More Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Information

[rrcphoto]

the price doesn't surpise me that much. consider that the orginal 35L was 205,000 yen.

it's gone from 11 elements 9 groupings to 14 elements 11 groupings, and a dramatic increase in weight when canon is usually decreasing weight.


so..

sounds like they are trying to make this "near APO" on a fast 35mm - seems odd (and expensive) but looking at this and the description of the BR element - the first thing i think of is that canon is attempting to make "cheaper otus'es.."

which - if they make near APO primes that are close, then yes, they are going to be well over the price of your cheaper sigmas. suck it up.

however lenses that sit in between the prosumer grade lenses and the upper tier Zeiss Otuses - sounds like a good plan to me.

this thing gained nearly 200g of weight - given the lighter construction materials usually used now by canon and the emphasis on weight - there's got to be a reason for nearly a 50% weight increase over what you would commonly expect now.

Really interested in seeing what canon did here. should be good and also curious for the rest of their L primes that are all needing an update (14,24, 50, 85, 135, 200)

Great glass from an original manufacturer is always expensive.. get over it.

 

[rrcphoto]

If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.

1500-1600 would be what the ORIGINAL 35L MSRP'ed at. not happening if they'd jacked up the technology.

not to mention the zeiss 35mm 1.4 is what 1900 USD MSRP? and is probably worse than the sigma wide open? heck worse than the 35mm 2.0 IS wide open.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

$2300 USD?? Nah. Not gonna happen for this lens. $1700 max but hopefully more like $1500. Exchange rates still favor a much lower price than direct Yen to USD translation. Few to nobody is going to pay $2300 for this sucker.

Canon told us that they see impossible.

Edited to add: Honestly, I'm more interested in the quality. Prices drop. Quality doesn't.

 

[Random Orbits]

If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.

1500-1600 would be what the ORIGINAL 35L MSRP'ed at. not happening if they'd jacked up the technology.

not to mention the zeiss 35mm 1.4 is what 1900 USD MSRP? and is probably worse than the sigma wide open? heck worse than the 35mm 2.0 IS wide open.

1500-1600 is possible. The dollar is a lot stronger now than before. There is also a lot more competition than before. All these things put downward pressure on price. I got the 35L new over 3 years ago for 1250, and now you can get it for under 1200 from an authorized dealer. But as long as initial demand is strong, there won't be any "discounts" relative to MSRP.

 

[ahsanford]

Also, this lens announcement is big deal for another reason: no IS.

This is the first L prime that isn't a big white in... what... 6-7 years or so? (I think the 100L was the last one.) Many were wondering if Canon would tack IS on to these lenses like Canon has with recent f/4L zooms and the 24/28/35 non-L refreshes. Looks like the answer is no. Should we also expect the next 24L, 50L and 85L to not have it, either?

I know it's overkill on paper, but just this past weekend I was shooting an event in a museum -- no flashes or tripods were allowed and the lighting was quite dim. I knew this was going to happen, so I went with the 28 f/2.8 IS. I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.

And I'm sure videographers would have loved this to have IS.

- A

 

[TeT]

It will be awesome. Could / Should easily outstrip the Sigma... But by $1200.00 ? Although the start price will be down a bit by Feb 2016...

 

[Lucid]

This lens is going to need to be pure magic to convince me to buy it since I have the 35mm f/2 IS and that lens has so much going for it.

Hi Ruined,

I'm considering the 35mm f/2 IS USM. Do you have images online that I would be able to have a look at?

Thanks.

-T

 

[bereninga]

I agree that the lens will probably be priced closer to $1,500-1,600. Sigma IMO really put a lot of pressure on this one, at least for non-pros. The 35mm IS is also a very good performer, so this lens will have to offer a lot.

 

[davidcl0nel]

I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.

Then don't use Auto-ISO.

The 35 IS is capable of 1/4sek, the 28 IS should be the same.
So 35 IS need only 2000ISO (1/15 / 1/4) with same aperture, with f/2.0 ISO1000.. A 1.4 IS would be ISO500 - why?

 

[Random Orbits]

I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.

Then don't use Auto-ISO.

The 35 IS is capable of 1/4sek, the 28 IS should be the same.
So 35 IS need only 2000ISO (1/15 / 1/4) with same aperture, with f/2.0 ISO1000.. A 1.4 IS would be ISO500 - why?

1/4s is too slow for group shots. The odds of someone moving is too great. For still life, IS works well; for people... not so much when the shutter speed is that low.

 

[davidcl0nel]

But a group of people with f/1.4 ... ?

 

[Sabaki]

Canon told us that they see impossible.

Edited to add: Honestly, I'm more interested in the quality. Prices drop. Quality doesn't.

This! 100000000x yes!

If Canon do put out an Otus level performer here, money is irrelevant to a certain point.

Very, very interested in seeing this lens's performance as Canon's recent zooms were giving prime IQ. Waiting for TDP's review on this baby

 

[Eldar]

If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.

1500-1600 would be what the ORIGINAL 35L MSRP'ed at. not happening if they'd jacked up the technology.

not to mention the zeiss 35mm 1.4 is what 1900 USD MSRP? and is probably worse than the sigma wide open? heck worse than the 35mm 2.0 IS wide open.

The Zeiss 35/1.4 is a fantastic lens.

 

[andrewflo]

Yikes $2300... more expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II that's crazy.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

While its bound to be a durable lens, I'd remark that it is unlikely to be more durable than the old Canon FD lenses.

Most of them still work fine today. All metal bodies and no AF or IS or electronics to go bad. The single failure I've seen in having owned a large number of these was grease running into the aperture due to some previous owner leaving it in the trunk of his car in very hot weather. A little disassembly, and a Q-tip dipped in alcohol removed the gunk and it was fine.

Other vintage lenses have not always been so reliable. Here is my assessment of ones I've owned in no particular order. Minolta AF - awful, Manual lenses good, Nikon reasonably good, but grease hardens in the focus mechanism and aperture ring. Pentax -Excellent, Yashica - good, Sigma - beyond poor, Tamron - fair, Konica - Good, Mamiya - Very Good, Olympus - excellent, Zeiss - Excellent, I'm sure there are others that did not come to mind. I have collected and sold hundreds, almost all brands. Since third party lenses are usually made by one of the other manufacturers, I did not mention them. Most of them were low cost, and of poor quality as far as survival goes.

 

[roberthajdu]

This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.

I disagree a lot with that. Everything can be a lot better with the 35 L, but it's a great lens which was my favorite for many years and I've had 8 copies of it.

The new one will be MUCH better built, AF/MF-button falling off and squeaky exterior with the old one, plus weather sealing. Contrast and color are quite poor and pale compared to Canon's newer lenses like the 24-70 II and 16-35 for example. Way too much purple fringing. A lot could be done with distortion and vignetting also. The sharpness on a good copy is really good, and okey in the cornes, this can also be a lot better. AF is the best of any 1.4 lens and the new one will be unbeatable.

I understand that everything can be improved upon, however I'm just skeptical that it will be that much better.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.

I disagree a lot with that. Everything can be a lot better with the 35 L, but it's a great lens which was my favorite for many years and I've had 8 copies of it.

The new one will be MUCH better built, AF/MF-button falling off and squeaky exterior with the old one, plus weather sealing. Contrast and color are quite poor and pale compared to Canon's newer lenses like the 24-70 II and 16-35 for example. Way too much purple fringing. A lot could be done with distortion and vignetting also. The sharpness on a good copy is really good, and okey in the cornes, this can also be a lot better. AF is the best of any 1.4 lens and the new one will be unbeatable.

I understand that everything can be improved upon, however I'm just skeptical that it will be that much better.

At the top level, it costs a lot more to get a small improvement. Its always been this way. Prices will fall after a few months simply because demand drops off. Unless the economy improves worldwide, the drop will come sooner rather than later.

 

[padam]

Not necessarily, it might drop like 10-15% but not more.

While there is a little bit added value on the "L" designation, it is also true that higher-end lenses are simply more expensive to produce as well as more costly to develop than before. Which is why they get delayed more and more.
Look at Sony with their QC with their FE lenses (centering defects), Canon is at least more consistent.


Btw look, there is a new picture

Next time we might see it turned another 15 degrees lol


On a more serious note, we need to see the performance on the 5DsR because this is clearly what's this lens has been developed for.

 

[fish_shooter]

The breech lock mount was also the strongest, the lens was always tight with no play. Nikon lenses of the same vintage tend to have play in the mount.

While its bound to be a durable lens, I'd remark that it is unlikely to be more durable than the old Canon FD lenses.

Most of them still work fine today. All metal bodies and no AF or IS or electronics to go bad. The single failure I've seen in having owned a large number of these was grease running into the aperture due to some previous owner leaving it in the trunk of his car in very hot weather. A little disassembly, and a Q-tip dipped in alcohol removed the gunk and it was fine.

Other vintage lenses have not always been so reliable. Here is my assessment of ones I've owned in no particular order. Minolta AF - awful, Manual lenses good, Nikon reasonably good, but grease hardens in the focus mechanism and aperture ring. Pentax -Excellent, Yashica - good, Sigma - beyond poor, Tamron - fair, Konica - Good, Mamiya - Very Good, Olympus - excellent, Zeiss - Excellent, I'm sure there are others that did not come to mind. I have collected and sold hundreds, almost all brands. Since third party lenses are usually made by one of the other manufacturers, I did not mention them. Most of them were low cost, and of poor quality as far as survival goes.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

price is whoa!

but it sounds like they are going for a full APO design so zero longitudinal CA (purple in front/green in back) even wide open perhaps