at the same time they tend to look a bit "muted," not as 3-D and popping off the page as 35L photo's. Not sure if this is contrast and/or color-rendering difference; it could even be the fact Canon 35L was/is a more expensive lens, likely being used more by professionals, presumably with more experience/skill.

 

[Pi]

If Canon improves the bokeh, I would replace my 35L with it. Yes, I know that this would cost me, I do not mind. But I will keep both for a while to make sure that the new one focuses as perfectly as my 35L.

I am glad that the Sigma exists. This may drive the cost of the 35LII down. There is a downside though - Canon may decide to compromise on the bokeh to please the chart shooters and to "beat" the Sigma. Well, this would save me $1K.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

LOL! I was thinking the same thing!

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I rented the current version once... I thought it was quite soft... Compared to the Zeiss 35mm f1.4.

You can bet that the new version is going to cost at least $2k. But then again, the Zeiss already does ;D

 

[infared]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

...but they won't be on the same playing field as Sigma when it comes to pricing....and, in this case possibly performance.

 

[jrista]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

First, the previous 35mm f/1.4L was an excellent lens. Claiming it wasn't good at all is completely laughable! The 35/1.4 L was one of Canon's best-regarded lenses for, what...at least a decade??

Second, Canon is not necessarily updating this lens solely because of competition. It is probably a factor, for sure (third party lens makers have never been as aggressive as they have been the last five years, and they are starting to produce some great stuff.) I believe Canon has been updating their entire lineup of L-series lenses in order to prepare for a future world where the EF mount is matched with very high density sensors that will be demanding much more from lenses than DSLRs have to date (keep in mind, it was only about four years ago that CMOS pixel density reached levels where it started producing images that surpassed the resolution of a drum-scanned 135 slide.)

Third, even IF Canon only made this lens in response to competition....well, that is the very nature of a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE! One shouldn't be surprised by any competitor in a competitive marketplace holding out as long as they can so long as they continue to have a superior product, or a product that their customers are not regularly complaining about (and, in my experience, most people seem to love their 35/1.4 Ls...I'm surprised by the comments in this thread so far. My personal experience with several rented copies has been nothing but excellent...does no one use AFMA?) The best time to one-up the competition is when the competition is trying to one-up you. No point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing new lenses when neither the competition, nor marketplace, nor sensor technology are demanding them.

Those factors have only RECENTLY changed...so, Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

 

[Loswr]

Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

At least, since we've all been paying attention to Canon's recent releases, the 35L II's price tag won't come as a sticker-shocker.

 

[jrista]

I am not sure if what I've been reading is sarcasm, but a number of comments seem to be stating that the new lenses from Sigma and Tamron are better than the latest similar lenses from Canon. While I am happy to note that Sigma and friends are producing better lenses, and in some cases excellent lenses, when Canon competes and produces a new version of the same lens, it is usually much better. As an example, the Sigma AF 24-70 mm f/ 2.8 IF EX DG HSM Lens:

Sigma Wide:

Sigma Tele:

Canon Wide:

Canon Tele:

The newer Sigma 24-70/2.8 is definitely better than it's predecessor, but the Canon 24-70/2.8 II is still kicking the crap out of it in general, with superior center and mid-frame resolution, as well as better corner resolution. People complain about the price of Canon gear...but you get what you pay for. Even the older 24-70/2.8 still offered center-frame resolution that was on par with the newest Sigma 24-70/2.8 in most respects (although the Canon definitely had worse corner performance):

Canon Wide (old):

Canon Tele (old):

I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it is an excellent lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)

 

[jrista]

Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

At least, since we've all been paying attention to Canon's recent releases, the 35L II's price tag won't come as a sticker-shocker.

And yet, I'm quite sure (and again, unsurprised) that quite a number of people will complain about it nevertheless. ;P

 

[tnargs]

When was the last time Canon released a general purpose prime L? It was the 24mm in 2008.

I'm not sure they are still prioritising L primes like they used to, when 4 were released from 2006-2008 in 14, 24, 50 and 85mm.

 

[Grumbaki]

It will need to be damn good and priced well to make me swap my Sigma...but then I would just for the sake of red rings and giggles.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I'm more concerned with color reproduction, CA, distortion, bokeh quality, and AF performance in low light (where it's supposed to excel anyway) A bump in sharpness and resolution wouldn't be too shabby but I wouldn't make sharpness a top priority as the old version of the lens is already quite sharp. I didn't buy the Sigma even if it has great reviews, because of the orange cast, and strong velvets. I much prefer the dominant reds from Canon L lenses. Add 9 rounded blades in the new version, somewhat faster and more accurate shots wide open, updated resolution and micro-contrast, and I'll buy.

 

[J.R.]

Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?

 

[ecka]

Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?

I hope so. Only f/1.2 would justify the price of a new 35L.

 

[melbournite]

Too late! Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.

 

[roimund]

I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it is an excellent lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)

now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

 

[infared]

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.

First, the previous 35mm f/1.4L was an excellent lens. Claiming it wasn't good at all is completely laughable! The 35/1.4 L was one of Canon's best-regarded lenses for, what...at least a decade??

Second, Canon is not necessarily updating this lens solely because of competition. It is probably a factor, for sure (third party lens makers have never been as aggressive as they have been the last five years, and they are starting to produce some great stuff.) I believe Canon has been updating their entire lineup of L-series lenses in order to prepare for a future world where the EF mount is matched with very high density sensors that will be demanding much more from lenses than DSLRs have to date (keep in mind, it was only about four years ago that CMOS pixel density reached levels where it started producing images that surpassed the resolution of a drum-scanned 135 slide.)

Third, even IF Canon only made this lens in response to competition....well, that is the very nature of a COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE! One shouldn't be surprised by any competitor in a competitive marketplace holding out as long as they can so long as they continue to have a superior product, or a product that their customers are not regularly complaining about (and, in my experience, most people seem to love their 35/1.4 Ls...I'm surprised by the comments in this thread so far. My personal experience with several rented copies has been nothing but excellent...does no one use AFMA?) The best time to one-up the competition is when the competition is trying to one-up you. No point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing new lenses when neither the competition, nor marketplace, nor sensor technology are demanding them.

Those factors have only RECENTLY changed...so, Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.

I agree with most everything you said...the current Canon lens is a good lens. I recently bought the Sigma (mine seems just fine out of the box, uber sharp)...it's just refreshing to see an alternative for what should be a reasonably priced lens...it is just a 35mm after all. I also splurged two weeks ago and bought a 17mm TSE (amazing) and that seems like a super bargain compared to Canon's post/tsunami pricing on newly released glass....but the lenses with the high pricing are phenomenal. I will say that.
If Sigma brought out an Art Series 50mm f/1.4 and it got GREAT reviews...I would not hesitate to buy it.

 

[infared]

I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it is an excellent lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)

now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html

+1
I own both of these...24-70mm is an amazing zoom...but honey...the Sigma holds its own here and blows the former away with bokeh.

 

[Zv]

I came really close to buying a the Canon 35 f/2 IS (had it preordered at one point) then I thought long and hard about the Siggy 35 1.4, had it in cart and finger on the buy button but backed out last second. Now this rumor. It will likely be out of my price range though so I might still end up buying the Sigma. Can't decide if I'm actually a 35mm kinda shooter or more of a 24 in which case I might lean towards the 24IS. But damit I just want something fast and wide, don't make my buy more L glass! (Referring to 24L which is wide and fast).

 

[fstoparmy]

would love to see the improvements Canon make to a already awesome lens. Sigma sure did bring out a killer 35. Cant wait to see the head to head between the two