Canon Rumors said:
Can anybody explain this to me - why would Canon hold the 35L2 even if it's ready? Because they're still making lots of $$$ with the mk1 and only a high-mp ff camera would really need a mk2?
Upvote
0
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Can anybody explain this to me - why would Canon hold the 35L2 even if it's ready? Because they're still making lots of $$$ with the mk1 and only a high-mp ff camera would really need a mk2?
roimund said:
No lies involved.
Regarding the test cases you linked...I see no mention of any kind of calibration to maximize the performance of each lens with the camera body they were tested on. As a matter of fact, the FAQ on that site quite explicitly states they only test with one copy of any given thing, and still makes no mention of optimizing each lens for the camera body that is used in testing. One has to wonder if the samples used were producing the best results...in both cases (Sigma's 35mm and Canon's 24-70mm). Second, the post of mine you quoted was comparing the Sigma 24-70 with the Canon 24-70. Your two links are, effectively, comparing the Sigma 35mm to the Canon 24-70...something I never attempted to do. My final statement is a prediction and projection, not a direct comparison of any 35mm lens to any 24-70mm lens. According to the MTF charts, the Canon 24-70 is quite a bit better, from a resolution standpoint, center to corner, than the Sigma 24-70. I am PREDICTING that, IF Canon releases a 35mm f/1.4 II, there is no reason to suspect it will not perform on a similar level...which would make it's performance slightly better than the Sigma 35mm (not necessarily by as much of a margin as with the 24-70...but enough over the old Canon 35mm f/1.4 to make the upgrade, and the price, worth while.)
Regarding the tests you linked...you are making the same mistake many people do, in thinking that a test, like those you linked, is truly indicative of THE LENS. Most review sites test "camera systems", not lenses or cameras. Combining a lens with a camera is going to produce a result that is a convolution of all the components in combination. Those particular tests both use a 1Ds Mark III...which, while it has a high megapixel count, is not particularly high in pixel density. The sensor is going to be the limiting factor there...diminishing returns have already set in. To truly compare the resolving power of a lens when tested as part of a camera system, you need to throw the highest density (highest spatial resolution) sensor you can find at it. One of Nikon's 24mp APS-C cameras would probably do the job well enough. I would bet money that the 24-70/2.8 II would start show it's strength there.
The only true way to get an idea of the real resolving power and sharpness of a lens is to reference a mathematically generated MTF chart from the mathematical models of the lens design itself, which factors in the optical materials, their refractive and dispersion indexes, etc. You can never produce an MTF from an image produced by a lens attached to a camera that truly represents the capability of the lens itself...you are only producing an MTF of that particular camera system...that lens and that camera specifically. You could compare your own MTFs of say a Sigma 24-70 and a Canon 24-70, so long as you produce those MTFs with the exact same camera, in the exact same lighting conditions, with exact precision in terms of sensor plan distance and angle from the test chart, so long as each lens is ideally calibrated for that camera. To improve the accuracy of such a test, several copies of each lens should be used with several copies of a camera body, and better yet, with a couple sets of camera bodies of differing pixel densities (say an 18mp FF and a 24mp APS-C), and each setup should be run through a test sequence multiple times, with statistical outliers discarded from final average results and standard deviations. Only then could one say a comparison of any one lens to any other lens is truly objective.
Such subjective tests are useful in a general sense, and are useful for a casual comparison of someone browsing the web for information on what lenses to consider buying. Personally, if I just want to compare two lenses, I opt to compare the manufacturer's mathematically generated MTF charts that demonstrate JUST the performance of the lens, and nothing else. I am not trying to "lie"...just trying to be as objective as I can. I'm not in it here to make a purchase...if I was, I'd factor in a whole lot more sources, providing a variety of viewpoints with a variety of test methodologies ("real world" tests, scientific/objective tests, etc.), including testing out the lenses myself, before actually making a decision.
Upvote
0
ankorwatt said:
You do realize I was projecting...predicting that the RUMORED EF 35mm f/1.4 L II, would probably be better than the Sigma...right? I know that the old 35mm f/1.4 L has its issues, I stated as much myself. However its CA in the corners does not change the fact that for over a decade, Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L has long been a highly regarded lens. I also clearly stated that Canon had no reason to redesign the lens until the last few years, as their lens, even with the CA in the corners, was still better than the competitions. It is no surprise that Canon is replacing it now, and it is also no surprise that it is taking a little while...they still have to spend the time and money designing a new lens that will be competitive, work out the kinks, field test it, and manufacture a boatload so that when it finally hits the shelves...its really ready to go for the masses.
Upvote
0
Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.
:
:
Upvote
0
Zv said:Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.
:
LOL
Well, if the guy would actually READ what I WRITE, then I wouldn't have to correct him all the time. These days, I generally try to keep my interactions with him to a minimum, or ignore him completely.
Upvote
0
melbournite said:
Just out of curiosity, how does the build quality feel? Is it a solid build like a Canon lens? How does the focus ring feel? (Just interested in knowing how a modern Sigma lens compares in the less-talked-about aspects of lenses...)
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I hate everything that's not Canon and I felt the Siggy 35 was VERY well built, beautiful focusing ring and a bing chunky heavy lens that feels as it will take pretty much any abuse except for water .
I almost felt it was a bit too heavy for a 35 though.
Upvote
0
I agree with Neuro. The only non-Canon L-series lens I own is the Sigma 35/1.4 (I have 9 L-series, from 14mm - 600mm). I have not tested them all, but I have read enough tests to be fairly persistent. But the Sigma 33/1.4 can stand up to any of the competitors, regardless of price. I truly hope they will produce other focal lengths with the same quality. That will put pressure on the likes of Canon, Nikon and Zeiss.
I just saw an add today, where the Sigma sells for just over 1/3 of the price of the current Canon L. So if Canon releases a 35 vII, I think we are in for a treat. Sharpness, vignetting (the only weak point of the Sigma), CA etc. will most likely be stunning. Build quality will be great (but so is the Sigma), whereas IS is not something I will miss, but handy if it is there. f1.2 would be cool tough. But having seen Canon´s price policy over the last years, it is very easy to predict that it will be (very) expensive.
I just saw an add today, where the Sigma sells for just over 1/3 of the price of the current Canon L. So if Canon releases a 35 vII, I think we are in for a treat. Sharpness, vignetting (the only weak point of the Sigma), CA etc. will most likely be stunning. Build quality will be great (but so is the Sigma), whereas IS is not something I will miss, but handy if it is there. f1.2 would be cool tough. But having seen Canon´s price policy over the last years, it is very easy to predict that it will be (very) expensive.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Like Viggo already stated, the build quality is awesome. This is also my first Sigma lens, as I try my hardest to buy all Canon, but I couldn't pass this thing up. The build quality is certainly on par with my collection of L lenses. It seems built like a tank, awesome smooth focus ring, the lens hood snaps into place very satisfyingly (Weird thing to say, I know, you just have to feel it to understand). I love everything about this lens.
The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance. My first copy misfocused so bad, not even AFMA could fix it, so I sent it back and I am in love with my second copy. It is unfortunate that you may have to buy multiple copies, but I would still recommend doing so, because the lens is that good. If they would have just put a 50 cent rubber gasket on the base of the darn thing, it would be perfect.
Seriously everyone that has ever made camera lenses: Shell out the 50 cents and make this weather sealing a standard lens feature.
Upvote
0
tnargs said:
I'm not sure what you are getting at. That was exactly my point, just worded differently. To be fair, the variance only seems to be in AF adjustment, so their quality control is only bad in that one area. I readily admit that. Still, the hassle was worth it for me.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
