EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]

[dolina]

Since the 40mm pancake came out I had very little incentive to wanting/waiting for the 35/1.4 II.

Not that it should discourage anyone for waiting another 6 years or so for it. ;D

Now, a 135/1.8 with IS is mighty interesting to me.

 

[ahsanford]

And the second important bit about this: the last non-suptertele L prime Canon released was... the 100L and tilt-shifts in 2009, right?

So this is the first non-white L prime in a long time, and it's replacing one of the vital ones that defined what L lenses could do. Interesting questions come from this:

• Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now... Any chance they'd put IS on this? Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
• Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
• Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size? It may not need to be for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible?
• Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens? Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?

Or should I stop looking at it as a harbinger of future-L-things-to-come and just think of it as an update/refresh at one focal length?

- A

 

[Good24]

I hope it's true re: the 34mm L II. Not sure if I'd get one right away but one thing is true - I won't buy the current 35mm L precisely because I expect it to be updated soon. And this is a problem I'm sure Canon understand. When a lens is rumored to have an update coming soon, people are going to hold off.

And I echo the desire for a new non-L 50 and 85 (and maybe even 100 and/or 135) in the model of the 24/28/35 non-Ls with IS. Again here, I'm loosely interested in a 50 (that is more affordable than the L) but there's no way I'll buy the current 1.4, with an update certainly coming soon.

And another thing: while different shooters have different priorities for new lens, I think the frustration with a lack of a new non-L 50 is that it's such a basic focal length with widespread appeal. The percent of DSLR shooters who want a 50 is way up there. Too many of the "year of the lens" lenses seem to be specialty lenses like the 400 DO. If you simply count the number of lenses released recently, yes, it's a good number. But I feel like recent lenses have more limited appeal.

So if Canon will update the 35L, and the non-L 50, 85, and 100 - then I will truly shut up. Those are my personal priorities, lenses I see myself buying in the near future.

 

[TeT]

.... I won't buy the current 35mm L precisely because I expect it to be updated soon....

No No buy my 35L's dont wait....

 

[sb in ak]

It's been a good year for the high performance 50s but not for the lower end stuff. The 50 1.8 is fine--an IS version might be nice-- but the lens is fast, cheap and sharp enough. The 50 1.4 is the current weak link. The 50 1.2 is even fine. It's really supposed to be a portrait lens, and its rendering quality is really nice for that. It doesn't need to be knife sharp. For the folks that want that, there is the Sigma or Zeiss. Give me a nice update to the 50 1.4 that's not in a huge package. I don't want a solid 50 that's as big as a zoom.

 

[ahsanford]

Too many of the "year of the lens" lenses seem to be specialty lenses like the 400 DO. If you simply count the number of lenses released recently, yes, it's a good number. But I feel like recent lenses have more limited appeal.

True in some cases, but debatable in others. FF landscapers were screaming for a sharper UWA zoom for some time, so I think the 16-35 F/4L IS addressed a big need (even if it lacked f/2.8 for the event photogs). It's a nice improvement over its predecessors.

I also think that a value-oriented FF standard zoom was needed, and the 24-105 non-L f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens fits that bill (presumably it will be a nice improvement over the venerable 1998 EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens).

So if Canon will update the 35L, and the non-L 50, 85, and 100 - then I will truly shut up. Those are my personal priorities, lenses I see myself buying in the near future.

+500 on the non-L 50mm. I love my tiny 28 f/2.8 IS USM and would love a 50mm version with a larger aperture. I just shot last night with my semi-trusty jalopy of 50mm f/1.4 and it laid an egg at nailing focus on a portrait with a fairly forgiving f/2.8 aperture (and that was using an off-center point and deliberately not reframing after focusing). I need that new 50 for AF reliability if nothing else.

The 85 f/1.8 needs the refresh as well, but that lens has its fans -- it makes more people happy today than the 50 f/1.4 does.

Interesting you bring up the 100 (non-L) f/2 -- it's probably the 2nd-least discussed lens in this forum behind the 200 f/2.8L. I had almost forgotten about it. If it is to get the non-L IS treatment, good money would be on it happening with the 85 as I recall the current 85 and 100 share a good number of components.

- A

 

[tphillips63]

I really like the 35mm f/1.4L but will for sure get the new II when it is available as long as it is as good as I imagine it will be.
The good thing is, the people that get the older versions at a good deal will benefit too!

 

[ahsanford]

It's been a good year for the high performance 50s but not for the lower end stuff. The 50 1.8 is fine--an IS version might be nice-- but the lens is fast, cheap and sharp enough. The 50 1.4 is the current weak link. The 50 1.2 is even fine. It's really supposed to be a portrait lens, and its rendering quality is really nice for that. It doesn't need to be knife sharp. For the folks that want that, there is the Sigma or Zeiss. Give me a nice update to the 50 1.4 that's not in a huge package. I don't want a solid 50 that's as big as a zoom.

Excellent comments. Agree wholeheartedly.

The list of people who would want this new 50 f/? IS is pretty long:

• People prefer sharpness over draw. Heck, even the ancient EF 50/1.4 has sharper corners over the 50 1.2L -- imagine what a newer design will be able to do.
• People who prefer smaller primes, both in weight and size
• People who need IS for hand-held low-light or video work
• People who want modern, super-reliable USM focusing performance

The list of niggling little wants on the non-L 50 -- if addressed -- add up to a lens many people will want. Canon just needs to deliver it to us. Then we'd have a 50 for beginners learning about primes, a 50 for pros who want that magic wow pop factor, and the 50 that does eeeeeeeverything else.

- A

 

[josephandrews222]

For my needs image stabilization is essential. I have had nice results with the newish 35mm f2 IS paired with a 5DMkIII. The image below was hand-held with exposure time of a quarter-second, I think. I would have to think long and hard about getting an additional stop if there was no IS.

 

[privatebydesign]

Nice shot Joseph, Animal Kingdom if I am not mistaken.

 

[jebrady03]

Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!

 

[ahsanford]

Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!

That's the question isn't it?

I am stunned the 35L is still being offered at $1,479 (before rebate) at B&H right now, which represents a 65% premium over a lens of the same max aperture that beats it from a resolution perspective (and handily so on the wide open end).

I recognize there is far more to a lens than it's sharpness and max aperture, but the disparity in price between the L and the Art would imply there is something important missing from the Art lens (other than the red ring), like reliable AF, great color, control of flare / distortion / chromatic effects, etc. I haven't tortured those reviews -- has that been the case?

If not, Canon's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to ask for $1500-2000 for the 35L II.

- A

 

[josephandrews222]

Nice shot Joseph, Animal Kingdom if I am not mistaken.

Correct! Shot taken from the balcony of our room at Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge.

 

[bereninga]

Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!

That's the question isn't it?

I am stunned the 35L is still being offered at $1,479 (before rebate) at B&H right now, which represents a 65% premium over a lens of the same max aperture that beats it from a resolution perspective (and handily so on the wide open end).

I recognize there is far more to a lens than it's sharpness and max aperture, but the disparity in price between the L and the Art would imply there is something important missing from the Art lens (other than the red ring), like reliable AF, great color, control of flare / distortion / chromatic effects, etc. I haven't tortured those reviews -- has that been the case?

If not, Canon's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to ask for $1500-2000 for the 35L II.

- A

I totally agree w/ this. I have no idea how they will price this new lens w/ the Sigma 35 1.4 Art out there. Sigma truly creates disruptive innovations that Canon has yet to answer.

 

[Lee Jay]

My 35L is so close to perfect that I've always struggled to understand what else people would want. It's only fault is too much ghosting when shooting fireworks. When I use it for events and people and such, I don't even give sharpness a thought. I shoot it at f/1.4-f/2 and it's so sharp where the subjects are (i.e. not at the corners) that sharpness just doesn't matter.

That said, I'm thinking of selling it, but not because of any faults. I seriously doubt I'd be in the market for a version II even if I did sell it, and I definitely am not interested in a 35ART from Sigma.

 

[Ruined]

Hope this actually comes out and fixes the 35L's bokeh weaknesses.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 35mmL was impressively sharp, but the 24-70mm L MK II relegated it to staying in my bag, so I finally sold it.

I'm going to be selling a few more seldom used lenses soon, I seem to be changing the equipment I use most.

 

[Synkka]

This is a must have for my kit, really looking forward to an updated model

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

What about the 50 1.4???? THat is the one that is broken (literally). I'm surprised Canon doesn't have a class action against them on that lens yet. They have known about a fundamental design flaw with the AF system for like two decades now.

 

[lintoni]

I'm curious, if this turns out to be bigger than a Zeiss Otus, would that put people off buying the updated lens?