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

[YuengLinger]

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 tend to believe you are overestimating user error and underestimating copy variance.

I have the Sigma 35mm Art, love it, and hit with it consistently at f/1.4 near MFD. I have the ef 85mm f/1.2 L II, same good fortune.

However, I sadly gave up on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art because AF was erratic. Rather than try and try again, I'm patiently waiting for Canon to replace the current ef 50mm 1.2.

I use these lenses on a 5DIII.

Sure, there are some cases where photographers get frustrated with shallow depth of field and give up; maybe that style was never for them.

Unless you know a photographer's skill level, have seen his or her work, why just assume they don't know what they are doing?

I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)

I'm not yet sure which field I fall into. Others who do not know me or have not seen my photos are always telling me what I need or don't need. I am, of course the ultimate authority, and I am always right with the exception of times when I am wrong, and that's due to inaccurate autofocusing of my eyes when reading the post

 

[Mitch.Conner]

I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)

Not me. I tend to assume that I'm about as sharp as a potato.

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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.

There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Canon has been hit or miss with absurd launch prices the last few years. It's not all terrible.

The good:

• 16-35 f/4L IS only $1199 at launch -- best in class UWA zoom, a great deal.
• All the (great!) pancakes and the nifty fifty reboot in the $149 neighborhood

The bad:

• 24-70 f/2.8L II at $2299 at launch. It's only 'the bad' and not 'the ugly' in that for that price, you get a best in the world sort of standard zoom.
• 100-400L II for $2199 at launch. Again, the lens delivers and a certain subset of birders and wildlifers had to buy this lens or they were in big-white territory price wise, so it actually could have been priced even higher, IMHO.

The ugly:

• 11-24 f/4L at $2999 at launch -- yes it's a fine tool, but a good deal of that price is Canon claiming 'first' and gouging those with the UWA bug or unique professional need (interiors photographers, for instance).
• 24-70 f/4L IS at $1499 at launch -- I still contend that this is a fantastic lens, but it's not a $1,499 product. The price has thankfully plummeted to more reasonable price.
• All the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses a few years ago were outlandishly priced $799-$899 at launch. They are fantastic improvements over their predecessors, but their lack of speed and that pesky little red ring saw their price drop down into the more appropriate $500 range.

Just my two bits. Canon is unreasonable, but at times they can surprise us.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Just curious, do we know that DPAF improves the AF consistency of current Sigma Art lenses? Has anyone ever run a 'hit rate' comparison between two similarly spec'd AF systems that do and do not have DPAF?

That would be very interesting to see. I would have thought that with a new proprietary DPAF system, Canon may have made 3rd party lens AF routines even harder to develop. But perhaps DPAF helps everyone after all?

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Canon has been hit or miss with absurd launch prices the last few years. It's not all terrible.

The good:

• 16-35 f/4L IS only $1199 at launch -- best in class UWA zoom, a great deal.
• All the (great!) pancakes and the nifty fifty reboot in the $149 neighborhood

The bad:

• 24-70 f/2.8L II at $2299 at launch. It's only 'the bad' and not 'the ugly' in that for that price, you get a best in the world sort of standard zoom.
• 100-400L II for $2199 at launch. Again, the lens delivers and a certain subset of birders and wildlifers had to buy this lens or they were in big-white territory price wise, so it actually could have been priced even higher, IMHO.

The ugly:

• 11-24 f/4L at $2999 at launch -- yes it's a fine tool, but a good deal of that price is Canon claiming 'first' and gouging those with the UWA bug or unique professional need (interiors photographers, for instance).
• 24-70 f/4L IS at $1499 at launch -- I still contend that this is a fantastic lens, but it's not a $1,499 product. The price has thankfully plummeted to more reasonable price.
• All the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses a few years ago were outlandishly priced $799-$899 at launch. They are fantastic improvements over their predecessors, but their lack of speed and that pesky little red ring saw their price drop down into the more appropriate $500 range.

Just my two bits. Canon is unreasonable, but at times they can surprise us.

- A

I have a "unique professional need" but absolutely don't feel gouged by the $2,799 I paid for the 11-24, heck the 14mm prime, a truly awful performer, was over $2,000 for years, oh, and still is.

 

[Solar Eagle]

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

That remains to be seen at this point.

You think so, huh?

As with the Sigma 50mm, I had to get a good copy and fine tune it on The Dock.

That's too bad you have to mess around like that.

 

[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.

There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...

You think, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[Eldar]

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.

There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...

You think, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.

+1
You´re right, I am not a professional, but I believe I know how to assess a lens. In my +40 years as a photographer, I have been through a few ...

Both the 35 Art and 50 Art have been totally inconsistent. I am now on copy 3 of the 50. I gave up the 35. Focus on the previous copies were all over and FoCal was unable to determine AFMA values. It is a well known problem. My latest copy of the 50 seems to be quite consistent, but I have not really used it yet, so time will tell if I have a good one this time.

 

[infared]

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

That remains to be seen at this point.

You think so, huh?
Well I know so...no one has evaluated the yet to be announced. Canon 35Mm f/1.4 II yet.

As with the Sigma 50mm, I had to get a good copy and fine tune it on The Dock.

That's too bad you have to mess around like that.
It was a little annoying but I now have a GREAT lens and saved some money!
It was annoying...but I have a GREAT lens and saved some money...Its all good.

 

[infared]

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.

There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...

You think, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.

+1
You´re right, I am not a professional, but I believe I know how to assess a lens. In my +40 years as a photographer, I have been through a few ...

Both the 35 Art and 50 Art have been totally inconsistent. I am now on copy 3 of the 50. I gave up the 35. Focus on the previous copies were all over and FoCal was unable to determine AFMA values. It is a well known problem. My latest copy of the 50 seems to be quite consistent, but I have not really used it yet, so time will tell if I have a good one this time.

If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?

 

[infared]

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 agree with you...the Sigmas DO have to be carefully tweaked...but I think a lot of the misses are users error...at f/1.4 it does not take much.

 

[JRPhotos]

Any updates on the 50 1.4 II?

 

[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.

There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...

You think, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.

+1
You´re right, I am not a professional, but I believe I know how to assess a lens. In my +40 years as a photographer, I have been through a few ...

Both the 35 Art and 50 Art have been totally inconsistent. I am now on copy 3 of the 50. I gave up the 35. Focus on the previous copies were all over and FoCal was unable to determine AFMA values. It is a well known problem. My latest copy of the 50 seems to be quite consistent, but I have not really used it yet, so time will tell if I have a good one this time.

If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?

I don't own the 35. And I have on countless occasions praised the 50 as my favorite lens. The one issue they have is AF. Never said anything bad about 50 Art IQ. A good reason I went through 5 Art linear to find a 50 that has a working AF. It is epic, but when you can't trust the AF ..

 

[ahsanford]

Any updates on the 50 1.4 II?

As this forum's resident nut about wanting the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM (i.e the 50 1.4 II you speak of), the only update we've had is that the next two lenses we shall get will be the 35L II and an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 STM. So it doesn't look this it's happening this year.

And there is only a very very very small chance it will be called the 50 f/1.4 USM II as all indications are that they'll be putting IS on it, which means it won't be a II, but instead be a first version of a new lens (in Canon's nutty terminology world, which they seem to be very consistent with). The only way I see a 'II' happening is if Canon reserves IS for the 50 f/1.2L, which would be madness in my book.

But we should probably keep discussion to the 35L II on this thread.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?

I don't own one, but if you shoot landscapes, architecture, astro, product or macro photography, you don't really care if the AF is flaky. Let's face it -- the optics are spectacular, regardless of what's going on with the AF.

- A

 

[infared]

If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?

I don't own one, but if you shoot landscapes, architecture, astro, product or macro photography, you don't really care if the AF is flaky. Let's face it -- the optics are spectacular, regardless of what's going on with the AF.

- A

And my AF works great on both the 50mm and the 35mm! :-X

 

[Eldar]

If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?

I never thought I would own a Sigma lens again. However, if you read my other posts on this lens, you´ll see that I have made lots of positive comments about its optical performance. I even posted a Sigma 50 Art/Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 comparison thread, because I was so impressed. The problem has been the inconsistent AF and because of that, I said that I would never buy a Sigma lens again, unless I got confirmation that the AF issue was solved.

Then Viggo, who has had about as much trouble with previous copies as me, got his n-th copy and reported that it worked consistently. That, combined with the Scandinavian distributor having a 30% discount for a couple of days, I decided to give it one more go. Optically the 50 Art is fantastic value for money and if the AF system could work, I´d give it lots of use. The new copy seems to be better than the previous ones, but I have not really tested it yet.

 

[Andrewccm]

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.

Amen. I bought my super sharp 300L F2.8L IS new for $3600 back a few years. When v2 was introduced, it was nearly double the price. Crazy. My original is still working great and delivering beautiful images. The Lens lust factor seems to be more prevelant than the ROI these days.

For the record, other than the plastic AF switch coming lose, my current 35L F1.4 is doing a wonderful job as well.