EF 35 f/1.4L and EF 35 f/1.4L II MTF Comparison

[infared]

The Sigma AF definitely an issue. I own both the 35mm & 50mm Art lenses and the Sigma Dock. I went thru the ringer with it. I bought an 35mm first...and thought that the AF was "fine"...then I bought a 50mm and it was a nightmare...I could not get it to focus correctly even with the dock. It was "spotty. I sent it back to B&H and requested another copy...and, after "carefully" dialing in the focus on the Dock it has been fabulous. I usually only use single-point AF so....I do not know about other AF settings. The AF works with central or edge AF points....I then double checked my 35mm "very carefully" after my experience with the 50mm and found it to be "off" more than my new 50mm. So...I used the Dock to adjust the 35mm in all 4 focus zones as I had the 50mm and since that time...I have found that both lenses are just incredible. Yes..at f/1.4. I double checked before typing this...I tested at infinity, medium distance and close..very close at f1.4. They are spot on. Its funny while I was doing that I put my Canon 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS on the my 5DIII and it MISSED focus on a candle wick...focusing on the rim of the candle behind it when the focus point was dead on the wick. Second shot it nailed it, though.
So ...I guess no lens/camera AF situation is perfect....and I have to say...I do not blame anyone who does not want to go thru the process I had to go thru to get great results from the Sigma's....I mean..hey I spend almost a couple of thousand dollars on two lenses and I have to dedicate a lot of time, buy a dock and jump through hoops to get them to perform precisely. Yeah..its annoying...but for me ...for what is out there (and even this stellar looking new 35mm f/1.4II from Canon at $1800), I think I have two very stellar lenses for what I have paid for them. I know that some agree with that outlook and some don't....but I just love some of the images that I have been able to create with these lenses. Really love them when I want low DOF.

Thanks for sharing your story, but the USB dock will not solve inconsistent AF -- it will only solve front/back focusing, right?

See here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx
(Now this is Bryan Carnathan with the Sigma 50 Art, but I had a similar experience with the 35)

For the short version of what I'm concerned with, just pan down to the butterfly. Read the paragraph before the butterfly. Mouseover 1-10 and see what happens. Then read the last bit:

"A second copy of this lens shows similar inconsistent performance. Both this camera and the lens (via the dock) can be focus calibrated, but you cannot calibrate for inconsistency."

I thought the Sigma 35 Art on my 5D3 was razor, razor sharp. But it missed shots from f/1.4 to f/2 with glaring regularity, even with a very careful composition, no focus and recompose, single AF point instead of the '+' shaped cluster, etc.

In that light, paying 2x for the 35L II -- which is shaping up to be a sharper lens that also has fire-and-forget confidence with the AF -- seems a fair deal to me. Many may disagree with that, though.

- A

Like I said...my lenses seem to be very consistent. The 50mm that I sent back was not.
I agree with your outlook especially if you have the cash to layout $1800 for a 35mm prime. I would love to own the LII...but that is not going to happen for me at that price...nor will I own an Otis! LOL! it was a stretch for me to buy the two Sigmas...
I am very happy with the lenses that I own...if they did not perform well I would not tolerate that at all. I am very serious about creating images and need consistent results to achieve that.

 

[privatebydesign]

Full res sample images: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/

I like the sample shots in full size. The portraits look great. Unfortunately the landscape shots don't look that good. The picture of the bright blue lagoon is not sharp. According to the Exif date it was shot at f8 1/320 ISO 100 but at 100% nothing is sharp. It might be noise reduction, JPEG compression or whatever but the picture lacks detail and sharpness. The daylight shot of Santorini was shot at f8 1/640 ISO 100 but it is not sharp at all, too. Hopefully it is just the JPEG compression... Such samples are not worth to be shown this way. The single house looks much better. There is detail and microcontrast where there should be one. Same for the large aperture samples, which look amazing.

I hope that this lens will just be the start of a series of updated lenses. A new 50mm and 85mm would be great. But I would love even more a new 40/45/50mm TS-E lens. I guess this new 35mm produces an image circle which is much larger than it needs to be. I guess this was the best way to achive this high corner performance. So how hard can it be to produce a new 40mm TS-E lens?

I think the real issue is that the enlargement ratios are so big now any kind of dof is getting increasingly difficult.

My average print size is 16" x 24" and I can tell which lens I shot with, the only remarkably sharp lens for landscapes (that I own) is the TS-E 17mm where I laid the plane of focus on the ground, anything less and the dof is not as good. If I was a landscape shooter I'd sell my 11-24 and get the TS-E 24 MkII and be done.

At the magnifications we now look at hyperfocal is dead, only tilt will do.

 

[RobertG.]

Full res sample images: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/

I like the sample shots in full size. The portraits look great. Unfortunately the landscape shots don't look that good. The picture of the bright blue lagoon is not sharp. According to the Exif date it was shot at f8 1/320 ISO 100 but at 100% nothing is sharp. It might be noise reduction, JPEG compression or whatever but the picture lacks detail and sharpness. The daylight shot of Santorini was shot at f8 1/640 ISO 100 but it is not sharp at all, too. Hopefully it is just the JPEG compression... Such samples are not worth to be shown this way. The single house looks much better. There is detail and microcontrast where there should be one. Same for the large aperture samples, which look amazing.

I hope that this lens will just be the start of a series of updated lenses. A new 50mm and 85mm would be great. But I would love even more a new 40/45/50mm TS-E lens. I guess this new 35mm produces an image circle which is much larger than it needs to be. I guess this was the best way to achieve this high corner performance. So how hard can it be to produce a new 40mm TS-E lens?

I think the real issue is that the enlargement ratios are so big now any kind of dof is getting increasingly difficult.

My average print size is 16" x 24" and I can tell which lens I shot with, the only remarkably sharp lens for landscapes (that I own) is the TS-E 17mm where I laid the plane of focus on the ground, anything less and the dof is not as good. If I was a landscape shooter I'd sell my 11-24 and get the TS-E 24 MkII and be done.

At the magnifications we now look at hyperfocal is dead, only tilt will do.

Yes, this could be one explanation, which also came to my mind. It is the reason why I mainly use the TS-E 17mm and TS-E 24mm for landscapes. But sometimes a longer lens would be useful and so I use the TS-E 45mm and TS-E 90mm as well. TS-E 45mm is really not up to date and a much better replacement would be appreciated.

 

[Sporgon]

I guess if I'd spent a week in Santorini with that girl my pictures would be a bit shaky. Seriously though, I think the portrait shots have a superb latest-in-film * like look to them, and I presume they were shot on a 5Ds. Says a lot for that camera's sensor and the lens. Canon seem to have moved a little back towards the 5DII hue with the 5Ds
whereas the 5DIII is greener - like the Exmor.

(* scans from film such as Kodak Portra 160)

 

[ahsanford]

There are plenary of photographers who want the best. I feel the price will be justified considering Leica,
Their 35mm is costlier and doesn't even autofocus.
As regards DXO. This will rate high.
The Zeiss Otus may have quality to contend with. Keep in mind, If Zeiss made an Otus 35mm it would cost $5k.

If! DXO rates it, it will rate high. DXO seems to do all they can to avoid Canon from looking good. The lack of lenses tested on 5DS+R is hard to understand, as caused by anything other than DXO's intentions .

This. We knew the sensor scores would be higher for anything SoNikon-related at DXO, but they've had well over a month since their 5DS / 5DS R reviews to retest Canon lenses and they've re-tested exactly ZERO to date.

Anyone who follows the clown car that DXO is knows that their lens scores are heavily, heavily weighted by how many pixels are on the sensor sitting behind them. So an epic improvement in the ranking of Canon lenses was expected with the release of the 5DS rigs.

But DXO has seen to it that it will not happen until either (a) the a7R II has its lenses retested first (heavily muting the upside of Canon's new MP advantage or (b) until Nikon's D820 / D900 (whatever it's called) surfaces with the a7R II sensor.

#fairandbalanced #dxo

- A

 

[StudentOfLight]

I guess if I'd spent a week in Santorini with that girl my pictures would be a bit shaky. Seriously though, I think the portrait shots have a superb latest-in-film * like look to them, and I presume they were shot on a 5Ds. Says a lot for that camera's sensor and the lens. Canon seem to have moved a little back towards the 5DII hue with the 5Ds
whereas the 5DIII is greener - like the Exmor.

(* scans from film such as Kodak Portra 160)

The portrait shots I downloaded were shot with the 5D-III. I was excited by how well very CA was handled in all dimensions. Also, the bokeh looked almost 135L quality.

 

[martti]

My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R and he says that the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable in real world. In addition he says that the old version is so good that nobody actually needs a better lens than it is. Those who do not have the old version of the lens as yet should now get ready to get one as there are people who want to upgrade and there will be lots of it out in the used market.

I do not understand why you people spend so much time staring at your MTF charts when you can get a neutral and professional assesment from Ken's site. Just click
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm

 

[privatebydesign]

My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R and he says that the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable in real world. In addition he says that the old version is so good that nobody actually needs a better lens than it is. Those who do not have the old version of the lens as yet should now get ready to get one as there are people who want to upgrade and there will be lots of it out in the used market.

I do not understand why you people spend so much time staring at your MTF charts when you can get a neutral and professional assesment from Ken's site. Just click
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm

Because in his own words he is not neutral and professional. He has said he will quite happily make stuff up to get page hits.

P.S. As I expected. "My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R" no he has not, he hasn't touched one. His 'review' is based on looking at MTF charts..............

 

[meywd]

My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R and he says that the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable in real world. In addition he says that the old version is so good that nobody actually needs a better lens than it is. Those who do not have the old version of the lens as yet should now get ready to get one as there are people who want to upgrade and there will be lots of it out in the used market.

I do not understand why you people spend so much time staring at your MTF charts when you can get a neutral and professional assesment from Ken's site. Just click
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm

Because in his own words he is not neutral and professional. He has said he will quite happily make stuff up to get page hits.

P.S. As I expected. "My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R" no he has not, he hasn't touched one. His 'review' is based on looking at MTF charts..............

yup, BS as usual

I'm sure when my own -II version arrives I'll be taken by its added sharpness, as I was with the 24-70/2.8 L II, but for now, I'm not getting that excited.

and what does this mean?

A 24mm f/1.4 works even better in the dark, but it's too wide for general purpose use.

 

[gjones5252]

My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R and he says that the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable in real world. In addition he says that the old version is so good that nobody actually needs a better lens than it is. Those who do not have the old version of the lens as yet should now get ready to get one as there are people who want to upgrade and there will be lots of it out in the used market.

I do not understand why you people spend so much time staring at your MTF charts when you can get a neutral and professional assesment from Ken's site. Just click
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm

I have no idea if you are joking or not. Ken Rockwell is the worst reviewer of any lens. I would get better reviews by giving my blind grandfather a beer and a picture of the lens. Ken Rockwell does his best to just be negative to get likes and to follow the any press is good press model.
When I first started reading his site about 5 years ago it was all hate towards canon. Just randomly in reviews about Nikon he would throw out that he hated canon.
The only thing that has never changed about his horrible opinion is about the custom modes c1, c2 c3 on the cameras being an amazing tool. He did introduce me to that.
Other then that Google the digital picture.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Full res sample images: http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/

I like the sample shots in full size. The portraits look great. Unfortunately the landscape shots don't look that good. The picture of the bright blue lagoon is not sharp.

I found the same problem with my version 1, loved the up close results, did not like the results from infinity based focus in landscape. I ended up selling it.

 

[risc32]

My hero Ken Rockwell has tested this lens on his 5D S R and he says that the difference in sharpness is hardly noticeable in real world. In addition he says that the old version is so good that nobody actually needs a better lens than it is. Those who do not have the old version of the lens as yet should now get ready to get one as there are people who want to upgrade and there will be lots of it out in the used market.

I do not understand why you people spend so much time staring at your MTF charts when you can get a neutral and professional assesment from Ken's site. Just click
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm

I have no idea if you are joking or not. Ken Rockwell is the worst reviewer of any lens. I would get better reviews by giving my blind grandfather a beer and a picture of the lens. Ken Rockwell does his best to just be negative to get likes and to follow the any press is good press model.
When I first started reading his site about 5 years ago it was all hate towards canon. Just randomly in reviews about Nikon he would throw out that he hated canon.
The only thing that has never changed about his horrible opinion is about the custom modes c1, c2 c3 on the cameras being an amazing tool. He did introduce me to that.
Other then that Google the digital picture.

I actually like Rockwell. I've read nearly every word on his site, and i think some of you here might want to consider seeing a doctor, as the things you are attributing to him didn't happen. If anything i would have thought you canon fanboys would be humping his leg. The guy switched to the canon camp when he got his hands on a 5d, and is quick to point out Canons superiority in camera bodies/lenses and customer service. He didn't review the 35mm mk2 yet, and if you had actually read his opinions on the matter you would see that he states that the newer lens would likely be better but at a huge cost in weight/size and dollars. But he also points out that it might just be a big enough improvement to justify it, like the 24-70mmf2.8 v2. But since you guys are rockwell know it alls i guess i'm just telling you what you already know. i also have a sneaking suspicion that ken knows more than you and your blind grandfather technically, so why don't you start a site and tell us how it really is?

 

[caMARYnon]

Sigma and mkI comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG

 

[privatebydesign]

I actually like Rockwell. I've read nearly every word on his site, and i think some of you here might want to consider seeing a doctor, as the things you are attributing to him didn't happen. If anything i would have thought you canon fanboys would be humping his leg. The guy switched to the canon camp when he got his hands on a 5d, and is quick to point out Canons superiority in camera bodies/lenses and customer service. He didn't review the 35mm mk2 yet, and if you had actually read his opinions on the matter you would see that he states that the newer lens would likely be better but at a huge cost in weight/size and dollars. But he also points out that it might just be a big enough improvement to justify it, like the 24-70mmf2.8 v2. But since you guys are rockwell know it alls i guess i'm just telling you what you already know. i also have a sneaking suspicion that ken knows more than you and your blind grandfather technically, so why don't you start a site and tell us how it really is?

Direct from his 'About me' page.

I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here......

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

 

[Mark Webb Photography]

35mm f/1.4L II wide open samples from me, enjoy

 

[Click]

Very nice pictures, Mark.

...And welcome to CR

 

[meywd]

35mm f/1.4L II wide open samples from me, enjoy

Wonderful photos, welcome to CR

 

[ben805]

35L II is a significant upgrade from my old 35L, center to border sharpness is superior to my 100L IS Macro, 85L II, and 70-200 2.8 IS II. Stopping down the aperture get very little to no improvement in sharpness and contrast. Color and bokeh similar to 85L II, and AF is the most consistent and accurate out of all my L lens, I think the 35L II broke several ranks and it has now become my reference for the rest of my arsenal to measure up to.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/13715639@N07/