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

[tron]

...
I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!

Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed!

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!

Thanks! 4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!!
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of walking..so ..alas..my FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!! It is supposed to be my day off. LOL!

Ehhhmmmm, 8 widows or may be ... 8 windows? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[Zv]

...
I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!

Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed!

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!

Thanks! 4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!!
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of walking..so ..alas..my FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!! It is supposed to be my day off. LOL!

That's how I felt on my last holiday - it felt like work and that was just with two lenses. The EOS M came to my rescue though so I totally get what you mean.

Congrats on turning 60 soon! Hope you continue doing what you love for a long time!

 

[DominoDude]

...
I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!

Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed!

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!

Thanks! 4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!!
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of walking..so ..alas..my FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!! It is supposed to be my day off. LOL!

Ehhhmmmm, 8 widows or may be ... 8 windows? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Shhh! It's funnier this way.
Either way it's a feat to manage eight of them in a week - at any age. Typos can happen to any of us, and some turn out to be funny, easy to make and hard to spot.

 

[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

Re: the 35L II

Other than a few folks responding about IS, my question largely went unanswered. I realize it's fairly wild speculation, but do you have any thoughts on the bullet points above? Thanks in advance.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

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

Re: the 35L II

Other than a few folks responding about IS, my question largely went unanswered. I realize it's fairly wild speculation, but do you have any thoughts on the bullet points above? Thanks in advance.

- A

No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

 

[privatebydesign]

• 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?

- A

[list type=decimal]
[*]None, not with the very well rated and liked 35mm f2 IS already out there.
[*]Probably engineering plastic, it works better, is more durable, lighter, easier to work etc etc. The 100 L is a fine lens, the 17 TS-E a recommissioned tank.
[*]There was always a prime and f2.8 zoom filter distinction (until the 82mm 16-35 MkII?), 72mm and 77mm, that the zooms have gone bigger doesn't necessitate the primes following
[*]No, none, it is possible but there is little reason and probably an even smaller market, besides, it would make it yet bigger and heavier and that seems to be against the current ideology, as does additional speed
[/list]

 

[ahsanford]

No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

I was always curious about that. I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about oversizing the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ). So that only helps with vignetting?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

• 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?

- A

[list type=decimal]
[*]None, not with the very well rated and liked 35mm f2 IS already out there.
[*]Probably engineering plastic, it works better, is more durable, lighter, easier to work etc etc. The 100 L is a fine lens, the 17 TS-E a recommissioned tank.
[*]There was always a prime and f2.8 zoom filter distinction (until the 82mm 16-35 MkII?), 72mm and 77mm, that the zooms have gone bigger doesn't necessitate the primes following
[*]No, none, it is possible but there is little reason and probably an even smaller market, besides, it would make it yet bigger and heavier and that seems to be against the current ideology, as does additional speed
[/list]

Thanks for the reply. Agree across the board, save perhaps the lack of IS with the 35L II. I feel like Canon wants its L lenses to be the best tech and clearly better than the non-L lenses, so there's an argument for offering IS with this lens -- it kills off the possibility of folks having to choose between IS or f/1.4.

Plus, it would be a nice distinctive over the Art lenses and the Zeiss MF glass for (presumably better funded) videographers. It might help them keep the price up in that light.

But I could certainly see it going the other way.

- A

 

[jdramirez]

The addition of IS would be a different line, so instead of being the 35L mkii, it would be the 35L is (mki).

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this... so I need to read the original post again.

 

[ahsanford]

The addition of IS would be a different line, so instead of being the 35L mkii, it would be the 35L is (mki).

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this... so I need to read the original post again.

Totally forgot. You are correct.

So if indeed it is a 35L mk II -- and Canon is consistent with its past naming schemes -- it won't have IS.

- A

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

I was always curious about that. I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about oversizing the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ). So that only helps with vignetting?

- A

add the 70-300L to the list too.

(it does seem like the 70-300L maintains a wider open aperture higher up the focal range than the non-L or old 100-300L, it also has sharper edges on FF than those too)

oh and also add the 100L to the filter size went up list as well (this one seems to be able to retain more cross AF points than the older ones)

 

[infared]

...
I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!

Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed!

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!

Thanks! 4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!!
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of walking..so ..alas..my FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!! It is supposed to be my day off. LOL!

Ehhhmmmm, 8 widows or may be ... 8 windows? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Shhh! It's funnier this way.
Either way it's a feat to manage eight of them in a week - at any age. Typos can happen to any of us, and some turn out to be funny, easy to make and hard to spot.

Ha Ha!!! It is funnier that way! I'm 60...my eyesight $ucks...Thank God for AF!
Hmmmm... I do work for some widows....hmmmmm LOL!
Hey...hey...I had a helper with the W-I-N-D-O-W-S..but I lead the charge! They are all set...I still have a lot of finish work to do this week....without the helper. ;D

 

[Lee Jay]

No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.

I was always curious about that. I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about oversizing the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ). So that only helps with vignetting?

- A

And "cat's eye bokeh", yes.

 

[RomainF]

• • 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?

  
  I hane no idea about what Canon is gonna do, but a 35mm f/1.2 is technically possible.
  Have a loot at the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 for Leica M mount, which is quite small and currently in production for a reasonable amount of money (about one grand if i'm right).
  Here it is, compared to a 50L :
  
  
  
  
  Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.
  
  

 

[Loswr]

• Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.
  

  

The Leica M mount has a flange focal distance of less than 28mm, meaning a 35mm lens doesn't need to be a retrofocal lens design; that's not true of a 35mm lens for the EF mount.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

• Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.
  

  

The Leica M mount has a flange focal distance of less than 28mm, meaning a 35mm lens doesn't need to be a retrofocal lens design; that's not true of a 35mm lens for the EF mount.

With a distance shorter flange saves a lot of glass in the manufacture of wide-angle lens. But in the digital age, it demanded an image sensor with microlens that become inclined to capture light rays near the corners.

Neuro, a question: ???
What do you think is more beneficial to image quality? :
1- short flange distance, and sensor with microlens sloping corners.
2- Distance flange Canon EF and retrofocus lens?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

<p>We’re told that that Canon will replace their 35mm f/1.4L following the announcement and shipping of the upcoming EF 11-24mm f/4L, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">which has been rumoured since August</a>. We’re told that an announcement date hasn’t been set, however the lens could appear as early as Q1 of 2015, or fall into the second quarter of next year.</p>
<p>This lens has been rumoured for replacement since the EF 24mm f/1.4L II was announced back in 2008. There <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/" target="_blank">have been a lot of patents for such a lens</a>, but nothing has come to fruition.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

I have the 35 f/2 IS now and it performs supperb, so unless this one has a stellar performance, I'll probably pass. I (personally) prefer the IS over 1-stop of light. f/2 is already bright enough for my applications.

In my wishlist is a 50mm (f/1.4 or f/2) with IS, in line with the 24mm,28mm and 35mm recent prosumer lenses. All perform very good but the 35mm f/2 IS is the best.

 

[NancyP]

I am satisfied with my Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. The AF is ok, although I don't actually use AF much, I tend to use this lens for landscape or astrophotography, both suited to or requiring MF (and yes, I have a MF brain, having grown up with all-manual equipment). I have the 40mm f/2.8 STM for lightweight autofocusing lens. I am considering a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art as well sometime in the future. It's the old "convenience" (of a normal or WA zoom) vs weight and bokeliciousness (of multiple primes) dilemma.

 

[Dean Martin]

If comes out before June, I will get one. Otherwise will go for ART.

I personally sold my 35L for the Art. The L was my absolute favourite lens, until I tried a friends Art. I assumed that he only brought because of its price but damn its brilliant. I think the only thing that would make me purchase the 35mm L II, would be if they added weather sealing. I doubt it'll be sharper than the Art. I suppose there is only so sharp a lens can get.... Maybe they will prove me wrong.

 

[Sella174]

This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it being f/3.5, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an L-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: L, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.