Review - Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
There's is so much more dimension to a review like Dustin provides here, over and above a technical comparison of spec sheets and so on.
Otus type quality with auto focus really allows me to understand the magnificence of this lens!
Great review Dustin and thanks to Canon for creating another legendary lens
Otus type quality with auto focus really allows me to understand the magnificence of this lens!
Great review Dustin and thanks to Canon for creating another legendary lens
Upvote
0
bseitz234 said:
LOL! It made my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art cry, too. :'( (although it will have to make do, I do not have $1800 for a 35mm prime).
The new Canon is a sweet lens though.
Nice job on the review as usual, Dustin! (BTW: your cat is a poser! LOL!).
Upvote
0
Canon's new 35mm is so much better than my Sigma 35 – it's really quite remarkable.
It was definitely worth the cost of upgrading.
It was definitely worth the cost of upgrading.
Upvote
0
Dustin for president, finally an AF hit-rate study!
"I went through and counted 9 improperly focused shots from the Canon (out of 113), for a hit rate of around 92%. Most of these misses were with the subjects right on top of me and weren’t in situations where I would have expected to get good results. There were about 2-3 obvious misses where I would have expected accurate focus to be possible. This raises the keeper rate to better than 98% – very good under the circumstances I was shooting in.
The Sigma was another story altogether. I counted at least 15 missed focus shots, including almost all of those beyond 20 feet. My hit rate was highest when the subjects were in the range of 5-10 feet (the lens was calibrated at a six-foot distance). The keeper rate with the Sigma dropped to under 64%. If you intend to shoot events, sports, or photojournalism, the Canon proved the much more reliable option in this scenario…and that might be worth the premium price in and of itself."
Nice work, sir. After having shot the 35 Art, I'll expand the blue passage (I highlighted it, not Dustin) to 'any photographic pursuit that requres accurate f/1.4 autofocus use.' I said it before and I'll say it again, the 35L II is worth $1,500 to me if it's only the same optically as the 35 Art with reliable first-party AF. What good is f/1.4 if you have to throw out 1/3 of the shots?
- A
"I went through and counted 9 improperly focused shots from the Canon (out of 113), for a hit rate of around 92%. Most of these misses were with the subjects right on top of me and weren’t in situations where I would have expected to get good results. There were about 2-3 obvious misses where I would have expected accurate focus to be possible. This raises the keeper rate to better than 98% – very good under the circumstances I was shooting in.
The Sigma was another story altogether. I counted at least 15 missed focus shots, including almost all of those beyond 20 feet. My hit rate was highest when the subjects were in the range of 5-10 feet (the lens was calibrated at a six-foot distance). The keeper rate with the Sigma dropped to under 64%. If you intend to shoot events, sports, or photojournalism, the Canon proved the much more reliable option in this scenario…and that might be worth the premium price in and of itself."
Nice work, sir. After having shot the 35 Art, I'll expand the blue passage (I highlighted it, not Dustin) to 'any photographic pursuit that requres accurate f/1.4 autofocus use.' I said it before and I'll say it again, the 35L II is worth $1,500 to me if it's only the same optically as the 35 Art with reliable first-party AF. What good is f/1.4 if you have to throw out 1/3 of the shots?
- A
Upvote
0
Dustin,
one question: would you get the Tamron over the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM?
I know the Tamron is fractionally quicker and has better max magnification, but the Canon has first party AF and it costs about the same. Which would you pick if you could only own one 35mm lens?
- A
one question: would you get the Tamron over the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM?
I know the Tamron is fractionally quicker and has better max magnification, but the Canon has first party AF and it costs about the same. Which would you pick if you could only own one 35mm lens?
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I'm still pretty conflicted about that question. The Canon has served me very, very well, and I'm in no rush to get rid of it. The build on the Tamron is at another level, though, and that maximum magnification is very tempting. I also got very consistent AF results with my review copy. I do think the Canon still has the focusing edge, but it's slight. Sorry to waffle, but I don't really have a strong answer. I don't think there is a bad decision, so the right choice comes down more to an individual's person needs.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Are you saying you don't think its worth the price of 1799 currently? or was it listed at 1500 at one point? Either way, it sucks the canadian dollar is taking such a hit. The 35Lii is listed for 2199 at a local store. Thats a tough price for prime.
The Sigma is half the price, even more as I've seen it for 949. thats 1200 reasons for one to choose the Sigma over the Canon.
Upvote
0
Ryananthony said:
No, I'm just saying that the often heard "$1799 = ridiculous" is an easy black/white position to take on it, but when you think about it, highly accurate/consistent/reliable AF performance is worth a ton in a wide aperture lens unless you are shooting something highly scripted/controllable, like portraiture, astro, etc.
Personally, I shoot my life and travels, and I'm with a constant companion that is so so so not down with taking the same shot twice. I have to stick and move, and for that to work with a large aperture lens, it's got to nail the focus nearly every time.
So, if you twisted my arm, I'd say $1,799 is too expensive. But I'd consider it a fair price at $1,500. Consistent/reliable AF is that important to me in this kind of lens.
But YMMV. You may have the time to chimp and reshoot if you miss your subjects' eyes at f/1.4, or what you plan to shoot with this lens is not nearly as transient and fleeting as what I shoot. In that case, absolutely get the Sigma. If AF at f/1.4 is not a major consideration for you, it's the best photographic bargain short of the 40mm f/2.8 STM.
- A
Upvote
0
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:dash2k8 said:
They certainly look different when focus isn't nailed
+1. Why buy an f/1.4 lens only to have to use it at f/2.8 because you keep missing focus? AF really matters for some of us.
If AF consistency is less of a priority for you and what you shoot, get the Sigma 100%. The value is amazing. I'll leave the really subtle light falloff / color / bokeh / rendering comments for pros like Dustin to comment on (in his review!).
- A
Upvote
0
My Sigma 35mm has taken over 12,000 images and AF has never been bad enough to ruin my day. Sure there are occasional inconsistencies ("occasional," not "often" or "frequent" or "all the time"), but some people make it sound like the thing cannot focus at all. I never pick up the Sigma and say, "Damn, I hope it focuses correctly today."
If the Canon is visibly identical and only boasts much better AF, I'd only pay an extra $300. I'm not saying anything negative about the new Canon 35 except the price. If others can afford it, by all means get it. I paid through the roof for my 85 1.2 II and have no complaints, even though the focus is slow as hell.
If the Canon is visibly identical and only boasts much better AF, I'd only pay an extra $300. I'm not saying anything negative about the new Canon 35 except the price. If others can afford it, by all means get it. I paid through the roof for my 85 1.2 II and have no complaints, even though the focus is slow as hell.
Upvote
0
I had the 35 mk I and loved it... fav lens over most of the others...walk around...
but sold it for about what I paid. Now I have the 35 Sigma and it beat up the canon a bit...
I dont see any focus misses and I shoot wide open on a 5D3. bokeh almost as good as the canon was.. sig sharper and cleaner.
But
I promised myself I would go back to the 35 MKII if it was a fair bit better. Seems it has arrived.
now
what to do with the sigma....hmmm
grandson has a 1 yr modern small canon cropper ...so I will maybe give him the sigma and a dock to tweak it..
well, here's my BIG offer to canon:
Come out with a similar quality 135 f2 WITH I.S. and I will get it, the 35 mk II and a new 1dX mk II.
(sounds like $11,000...yikes)
or maybe make the 1 DX mk II available with 35 mkII as a kit lens for a little discount....
I love my 14mm f2.8 II. The new 35 and the future 135 f2 I.S. will give me all I need (and can carry)
.............
////////////
but sold it for about what I paid. Now I have the 35 Sigma and it beat up the canon a bit...
I dont see any focus misses and I shoot wide open on a 5D3. bokeh almost as good as the canon was.. sig sharper and cleaner.
But
I promised myself I would go back to the 35 MKII if it was a fair bit better. Seems it has arrived.
now
what to do with the sigma....hmmm
grandson has a 1 yr modern small canon cropper ...so I will maybe give him the sigma and a dock to tweak it..
well, here's my BIG offer to canon:
Come out with a similar quality 135 f2 WITH I.S. and I will get it, the 35 mk II and a new 1dX mk II.
(sounds like $11,000...yikes)
or maybe make the 1 DX mk II available with 35 mkII as a kit lens for a little discount....
I love my 14mm f2.8 II. The new 35 and the future 135 f2 I.S. will give me all I need (and can carry)
.............
////////////
Upvote
0
Dustin, I love the review. My one concern is that it sounded like you didn't use the dock to micro adjust the Sigma 35. I have a few Art lenses, and I've found that doing in-camera MFA will only solve for a particular distance to subject. Using the dock to develop the curve of correction over 4 subject distances made my Art lenses very reliable at any distance.
That a Sigma Art lens mis-focused at distances where it wasn't MFA'd seems like it should be expected. I'd love to see that focus test you spoke of (what a great coincidental test opportunity) run with both lenses MFA'd as their respective manufacturers would optimally expect.
All that said, even as a Sigma Art fanboy, I just got the Canon 1.4 35mm II. With it's Blue Goo element, weather resistance and the build quality, it just was irresistible. Tamron might have come close had the focusing been better.
Thanks again for the reviews.
That a Sigma Art lens mis-focused at distances where it wasn't MFA'd seems like it should be expected. I'd love to see that focus test you spoke of (what a great coincidental test opportunity) run with both lenses MFA'd as their respective manufacturers would optimally expect.
All that said, even as a Sigma Art fanboy, I just got the Canon 1.4 35mm II. With it's Blue Goo element, weather resistance and the build quality, it just was irresistible. Tamron might have come close had the focusing been better.
Thanks again for the reviews.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
