35 L II and new tech

[Kayaker72]

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:



For perspective, here is the chart of the original 35 f/1.4 lens:


And Sigma's 35A:


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......

[jamsus]

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...

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[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).

[Sean Setters]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Dave Throgmartin]

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

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.