Review: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM by DPR

[Canon Rumors Guy]

DPReview has completed their review of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM, and have come away impressed.</p>
<p>From DPReview</p>
<blockquote><p>This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available. On performance overall, it leaves all-comers floundering in its wake with outstanding image quality, especially at F1.4, and extra-robust build. Some rivals come close optically, but none offers a total package to match the Canon 35mm F1.4L USM MkII. <a href="https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-35mm-f1-4-ii">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II : <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA35142.html?utm_term=UbK24x0al34oSlvW4eT8QxjoUkX3mDVXeWC-Ug0&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid64393&cvosrc=affiliate.64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1Uehm5w" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/1KPvgKw" target="_blank">Canon Store</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-35mm-f-1-4l-ii-usm.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[ahsanford]

This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available.

What does f/1.4 have to do with it? Is there a better 35mm lens?

- A

 

[Ozarker]

Looking at the CA example of a part of the old church I can see the difference between the two lenses. Maybe it will show up on a large print, but for 8x10 I don't know that it would.

That aside, this is absolutely on my wish list.

First grandchild is due in May.

That's my excuse to the wife and I'm sticking to it! 8)

I've not ever had this much justification to show her... ever.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I got this lense for a treat last month, I thought it would be "nice". However, I have to say.... it's awesome!!

I have a good number of nice lenses, fav's like the 11-24, 16-35ii, 24-70ii, 70-200ii, 200/2 and so on, this new 35 ranks right up there with my 500ii and the mighty 200/2!

Anyone who buys this lense will fall compleatly in love with it.

 

[ktatty]

First version was great- this one is better in the corners- but it is bigger :-[

 

[TommyLee]

I love it...love it.... and the 100-400 ii.....
it is their best work
amoung many great ones

 

[IglooEater]

This is the best 35mm F1.4 prime currently available.

What does f/1.4 have to do with it? Is there a better 35mm lens?

- A

No there isn't. But it becomes an argument, because JoeBlow will say that IS is more important than f/1.4 for his needs

 

[infared]

OK...so this is interesting (I really need to get a life! LOL!)
So..if you look at the DxO scores on the Canon 5D RS, the Sigma Art is very close to the Canon L II. Very close, but takes the biggest hit in sharpness.
BUT.....if you look at the DxO scores for both lenses on a 5DIII, the Sigma scores higher overall than the new Canon L. One point higher in sharpness???
I own a 5DII and a very carefully calibrated (on the dock), Sigma Art. 8)
(Actually I take DxO scoring with a grain of salt).

 

[FramerMCB]

OK...so this is interesting (I really need to get a life! LOL!)
So..if you look at the DxO scores on the Canon 5D RS, the Sigma Art is very close to the Canon L II. Very close, but takes the biggest hit in sharpness.
BUT.....if you look at the DxO scores for both lenses on a 5DIII, the Sigma scores higher overall than the new Canon L. One point higher in sharpness???
I own a 5DII and a very carefully calibrated (on the dock), Sigma Art. 8)
(Actually I take DxO scoring with a grain of salt).

DxO's findings in regards to the two lenses performing slightly differently on 2 different bodies is interesting. But I would say, not out of the realm of reality. The Sigma lens has been out for quite a while now as has the 5D III. The 5DS (&-r) is newer than the Sigma lens. And Canon is upping the ante on their newer lenses to wring the most resolution possible out of their newer, higher density photo sensors. My best guess is there would be similar results if comparing the 2 35's on the brand new Canon 5D Mk IV...similar to the 5DS-r.

This is one of the main advantages in sticking with Canon lenses over 3rd-party lenses... one gets the holistic system approach. Remember, Canon is not just focused on providing photo and/or video equipment. They offer a system of options to guide a pro or hobbyist to a final end product too.

 

[YuengLinger]

OK...so this is interesting (I really need to get a life! LOL!)
So..if you look at the DxO scores on the Canon 5D RS, the Sigma Art is very close to the Canon L II. Very close, but takes the biggest hit in sharpness.
BUT.....if you look at the DxO scores for both lenses on a 5DIII, the Sigma scores higher overall than the new Canon L. One point higher in sharpness???
I own a 5DII and a very carefully calibrated (on the dock), Sigma Art. 8)
(Actually I take DxO scoring with a grain of salt).

DxO's findings in regards to the two lenses performing slightly differently on 2 different bodies is interesting. But I would say, not out of the realm of reality. The Sigma lens has been out for quite a while now as has the 5D III. The 5DS (&-r) is newer than the Sigma lens. And Canon is upping the ante on their newer lenses to wring the most resolution possible out of their newer, higher density photo sensors. My best guess is there would be similar results if comparing the 2 35's on the brand new Canon 5D Mk IV...similar to the 5DS-r.

This is one of the main advantages in sticking with Canon lenses over 3rd-party lenses... one gets the holistic system approach. Remember, Canon is not just focused on providing photo and/or video equipment. They offer a system of options to guide a pro or hobbyist to a final end product too.

I need all the help I can get with AF, and I liked the Canon 35mm 1.4 II images I was finding online--a glow with skin tones, a smooth richness with still lifes, so I bit the bullet and bought the new Canon, selling my Sigma Art shortly thereafter. The Art was good, producing some great images, but my keeper rate was a little disappointing, and there was sometimes a lack of punch, while at others a flirting with grunge...

So, bottom line, WOW, am I glad I got the new Canon. Great with the 5DIII!

 

[infared]

OK...so this is interesting (I really need to get a life! LOL!)
So..if you look at the DxO scores on the Canon 5D RS, the Sigma Art is very close to the Canon L II. Very close, but takes the biggest hit in sharpness.
BUT.....if you look at the DxO scores for both lenses on a 5DIII, the Sigma scores higher overall than the new Canon L. One point higher in sharpness???
I own a 5DII and a very carefully calibrated (on the dock), Sigma Art. 8)
(Actually I take DxO scoring with a grain of salt).

DxO's findings in regards to the two lenses performing slightly differently on 2 different bodies is interesting. But I would say, not out of the realm of reality. The Sigma lens has been out for quite a while now as has the 5D III. The 5DS (&-r) is newer than the Sigma lens. And Canon is upping the ante on their newer lenses to wring the most resolution possible out of their newer, higher density photo sensors. My best guess is there would be similar results if comparing the 2 35's on the brand new Canon 5D Mk IV...similar to the 5DS-r.

This is one of the main advantages in sticking with Canon lenses over 3rd-party lenses... one gets the holistic system approach. Remember, Canon is not just focused on providing photo and/or video equipment. They offer a system of options to guide a pro or hobbyist to a final end product too.

I need all the help I can get with AF, and I liked the Canon 35mm 1.4 II images I was finding online--a glow with skin tones, a smooth richness with still lifes, so I bit the bullet and bought the new Canon, selling my Sigma Art shortly thereafter. The Art was good, producing some great images, but my keeper rate was a little disappointing, and there was sometimes a lack of punch, while at others a flirting with grunge...

So, bottom line, WOW, am I glad I got the new Canon. Great with the 5DIII!

I am keeping my Sigma...very happy with it.
Someone at DPReview gave me an insight as to why DxO may rate the the Sigma higher on a 5DIII. DxO takes images at all apertures and averages them. Apparently the Sigma scored sharper in the smaller apertures than the Canon...
That is just silly. The Canon is clearly the better lens.

 

[Larsskv]

OK...so this is interesting (I really need to get a life! LOL!)
So..if you look at the DxO scores on the Canon 5D RS, the Sigma Art is very close to the Canon L II. Very close, but takes the biggest hit in sharpness.
BUT.....if you look at the DxO scores for both lenses on a 5DIII, the Sigma scores higher overall than the new Canon L. One point higher in sharpness???
I own a 5DII and a very carefully calibrated (on the dock), Sigma Art. 8)
(Actually I take DxO scoring with a grain of salt).

DxO's findings in regards to the two lenses performing slightly differently on 2 different bodies is interesting. But I would say, not out of the realm of reality. The Sigma lens has been out for quite a while now as has the 5D III. The 5DS (&-r) is newer than the Sigma lens. And Canon is upping the ante on their newer lenses to wring the most resolution possible out of their newer, higher density photo sensors. My best guess is there would be similar results if comparing the 2 35's on the brand new Canon 5D Mk IV...similar to the 5DS-r.

This is one of the main advantages in sticking with Canon lenses over 3rd-party lenses... one gets the holistic system approach. Remember, Canon is not just focused on providing photo and/or video equipment. They offer a system of options to guide a pro or hobbyist to a final end product too.

I need all the help I can get with AF, and I liked the Canon 35mm 1.4 II images I was finding online--a glow with skin tones, a smooth richness with still lifes, so I bit the bullet and bought the new Canon, selling my Sigma Art shortly thereafter. The Art was good, producing some great images, but my keeper rate was a little disappointing, and there was sometimes a lack of punch, while at others a flirting with grunge...

So, bottom line, WOW, am I glad I got the new Canon. Great with the 5DIII!

I had the Sigma 35 ART and didn't have problems with it's focusing on the 6D. It is a very sharp lens, no doubt about it. However, I switched it out in favor of the 35 f2 IS, which I liked a lot. I got the 35 L II in April, and... wow!! It is sharper at f 1.4 than any of the 16-35 f4 L IS, 24-70 f4 L IS and 24-70 f2.8 LII at 35mm, at any aperture. But what sets it apart from the Sigma besides being slightly sharper, is the color, clarity, contrast and "pop". If you can afford the 35 LII, it's the way to go.

Ps. The 35 LII is great on lower res bodies, but really shines on the 5Ds.

 

[Viggo]

Bought it on launch and intend to keep it forever. I can't wish for anything more. It gives me so much nice keepers and does it with insane IQ, and even though it has been through a lot, it still look brand spanking new, even the lens hood.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Bought it on launch and intend to keep it forever. I can't wish for anything more. It gives me so much nice keepers and does it with insane IQ, and even though it has been through a lot, it still look brand spanking new, even the lens hood.

Viggo....you say some odd stuff sometimes. I have a mkI and I've used mine in a professional context for well over 8 years. My mkI still looks new and pristine....which is what i would expect from a lens from Canon's professional line. Your lens is only a few months old...come back with that statement when it's been a few years of heavy usage. The only lens I've owned that looked shabby after 6 months of use was a Sigma 70-200 mm f2.8 HSM...the ones with the awful black paint finish that literally fell of as one used the lens. Canon L lenses are far far far more robust.

 

[Viggo]

Bought it on launch and intend to keep it forever. I can't wish for anything more. It gives me so much nice keepers and does it with insane IQ, and even though it has been through a lot, it still look brand spanking new, even the lens hood.

Viggo....you say some odd stuff sometimes. I have a mkI and I've used mine in a professional context for well over 8 years. My mkI still looks new and pristine....which is what i would expect from a lens from Canon's professional line. Your lens is only a few months old...come back with that statement when it's been a few years of heavy usage. The only lens I've owned that looked shabby after 6 months of use was a Sigma 70-200 mm f2.8 HSM...the ones with the awful black paint finish that literally fell of as one used the lens. Canon L lenses are far far far more robust.

Lol, I just go by experience, and I thought my 1dx looked pretty clean still, but then my brother showed up with his, and mine looks really old and worn. All lenses that gets bumped and used by me usually as a few stripes and scuffs or dust, but the 35 still looks like I just took it out of the box, rare thing. So however odd, it's true.