Waiting for the 35 1.4L II

[Viggo]

Re: Color balance, matching Sigma with Canon

Older Sigmas used to have a slight warm rendering compared to others... which of course can be pleasing but might get you in trouble if you are shooting with different lenses and bodies and want consistent results with as little tweaking as possible in post.

How are the new Sigmas?
Are all these issues gone with the 35L?

I use ColorChecker with everything and I get the same color I want with every combo I have, the 200 being superbly best. I haven't noticed a warm tint, but I did with Zeiss, and it corrected with a CC-profile.

I haven't seen any focus shift with the 35 L and it is still, without doubt, THE best AF performance of any 1.4 lens for Canon, and it's not like the 50 L at all.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement.
Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement.

The thing that kills me on the 35L is the straight aperture blades... If only they'd update it!

It's only an issue if you stop down. If you don't then the inside of the lens is circular and bokeh takes on that charector. To be fair, it's not an issue I've experianced with this lens but I have seen it with the 135mm f2 L when shot at f2.8. I think it's becuase the Bokeh circles are quite small with a 35mm lens, so their slight irregularlity is quite small and not so obtrusive. The out of focus rendering of the Canon 35mm f1.4 L is really quite flattering and a joy to behold....but that never replaces the need fro a great photo in the first place. Creamy out of focus renderings don't make a great picture on their own. But the ability to diferentiate focus and isolate a subject at tools in a skilled photographers repertoir. This is why I love the 35L and 85IIL as a specific combo on two camera bodies.

 

[Jamesy]

Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!

Awesome shot Viggo - demonstrates the capabilities of the 50A!

 

[Viggo]

Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!

Awesome shot Viggo - demonstrates the capabilities of the 50A!

Thanks! )

 

[aleshaloginov]

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.

 

[Viggo]

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.

You're wrong about build quality, the Sigma is much better, all of my 35 L's has been squeaky when squeezing the sides of the barrel, and two of them had the small plastic pins that holds the af/mf switch in place broken, leaving an open hole right into the lens. AF issues are a copy related issue, when you get a working one, AF is really good with the new Sigma's, in fact I JUST 20 minutes ago tried to activate all of the 61 points on the 1dx, instead of only cross type, as they didn't work well with any of my lenses, but the 50 Art they work great, so finally leaving them activated. As for the issue of the 120-300, they updated it a few days ago to work way better with the 1ds3 and 1d4.

Color and contrast as well as sharpness in corners are better with Sigma, but I completely agree with you that the IQ of the 35 L is really good, and the AF of that lens is simply fantastic. But color and contrast, build and ca correction needs a BIG update.

 

[StudentOfLight]

35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.

 

[Viggo]

35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.

I can say the 35 L II will be weather sealed 1000% certain.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.

I can say the 35 L II will be weather sealed 1000% certain.

Not that the little black rubber gasket does much! I've had most of my L primes soaked on a number of occasions by rain water and I've never had any problems regardless of the weather seal claim or not.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.

You're wrong about build quality, the Sigma is much better, all of my 35 L's has been squeaky when squeezing the sides of the barrel, and two of them had the small plastic pins that holds the af/mf switch in place broken, leaving an open hole right into the lens.

But color and contrast, build and ca correction needs a BIG update.

Don't mistake engineering plastic as weak and fragile. Sure the 24IIL is a lot more robust in how it feels in the hand and the shell doesn't flex. But after 8 years of heavy professional use, it's never failed me and still looks as good today as the day i bought it...although the hood is looking a bit worn. Most Sigma's I've bought and used in the past (the old painted matt finish and earlier) have looked terrible after a year or so. My old Sigma 12-24mm lens was solidly made from metal and yet had to go back to Sigma 3 times over 10 years due to a number of mechanical and electrical issues. First the Aperture motor burnt out, amazing considering how little I used this lens. Then one of the internal lens groups became free of their housings and acted like a marble in a cup. Then for some reason the lens started to mechanically vignette at all focal lengths...it had to go back for a re-build. If I compare that to my 16-35IIL which has been used in far more inhospitable environments and used a lot more...i've had no problems with it at all. I sent it into Canon last year becuase of a scratched front element (it was effecting my sun star shots) but that was my fault not Canon's.

While I'm sure the Sigma operates well, looks and feels good and delivers great results....I am very shy of Sigma. My fingers have really been burnt a lot by that company and I'm not sure I want to risk them again.

 

[LightandMotion]

Not sure what your budget is but sold my 35L for the Zeiss 35 f1.4 after testing one for a week. Manual focus is accurate and easy with AF notification on the 1dx. The lack of distortion, clarity and sharpness is on another level compared to the L.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I think I'm slightly mis-representing my position on this lens...the 35L is a great lens. It's faithfully provided great service for me over the years. The new one will need to provide this and more to replace my existing lens, which has proved itself many times.

 

[Viggo]

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?

I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so.
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.

You're wrong about build quality, the Sigma is much better, all of my 35 L's has been squeaky when squeezing the sides of the barrel, and two of them had the small plastic pins that holds the af/mf switch in place broken, leaving an open hole right into the lens.

But color and contrast, build and ca correction needs a BIG update.

Don't mistake engineering plastic as weak and fragile. Sure the 24IIL is a lot more robust in how it feels in the hand and the shell doesn't flex. But after 8 years of heavy professional use, it's never failed me and still looks as good today as the day i bought it...although the hood is looking a bit worn. Most Sigma's I've bought and used in the past (the old painted matt finish and earlier) have looked terrible after a year or so. My old Sigma 12-24mm lens was solidly made from metal and yet had to go back to Sigma 3 times over 10 years due to a number of mechanical and electrical issues. First the Aperture motor burnt out, amazing considering how little I used this lens. Then one of the internal lens groups became free of their housings and acted like a marble in a cup. Then for some reason the lens started to mechanically vignette at all focal lengths...it had to go back for a re-build. If I compare that to my 16-35IIL which has been used in far more inhospitable environments and used a lot more...i've had no problems with it at all. I sent it into Canon last year becuase of a scratched front element (it was effecting my sun star shots) but that was my fault not Canon's.

While I'm sure the Sigma operates well, looks and feels good and delivers great results....I am very shy of Sigma. My fingers have really been burnt a lot by that company and I'm not sure I want to risk them again.

I don't have anything nice to say about the old Sigma's, I'm only referring to the new GV lenses...

 

[Menace]

I think I'm slightly mis-representing my position on this lens...the 35L is a great lens. It's faithfully provided great service for me over the years. The new one will need to provide this and more to replace my existing lens, which has proved itself many times.

+1

I'm confident Canon won't release a mark II lens that's inferior to the original in any way - just expect a price increase.

For many photographers, a hike in price will not be an issue as they simply need it or want it and will get it. For many, the price might be too much and no doubt there will be many threads on CR lamenting how Canon only care about profit and have ditched its most loyal supporters.

(Currently I don't need a 35 lens so my wife will be happy)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..

They probably did not mention it, because most photographers know there is a signigicant difference in focal length between 24 and 35mm. It really does not matter how sharp a lens is, if its not the focal length you need.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..

They probably did not mention it, because most photographers know there is a signigicant difference in focal length between 24 and 35mm. It really does not matter how sharp a lens is, if its not the focal length you need.

+1

 

[Viggo]

35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.

I can say the 35 L II will be weather sealed 1000% certain.

Not that the little black rubber gasket does much! I've had most of my L primes soaked on a number of occasions by rain water and I've never had any problems regardless of the weather seal claim or not.

Great for you, but I have had an 85 L fog up after 30 seconds in the rain, but I have used sealed gear in very heavy rain all the time with zero issues.

And it's not just the rear seal that is the weather sealing. Some L's like the 300 f4 L IS Has a lower grade of sealing like the rear gasket. But like my 200 and 24-70 all the buttons are sealed and also sealings around the barrel where the zoom operates.