Review: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Via TDP

[Canon Rumors]

Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of Canon’s brand new EF 35mm f/1.4L II lens. This lens is the first to feature Canon’s latest lens technology, the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-develops-new-camera-lens-optical-element/" target="_blank">Blue Spectrum Refractive (BR)</a> element.</p>
<p>From the review:</p>
<blockquote><p>I love it when my expectations are exceeded and when Canon formally announced this lens, the theoretical MTF chart did just that. My expectations, set in part by the 24 L II vs 24 L I differences, were for a modest bump in performance. But, in this case, my next step was to check the bank account for available funds. With the bank account gasping for breath (thanks to the 5Ds R bodies recently arriving), Tony’s suggestion in the comments of the announcement post appeared to be a really good one: hold a bake sale! With the lens in hand and meeting my elevated expectations, I have a more serious decision to make as the really impressive wide open image quality this lens is delivering is refuelling my love with 35mm f/1.4. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review…</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II $1799:</strong> <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> <strong>| <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></strong></p>

 

[ahsanford]

I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan didn't rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.

- A

 

[meywd]

very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?

 

[ahsanford]

very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?

I don't shoot astro, so coma's not a major concern for me. The 35L II is a tad sharper than the Sigma Art, but it's the reliable first party AF that has me excited. Even with supercareful technique, my f/1.4 hit rate with the 35 Art was poor -- it was not front or back focused, it was inconsistently focused. So I had to stop it down just to get more working DOF to overcome that inconsistency.

I'd love to see a simple head to head AF consistency test between the 35L II and 35 Art at f/1.4 with center and off-center points on the same Canon body. That single test could turn me from a $1,799 skeptic to a believer.

- A

 

[ben805]

very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?

I don't shoot astro, so coma's not a major concern for me. The 35L II is a tad sharper than the Sigma Art, but it's the reliable first party AF that has me excited. Even with supercareful technique, my f/1.4 hit rate with the 35 Art was poor -- it was not front or back focused, it was inconsistently focused. So I had to stop it down just to get more working DOF to overcome that inconsistency.

I'd love to see a simple head to head AF consistency test between the 35L II and 35 Art at f/1.4 with center and off-center points on the same Canon body. That single test could turn me from a $1,799 skeptic to a believer.

- A

Bad Coma can also ruin City lights or Nightscape, not just astro.

 

[YuengLinger]

Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...

Also, in Bryan's review, for such a long awaited lens, the sample photos, especially the horse, were not all that helpful.

Looking forward to a review with a little more effort involved.

 

[ahsanford]

Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...

I caught that as well. I pinged Carnathan to tell me what the aperture was for that shot. I'd be surprised if that was taken wide open.

- A

 

[TeT]

I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan didn't rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.

- A

How often is Canons latest lens / body release not better than what it replaced or most of the category it sits in...

It is easy to appear biased with a good product... He very clearly names what other items are better in comparison in what areas throughout all his reviews. AND he covers every aspect of each product under review.

 

[9VIII]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigme threw the gauntlet, Canon gladly accepted.
(Of course the Sigma still cost half as much, but at least now the performance of the 35LII comes much closer to justifying the price.)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Just for a perspective on overall sharpness you can even compare it with the 55mm Otus.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=917&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=VAR
Looking at the variance chart I think it's safe to say Brian was using a "good copy", but the Canon 35LII is certainly a top performer in modern optics.

Now we wait for the 50.

 

[chromophore]

Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...

I caught that as well. I pinged Carnathan to tell me what the aperture was for that shot. I'd be surprised if that was taken wide open.

- A

It quite clearly does not depict the lens shot at f/1.4. The purpose of a stopped down photo like this is to test multiple aspects of the bokeh:
[list type=decimal]
[*]How does the blur circle look in terms of uniformity of brightness?
[*]What diffraction effects are visible?
[*]Can we see any "onion-ring" effects due to aspherical or diffractive optical elements?
[*]Are blur circles in the image periphery "clipped" by the mirror box?"
[*]How rounded is the aperture when stopped down?
[/list]

If stopped down, we can detect items 2 and 5. Of course, when not stopped down, we can detect 4 best.

 

[9VIII]

At least Brian doesn't pretend to review Nikon gear.
He gives a thorough description on Canon stuff and apparently that is a full time job in itself. You can't be an expert at everything.

 

[Viggo]

ONE sentence answered one of my big question and reason for buying or not:

"Essentially distortion free" oh my! ;D

I'm buying!

 

[ben805]

In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:

"Focus accuracy, especially with a very shallow depth of field at f/1.4, is paramount for sharp images. This lens has been performing very well for me in that regard. I will not say that every image I captured with this lens was perfectly focused, though I'll personally take the blame for most of the mis-focusing I encountered. It is very easy to move slightly after focusing when not using a tripod."

"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference. "

 

[Viggo]

In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:

"Focus accuracy, especially with a very shallow depth of field at f/1.4, is paramount for sharp images. This lens has been performing very well for me in that regard. I will not say that every image I captured with this lens was perfectly focused, though I'll personally take the blame for most of the mis-focusing I encountered. It is very easy to move slightly after focusing when not using a tripod."

"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference. "

The Sigma I've owned twice and I want to say what I really feel about it, but then you couldn't have read this post on this forum it was never considered an option to the Canon's, and I never doubted the AF on the 35 L II as I LOVED the old one and the II would simply be better.

People can shout in my face about the Sigma, but the 50 Art is the only one I would own again.

 

[ben805]

In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:

"Focus accuracy, especially with a very shallow depth of field at f/1.4, is paramount for sharp images. This lens has been performing very well for me in that regard. I will not say that every image I captured with this lens was perfectly focused, though I'll personally take the blame for most of the mis-focusing I encountered. It is very easy to move slightly after focusing when not using a tripod."

"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference. "

The Sigma I've owned twice and I want to say what I really feel about it, but then you couldn't have read this post on this forum it was never considered an option to the Canon's, and I never doubted the AF on the 35 L II as I LOVED the old one and the II would simply be better.

People can shout in my face about the Sigma, but the 50 Art is the only one I would own again.

Yea. and as Bryan from TDP stated, some people find the Sigma to be a "better value", personally I was not looking for a value lens either, i wanted THE BEST 35mm lens and the 35L II delivered. ;D Speaking of value, due to focal length preference I get more use out of a 35mm lens than 85mm, therefore the 35L II is practically a better value to me, than the 85L II that I paid $1950 for a couple years ago. The worst 'value' lens is actually the one that sit on the shelf collecting dust, or the one hiding in camera bag that never get to use much. LOL

 

[risc32]

So the canon v2 is what we all assumed it would be, and the sigma is now optically bested,just. yesterday's "best" is today's value deal.? I guess so.
personally I'm good with my sigma, but if I had problems with it, I'd be down for the v2 canon without a hesitation.

 

[cpsico]

I think its a wonderful lens, I posted some pictures on my own thread. I found the autofocus to be very accurate and consistent
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27937.0

 

[cpsico]

These are two shots taken with this lens that show how awesome it is wide open for landscapes too! This is a lens you want in your camera bag!!

 

[ben805]

So the canon v2 is what we all assumed it would be, and the sigma is now optically bested,just. yesterday's "best" is today's value deal.? I guess so.
personally I'm good with my sigma, but if I had problems with it, I'd be down for the v2 canon without a hesitation.

Usually that's what happened with something better came out, remember the old 35L was part of the "Holy Trinity"? it was used by a lot of wedding photogs and journalists. Then came the Sigma 35A, for awhile it was the sharpest 35mm prime money can buy, I guess Canon just had to take the crown back with the updated MK2....

 

[caMARYnon]

Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...

It's nonagonal and that pic was shot on 5.6 "Perhaps easiest is the look at out of focus specular highlights with the following example captured using a significantly stopped down f/5.6 aperture."