Teardown: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II

[mrzero]

This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.

Terrific to read stuff like this, and I bet an article like that does more for Canon sales than the company realises.

I bet the 11-24L is exactly the same. Certainly feels like it.

Makes you proud to be a Canon user. Thanks for sharing.

I keep repeating myself, but by this point I was really rather awestruck by the amount of careful over-engineering that went into making this lens. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, else is engineering lens mechanics like the newer Canon lenses.

I think Canon does understand the role that these teardowns play in driving sales over the long term. It used to be that they could dismiss individual complaints on the internet as whining, misuse, or isolated problems. Now they know that a guy like Roger is going to tear the whole thing down and publish it on the internet within a few months of release, so they can't do that if the internal build is clearly not robust.

 

[Sporgon]

This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.

Terrific to read stuff like this, and I bet an article like that does more for Canon sales than the company realises.

I bet the 11-24L is exactly the same. Certainly feels like it.

Makes you proud to be a Canon user. Thanks for sharing.

I keep repeating myself, but by this point I was really rather awestruck by the amount of careful over-engineering that went into making this lens. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, else is engineering lens mechanics like the newer Canon lenses.

I think Canon does understand the role that these teardowns play in driving sales over the long term. It used to be that they could dismiss individual complaints on the internet as whining, misuse, or isolated problems. Now they know that a guy like Roger is going to tear the whole thing down and publish it on the internet within a few months of release, so they can't do that if the internal build is clearly not robust.

I think you are right here. Roger's 'teardown' of the Tamron 24-70/2.8 really put me off that lens: second element held in place with three spots of glue and they have a habit of failing. Now I'm not known for being that kind to my gear, lenses do get dropped and bumped. Also dramatic changes in temperature probably don't do this adhesive any good, and again, I'm a culprit.

The engineering that has gone into this new lens is impressive without a doubt. Interesting that Canon is confident enough people are prepared to pay for it.

 

[Etienne]

These tear-downs raise my confidence level in paying for Canon's new lenses. It's reassuring to know that your equipment is built to last.

 

[ben805]

I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?

 

[Viggo]

I'm also happy to see they really put effort and money where it matters, it feels fantastic. However, does anyone else's focusing ring feel a bit too stiff and make a whistle sound when turned right?

I have huge issues with my 1dx and the 35 II now, hopelessly inconsistent, and the main problem is with the body, but my 200mm is dead on and the 35 misses A LOT, so I will hold off a bit in my enthusiasm.

It works much better on the 6d, but some subjects it simply won't focus on at all, and they are bright and contrasty. They gave up in Norway, so now they both go to Sweden, and hopefully starts to function.

If you're on the fence, get one, the IQ is eeeepic. And now the build proves to be equally epic, good stuff.

 

[davidmurray]

The engineering that has gone into this new lens is impressive without a doubt. Interesting that Canon is confident enough people are prepared to pay for it.

Absolutely prepared to pay for that sort of quality!

For me that review has turned this lens into an absolutely "must have" lens.

 

[davidmurray]

These tear-downs raise my confidence level in paying for Canon's new lenses. It's reassuring to know that your equipment is built to last.

+1

 

[infared]

I suddenly feel a lot better having paid the premium for getting this lens.

I had focusing issues to begin with, as some of you may have seen examples of, but CPS refused to accept that anything was wrong. I have therefore been quite determined to prove them wrong. But the funny thing is that with more use it has improved and now it is very stable and focus is dead on every time. Strange, but pleasing. Few things are more annoying than having lenses you can´t trust.

Maybe you can attach it to the Sigma Dock to fine-tune it!!!

 

[risc32]

I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?

I think Roger plainly put it that nobody is building things like canon is currently, so i think that goes for zeiss as well.
so, roger is the man, and this lens is the current limit of what's possible,inside and out. if i wasn't all set with my sigma i'd be thinking long and hard about this canon.

 

[Bdube]

I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?

I think Roger plainly put it that nobody is building things like canon is currently, so i think that goes for zeiss as well.
so, roger is the man, and this lens is the current limit of what's possible,inside and out. if i wasn't all set with my sigma i'd be thinking long and hard about this canon.

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

 

[HighLowISO]

I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?

I think Roger plainly put it that nobody is building things like canon is currently, so i think that goes for zeiss as well.
so, roger is the man, and this lens is the current limit of what's possible,inside and out. if i wasn't all set with my sigma i'd be thinking long and hard about this canon.

I don't think he did anything of the sort. In fact stated in the comments that he would do an Otus tear down, but has another one up next. After that we'll have a real comparison with the Zeiss.

I'm happy to see Canon doing such fine engineering. It does help make some of the recent prices more acceptable, but also clearly shows that their professional lenses are designed for pros and professional use.

 

[Etienne]

This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.

"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.

 

[scottgoh]

seems a lot better than my old rusty 35L mark 1.

 

[Berowne]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

 

[Viggo]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

I disagree with that, there is no lenses prior to 1995 around that still works? I have had plenty of at least 15 year old lenses, most recently a 2000-model 35 L, it looked and felt and worked like new, and it worked perfect so not the reason I upgraded.

I think something that would hurts sales more of the L-lenses only had a lifespan of 8-10 years.

In fact I have huge issues with my 1dx and have considered other brands just because it fails so much after only three years of family pictures.

 

[sanj]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

Why don't you re examine your statement? It makes no sense. Tch tch.

 

[Viggo]

I had a chance to try the 35 out in properly horrible light today in kindergarten. 1/60s, 25600 iso @ 1.4. And I could even use Servo and it just hit! Amazing. This was of course with the 6d, the 1dx wouldn't work, I tried last year.

 

[expatinasia]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

There's a clue in the name of this lens. It's a Mark II.

What this lens shows us, and all photographers, is just how well manufactured it is. Canon has not skimped, it doesn't just look good on the outside it really is built internally and externally as they promised. Maybe even more so.

For those that have this lens, they are not buying it to keep for 20 years, but they could if they wanted. Canon will keep working on the optics and within the next 20 years there may well be a Mark III.

When you know a company is taking so much care with their products it makes you want to spend more, and it attracts more customers from other brands etc.

 

[infared]

Yes nice lens.

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.

Now, there is some Volkswagen mentality.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Hello, I'm new here...My best friend loves cameras...i want to buy her a great Christmas gift...and I thought to http://www.macroringflash.com/mf18-macro-flash/ but i'm not good at these...can someone help me?

Be welcome to Canon Rumors. To keep the site organized, should post your questions in the section to the subject you wish to treat:

canon rumors FORUM » Gear Talk » Lighting

The flash from the link you posted, it seems a good product. This type of flash is only for MACRO photos, and is not suitable for shooting objects to more than 1 meter away. Carefully to make sure that her friend has a Canon camera, and the flash model is specifically fit for Canon cameras.