35 L II and new tech

Canon updated one of their older, but still popular, primes today with the release of the 35 f/1.4 L II USM. Especially at a price of $1,799 and considering I own, but really do not use the Sigma 35A, I am not really tempted by this release. But I can respect it non-the-less. Based on the MTF chart (how to read), this is a very nice lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets..._14l2u_mtf.gif

For perspective, here is the chart of the original 35 f/1.4 lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets...f_35_14mtf.gif

And Sigma's 35A:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/sites/defa...mdXP_nQpNJ.jpg

Sigma illustrates their charts differently. But these are wide open (f/1.4) results with red being 10 lp/mm and green 30 lp/mm.

In short, the new lens is vastly improved over the original and even slightly better than the 35A wide open (with caveat about comparing MTF charts from different manufacturers that may have different testing procedures).

Plus, it comes with a new "BR" element which should minimize chromatic aberrations.

I am probably most interested in the "BR" element. Assuming it works as advertised, it could be a very nice addition to a number of lenses....say an update of the 85 f/1.2 II......

The MTF seems quite good.

I'm an happy possessor of the cheap 35 F/2 and the idea of a 35mm f1.4 always charmed me (considering that i use it as a general purpose fast lens on APS-C) but i'm not at the point to spent a lot of money on a prime lens :)

Maybe the 35 1.4 first version will became cheaper...

All I can say is that they're late.

I have super limited funds for gear, and I'd never gone 3rd party before, but even I went and grabbed myself a Sigma 35A. I think anybody who wanted a fast 35 got one at a bargain price from Sigma. The Canon MTF looks great, but assuming many (perhaps the majority?) of potential customers already jumped for the Sigma, I'm not sure how many will spend $2K on such a marginal improvement.

The old version gave a unique look when shot at stops under f/2.0. I always entertained buying the Zeiss version to get better resolution. If this version is sharp wide open I will buy it eventually. The old version was just not that good below f/1.8 however.

It will be interesting to see the reviews, but I like what Canon did here. Instead of trying to compete head to head with the Sigma 35A on cost, they upped the resolution just a bit and added features (weather sealing), new technology (BR) and "Canon" AF. Clearly trying to stake a claim for the "premium" product.

Which isn't meant to take anything away from the Sigma. Just Canon moved the 35 f/1.4 II out a little further in the spectrum and there will be people willing to pay for that bit more. And it is a nice spectrum, EF 35 f/2 IS (~$599), Sigma 35A ($899), and EF 35 f/1.4 II ($1,799).

It is indeed an advantageous market landscape for consumers. Those wanting a 35mm prime and on the strictest of budgets will choose the Canon 35 f/2. Those wanting an f/1.4 aperture but can't justify paying the premium for the Canon lens will get the Sigma. And those wanting the ultimate 35mm f/1.4 prime will opt for the new L II.

I personally don't use a 35mm f/1.4 lens often enough to justify investing in the new Canon offering. However, I'm more than happy to hang onto my 35 Art for the times I do need it.

My 35mm f/1.4L still takes fantastic pictures.
I do not do portraits very often. But those times I do it never fails when I am shooting 35mm F/1.4L just makes the pictures from the 24-70mm II seems vanilla and plain.

I have yet to put version 1 on the 5Ds R but I have been wanting to take it out. Maybe it is my imagination but the increased resolution seems to give a kick and more pronounced when you are trying to get DOF separation. Of course the old worn out obsolete 35mm F/1.4L may not even work on the new high resolution cameras since it didn't make Canons recommended lens list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

It will be interesting to see the reviews, but I like what Canon did here. Instead of trying to compete head to head with the Sigma 35A on cost, they upped the resolution just a bit and added features (weather sealing), new technology (BR) and "Canon" AF. Clearly trying to stake a claim for the "premium" product.

Which isn't meant to take anything away from the Sigma. Just Canon moved the 35 f/1.4 II out a little further in the spectrum and there will be people willing to pay for that bit more. And it is a nice spectrum, EF 35 f/2 IS (~$599), Sigma 35A ($899), and EF 35 f/1.4 II ($1,799).

---

Really, how much will it practically be able to improve resolution over the Sigma 35? That lenses' resolution is outstanding.

Dave

The 35A has pretty good CA as well. The Canon AF, and to some, the weather sealing, will be the killer must-have features. It also gives something for the Canon Ambassadors to shoot with, as it won't look good for them to be shooting Sigmas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

Really, how much will it practically be able to improve resolution over the Sigma 35? That lenses' resolution is outstanding.

Dave

---

Yes it is....

First, there will be some (including the Canon Ambassadors) that would never shoot with the third party lens, so the "spectrum" is really the 35 f/2 IS and the new 35 f/1.4 L.

In terms of "practically...improve resolution..." over the 35A. In nothing more than resolution, the Canon MTFs are higher (again, different manufacturers MTFs), which would indicate that the 35L II has improved resolution, at least at f/1.4, over the 35A. Also, in terms of pure numbers, the 50A has improved resolution over the 35A from f/2.8-f/8 (going off photozone numbers), mostly midframe to edges which never cross into the "excellent" category, but are "very good" essentially from f/1.4, on the 35A. That is remarkable, but could be improved upon.

In terms of practical, the 35A is so good, I expect how much improvement there is will be debated. But I have read several that do prefer the 50A to the 35A. I can also look at numbers between the 24-70II and the primes (primes have better numbers) and right now I am debating if the improvement in the primes is worth it.

But, there are areas where I think the 35A could be improved upon. Most notably is vignetting. Not having 3 stops of vignetting wide open would be a major improvement, in my mind, and you can see in the example, the 50A is already an improvement. CA on the 35A is already pretty well controlled, but there could be an improvement. Bryan's bokeh comparison I give to the 35 f/2 IS, just slightly, over the 35A, etc.

So, we'll see if the 35LII is much of an improvement over the 35A. My guess is that those picking it will do so more for the red ring, AF, and weather sealing as optically, I expect both to be very impressive.

Edit: btw, in terms of an even more expensive and high end lens, Zeiss could still announce a 35 mm Otus.

Brant,

I have no doubt that people will buy the 35L II. I was just doubting how much better it would be as far as pure resolution is concerned.

Most digs at the Sigma 35 are primarily at the bokeh and autofocus. I haven't seen anyone really complain about the resolution.

I'm not in the market for either at the moment, but it's interesting to watch.

Dave

I have a Canon 7DMKII and a Sigma Art 50 1.4 that I like a lot. I'd like to try this new lens, I know that on a crop body it would be more like a 50mm on a full frame. Would it be worth buying for the 7DMKII?

My wife recent did a couple portrait shots of our daughter on 7D2. She used the Canon 85mm, and the Sigma 35mm, and she preferred to shots she got from the 35mm. So yes, the 35mm can be a good fit for the 7D2... As for whether you'll find the 35mm too similar to your 50mm, only you can answer.

As you have no aversion to Sigma, owning the 50mm Art, what's pushing you towards Canon for the 35mm? Focus? Weather Sealing? The red stripe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

My wife recent did a couple portrait shots of our daughter on 7D2. She used the Canon 85mm, and the Sigma 35mm, and she preferred to shots she got from the 35mm. So yes, the 35mm can be a good fit for the 7D2... As for whether you'll find the 35mm too similar to your 50mm, only you can answer.

As you have no aversion to Sigma, owning the 50mm Art, what's pushing you towards Canon for the 35mm? Focus? Weather Sealing? The red stripe?

---

I'd be lying if I denied the desire for the red stripe but I'm looking for a good build and higher clarity in photos. I'm very happy with my Sigma 50 in terms of quality, focus, etc but I think that the images would be sharper on the Canon 35L 1.4 II.

When I zoom into a photo taken with the Canon 24-105L, the clarity is there much closer in compared to the Sigma 50 in my opinion. Having a little extra room would be handy as well in the studio.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

Brant,

I have no doubt that people will buy the 35L II. I was just doubting how much better it would be as far as pure resolution is concerned.

Most digs at the Sigma 35 are primarily at the bokeh and autofocus. I haven't seen anyone really complain about the resolution.

I'm not in the market for either at the moment, but it's interesting to watch.

Dave

---

Tests are starting to come in:

• The OLAF measured MTF charts
• A comparison between the 35A and 35 L II

Mine arrived today, I thought that I'd buy it, test it out and if I don't like it, send it back or sell it.

So far, with testing outside with a setting sun shining through trees that provided very nice back lighting I took some photos of my daughter with the Canon EX-RT 600 mounted and they look excellent. I plan to test it out with a newborn session tomorrow night.

Even at 1.4 the lens so far has been very sharp.

Edit: Here's a photo of my daughter that just woke up from a nap:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/718/21...47b5d1e9_c.jpg

• ƒ/1.4
• 35.0 mm
• 1/2000
• 250
• Flash fired

Congrats on the new glass.

Good looking OoF blur. I look forward to hearing your impressions.

Can't compare it to the Sigma 35A yet, but here it is against the 24-70II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Can't compare it to the Sigma 35A yet, but here it is against the 24-70II.

---

Really can't tell much in that comparison since the old version of the 35mm was very comparable shot with the same body.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=0

I would like to see the Old 35mm on a 5Ds R compared to the new 35mm II on a 5Ds R at F/2.0 or less. The old version was very weak after f/1.8, and the ability to shoot at apertures wider than f/2.0 is what set the it apart.

For me F/1.4 vs F/1.4 will be the determining factor for upgrade.

Honestly I have been thinking about selling my 5D II and 35mm and just doing the upgrade. I doubt I would be disappointed.

It will be nice once we can make direct comparisons to the Sigma or even the 35 Mk I. But.....I only see a bit of vignetting as the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8. So, if you want the f/1.4-f/2.8 range, it is impressive.

Of course, the Sigma 35A was similar in this regard.

I know that this isn't the best example, but I will have more later this weekend of people and outside shots.

Canon 7D MKII, 1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4.0
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5664/2...954025cd_m.jpghttps://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5743/2...55f7a42a_m.jpghttps://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5643/2...f8155ae9_m.jpghttps://c1.staticflickr.com/1/663/21...e7cf22d9_m.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5664/2...954025cd_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII, 1.4
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5743/2...55f7a42a_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII, 1.8
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5643/2...f8155ae9_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII, 2.8
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/663/21...e7cf22d9_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII, 4.0

What's the distance between Mario and the box? The separation you got at f/1.4 is really nice.

Even with a crop body, and the the camera a foot from Mario, the DOF would be about 1.2". My 24 mm f/1.4 should be similar on FF (a little tighter). There is actually pretty good DOF at greater distances (which is my norm). You have demonstrated to me that I need to step in closer to get the separation in the shot.

Beyond the low light shots, I need to get my f/1.4 lens out more often. You have convinced me that I am an idiot for not using it more.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photog82

I know that this isn't the best example, but I will have more later this weekend of people and outside shots.

---

Off Topic: You made me really want to play some classic Mario Brothers. I don't think I still have my NES. :-(

It might be the settings in the 7D II, maybe file size, but Mario looks pixelated to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HDNitehawk

It might be the settings in the 7D II, maybe file size, but Mario looks pixelated to me.

---

I laughed so hard when I read this. Seriously. :-)

Sean, I bought Mario for my boys when it first came out. Notice that says 30th on the stand, most likely aniversary. I feel old.
It took my boys years to figure out why Link was almost solved when they got it for Christmas.

The Amiibo (the toy) is 7" from the boxes. I love that even the Goomba's on this box have bokeh @ 1.4.

I noticed that Canon has not published the lens data for this lens in DPP. How long does it normally take?

Ok...so now we can compared the lenses on the same body:

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @f/1.4

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @ f/2

Vignetting appears to be about the same, but the resolution of the 35 L II is outstanding.

A quick comparison to two bench mark lenses (comparing wide open):

200 f/2

300 f/2.8 II

Resolution is similar. The 35 L II has more vignetting, but, it is f/1.4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Ok...so now we can compared the lenses on the same body:

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @f/1.4

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @ f/2

Vignetting appears to be about the same, but the resolution of the 35 L II is outstanding.

A quick comparison to two bench mark lenses (comparing wide open):

200 f/2

300 f/2.8 II

Resolution is similar. The 35 L II has more vignetting, but, it is f/1.4.

---

It appears it will be sharp wide open.
Reports so far it will have very nice bokeh.
It has AF which some of its competitors do not.
To me it appears to be the best lens in the group now.

But shouldn't we be complaining because it doesn't have IS? :rolleyes:

I think its time to barter off the old version and order this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Ok...so now we can compared the lenses on the same body:

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @f/1.4

35A vs 35L II on the 1DsIII @ f/2

Vignetting appears to be about the same, but the resolution of the 35 L II is outstanding.

A quick comparison to two bench mark lenses (comparing wide open):

200 f/2

300 f/2.8 II

Resolution is similar. The 35 L II has more vignetting, but, it is f/1.4.

---

The corners at f/1.4 is pretty impressive. Compared to the sigma corners, there is quit a noticeable difference.

Pat

Canon 7D MKII @ f/1.4, 1/800The two photos of the young boy were taken with an off camera defuser. I'm not sure why, but this particular photoshoot did not work out well as far as the ratio of in focus photos to out of focus photos. I tried my Sigma 50 1.4 and had the same problem so it was either my hand shaking or the camera (for whatever reason). I normally do not have this problem. But, the photos that I've posted came out pretty good.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5646/2...9123fa4f_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII @ f/1.6, 1/800

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/638/21...b24a36e5_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII @ f/1.4, 1/800

Here's a photo taken with natural lighting of my cat, just a quick capture to see the fall off of focus:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5807/2...330659be_b.jpg
Canon 7D MKII @ f/1.4, 1/80

I think the amazing resolution delivered by the 35 f/1.4 II, 100-400L II, etc... that have come out within the past couple years goes to show that Canon has the lens technology available to do whatever they want. I think they release the technology on their time line or when they feel threatened.

The 35L had been eclipsed by both the Sigma. No problem, Canon releases the 35L II and is now king of the 35mms for the remainder of the design life of these lenses and is now much better per reviewers than Nikon's 35 f/1.4 offering.

The 100-400L had been a top seller for many years delivering very good results. Now, Tamron comes out with an equivalent lens for much less money and Sigma comes out with TWO lenses that are equivalent/better. No problem, Canon releases the 100-400L II and is better than the Tamron and Sigma entry level options and equivalent to the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Again, the 100-400L II is likely much better than Nikon's competitive offering.

There are other successes too. The 11-24L appears to be a technology demonstration to have an 11mm full frame lens that is that good. The 16-35 f/4 L is cost reasonable and quite possibly with the exception of the much more expensive Nikon 14-24, to be the best ultrawide zoom on the market.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon could offer equivalent to Otus lenses if they really wanted to, but may not see the market for that level optic.

Dave