Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Pricing Information [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

<strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>A retailer has written in and said they were told the lens would launch at $1699 USD. This info has apparently come from a Canon rep in a recent conversation with the retailer, and not an official price sheet.</p>
<p>Sometimes reps enjoy conjecture as much as the rest of us.</p>
<p>Original Post:</p>
<p>We expect to see the brand new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II to be announced next month, with the popular date for the announcement being Friday, August 14, 2015.</p>
<p>Exact specifications for the lens are still unknown, but the big one a lot of people want to know is pricing.</p>
<p>We’re told the EF 35mm f/1.4L II will cost <del>$1899 USD at launch</del>, which is about $400 more than the current Canon version and more than double that of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x393562" target="_blank">Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which is $899</a>.</p>
<p>We’re told that this pricing may not be set in stone, as it’s “older information”. Currency movement could change the launch price next month. For the record, the Nikon 35 f/1.4G is currently around $1799.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>

 

[infared]

Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.

There's more to IQ than sharpness, and the Canon will also autofocus reliably.

 

[infared]

Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.

There's more to IQ than sharpness, and the Canon will also autofocus reliably.

That remains to be seen at this point. (Canon lenses have their focusing issues as well).
My Sigma does auto focus reliably but I know that is an issue with these lenses.. As with the Sigma 50mm, I had to get a good copy and fine tune it on The Dock. Fantastic lenses....but not a given.
When I bought my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 the only other choice was the Canon 35mm f/1.4. I think it was worth the savings and the extra effort that I had to put in.

 

[JoeDavid]

The current 35/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses. Other than the weather sealing I have a hard time believing that the optical quality improvement will warrant that high of a price over the original. I'll wait until the price drops or Canon has a significant rebate before I'll consider it.

 

[lux]

It's also competing with a very nice canon 35 f2 is lens that is reasonably priced and excellent.

I don't see myself buying a new 1800 35 1.4.

 

[Etienne]

It's also competing with a very nice canon 35 f2 is lens that is reasonably priced and excellent.

I don't see myself buying a new 1800 35 1.4.

It's not for me either since the 35 f/2 IS serves my needs nicely at this time, but I'm glad Canon continues to upgrade the staple lenses. I'd rather they come out with a cracking 24mm f 1.4L, or even a 24 f/2L, the f/2.8 is not satisfying, and the current 24 f/1.4L II is not that great at f/1.4-2, and I had lots of focus issues with it on the 5D2 (got rid of it before I upgraded to the 5D3, so focus might be better).

 

[madspihl]

Given that my Sigma 35 focuses accurately, has all the positive optical qualities this lens is known for, and I try not to swim with it, I guess I have what I need

I am sure the new Canon 35 will be amazing. Sharp, weather sealed... and stuff. But the weather sealing aside, more than double the price sounds like a lot compared to the known performance of the Sigma - even if, seen in isolation, the Canon might not be that crazily priced if it comes out a stellar performer. But... nothing can be seen in isolation, and that's where I have a feeling the Canon might face stiff competition, and at the suggested price point Canon does not think of this as a kind of Otus-level performance (different focal length, yes), which again puts it closer to Sigma, which again brings up the price vs performance considerations.

Anyway...

 

[bmwzimmer]

It'll drop to $1300 in no time with rebates and CPW Street Prices. Then it will be compelling. Assuming they will be close optically, is the extra $$ worth the likely more reliable AF, weather sealing, and likely smaller size and weight.

 

[joejohnbear]

Yesss! I sold my Sigma lens in anticipation for this. It was nice for fooling around with friends but not consistent enough for high pressure weddings.

 

[Viggo]

People said the same thing about price and "it can't be that good" with every new Canon, BEFORE they got out, then we got 70-200 II, 24-70II, 200-400, 16-35 f4 and so on... I suggest people stop guessing and just expect this, as all the others, will be best in it's class in every aspect. I for one hate the brutal vignetting of the Sigma, and it took 5 Art
Lenses to find a decent copy in terms of AF. If the 35 L II matches all aspects of the 50 Art (and it will) it will be the best 1.4 lens for anything moving, delivering epic IQ in any situation..

 

[ahsanford]

Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.

There's more to IQ than sharpness, and the Canon will also autofocus reliably.

+1. I've shot the 35L and 35 Art, and the 35L was a proper robust hit-all-the-time sort of tool, with the rare exception of shooting f/1.4 with large/boxy 5D3 AF points that might grab an eyebrow or the bridge of the nose rather than the eye itself. The Sigma had that similar problem -- perhaps the reality of large aperture, non-LiveView work -- but it was also a solid step behind the older Canon lens for AF consistency. The Sigma was not poor by any stretch, but I had the odd miss from time to time that I just didn't seem to see with the Canon. (In fairness, both were week long rentals -- I did not log a ton of flight hours with them, though both went through AFMA or dock tuning)

So I expect to see the 35L II winning on the AF reliability front. That said, I can't possibly defend $1,800 until I see how it performs, but the value proposition appears to be:

Sigma 35 Art IQ + weathersealing + tougher build quality (sturdier hood as well) + proper/reliable Canon USM AF

And I'd peg that around $1,300-1,500.

If the IQ is above and beyond the Sigma, then you are drifting into 'near-Otus with AF' territory, and you could command a silly price at that point. We shall see.

- A

 

[keithfullermusic]

i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.

and for weather sealing, give me an effing break. it's not worth $1,000. just buy a second sigma if you're that worried - it'll still be cheaper.

 

[jcarapet]

What makes me interested in this is the price drop on the previous gen 35L to push it to more reasonable. I'm done dropping crazy cash on lenses for a while.

 

[lux]

I am happy with my 35 2 is. It's sharp and great for video. I don't see the 35 1.4 adding enough difference to purchase it.

As for those worried about AF when comparing it to the sigma…I had a sigma 85 1.4 and it was disappointed with the focus. I use a 6D and it may be that on a better focusing camera it would have been fine but I'm a little spoiled with the 6D center point and expect it to focus in the dark…that was not what happened with the 85 1.4 (of course that is not an art lens)

I second the desire for a good sharp across the board 24 1.4. I've done some astrophotography with the rokinnon 14 2.8 and would love to try it at 24 1.4 but none of these lenses seem to have great reviews…which means if I'm really going to only use if for astrophotography I might as well just buy the rokinnon and save some money.

I like the look of the 16-35 f4 for landscapes and that covers 24mm

Ok, now I'm not sure where I'm going with any of this. I think that I just convinced myself that I should buy the 16-35 F4 and the rokinnon 24 1.4 and not buy any more 35mm lenses. Of course I guess I won't mention this to my wife.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Just a price comparison on fast 35mm prime lenses (no rebates or discounts).

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art $899
Canon 35mm f/1.4L $1479
Sony A 35mm f/1.4 $1499
Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 $1589
Canon 35mm f/1.4L II $1699 (Updated from the $1899 original post via USA retailer)
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G $1799
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 (No AF) $1843
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 FLE $5150

I honestly expect the Canon to be $1699 - $1899 USD at launch. Considering Canon's recent L lenses and how they perform, this will end up being worth the price of admission.

 

[kevl]

Yesss! I sold my Sigma lens in anticipation for this. It was nice for fooling around with friends but not consistent enough for high pressure weddings.

I read comments like this on forums, but all the reviews make the lens sound as though it is almost flawless. I wish there were long-term lens reviews that cover things like this. I stopped using Sigma after 3 failed copies of the 24-70 they currently sell. These Art lenses are tempting but if they are not reliable then what is the point?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I paid $1300 new for my Canon 35mm L. It was a wonderful lens, it front focused, but Canon adjusted it to be right-on. After getting my 24-70L MK II, I found it was no longer getting much use and sold it.

Eventually, I sold most of my prime lenses, keeping my 100L and a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 that I like.

I'll pass on the new lens, since I know it will not get used, even though it will be wonderful. I suspect that many are feeling the same way, and sales will slow down after the initial rush.

As noted, the Sigma 35mm is owned my many, and if the price is not competitive, it will not become a top seller.

The autofocus issue might be solved with a dual pixel sensor or other improved phase detect technology. That will benefit Sigma more than Canon, AF on Canon lenses tends to be excellent across the board.

Third party lens makers have a difficult hurdle trying to make their lens work across the various Canon camera bodies. Its not a QA thing, its just difficult to tell a Canon camera that you are a Canon lens but not being identical. They have to do this to make it work, but its a big compromise.

All the AF accuracy issues go away with the dual pixel AF. Of course, there are some other drawbacks and limitations, its not a free ride. That's why so many are watching the new Sony A7II R, it has limitations with Canon lenses, but they are not a huge issue for many.

 

[keithfullermusic]

i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.

 

[Viggo]

i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.

I'm sorry, but LOL... It's not user error in the cases we see here on CR and other more serious threads/forums. I've used the fastest lenses ever made including 200 f2 and 85 f1.2 and so on and the faulty Sigma's are exactly that.