Canon finally updates the 35mm f/1.4L

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9530547937/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-blue-spectrum-refractive-optics</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see how this new lens performs against the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. The Sigma showed the previous 35mm f/1.4L a clean pair of heels in both image quality and build quality in my opinion. If Canon can improve on the image quality of the Sigma I will be mightily impressed as it's the best 35mm lens I've ever encountered so far.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Isn't the new Canon 35mm bigger/heavier than the Sigma...and the previous Canon 35mm? I am really preferring the Sony trend of smaller...and Canon's new telephoto lenses that are smaller than the previous generation(s).</p>

<p>For street photography, the Sony A6000 with a small lens is easy to carry/shoot all day. Similarly, though I have not used it yet, the Sony A7Rii is small...and facilitates traveling light with a small backpack. I can then carry an IR camera (Sony A6000 converted to IR), binoculars and water/jacket in a small backpack.</p>

<p>Sharp lenses are great - but space in my pack; build quality and cost are major considerations as well. And at the end of the day if I have a good image, 99% of people are not going to tell me it could have been sharper, etc.</p>

<p>I replaced my original 35mm f1.4 with the 35/2 IS, as the I felt the large size of the L was unnecessary given the number of times I actually shot it at f1.4, plus the f2 had IS. I am sure the new L is a good lens optically (it had better be), but as it is larger even than the Sigma, who seem to be making their ART series bigger than anyone else's, it has no appeal to me at all. It's a pity because, in general, Canon have been making sterling efforts to reduce the size and weight of their recent lenses. So this goes against their own trend. I also think the original L was a classic and there seemed no pressing reason to pick this one for an update. How about a new 85/1.8 or 50/1.4?</p>

<p>I'm guessing the extra heft is part of the price you pay for improvements in optical performance. After all, it has to best their prior design and Sigma or it will a flop. And those prior designs are huge so buyers craving a wee bit more edge sharpness and enhanced bokeh won't mind a couple hundred extra grams of weight. For my use, I'm 100% happy with the EF 35 2.8 IS USM.</p>

<p>I'm very interested in exactly *what* the BR element is made of, and it's long term durability as an "organic" lens element sandwiched between two 'standard' optical elements.</p>

<p>Obviously it should be non-reactive (and therefore should be very durable), but I would be concerned about how much of that durability requires an oxygen free environment, and whether improper sealing at the edges of the 'sandwich' could compromise the organic element's optical performance over time. </p>

<p>I can't understand the fussing about the size and weight. If you shoot a full frame DSLR then you've already committed yourself to carrying a substantial amount of gear. The people who will buy this lens will probably already own a 24-70mm f/2.8 that weighs even more. If you need f/1.4 you expect it to be heavy. If you don't need f/1.4 then you've no need to buy it. </p>

<p>Even with stellar image quality I would still find it hard to justify the massive extra cost over the Sigma. The weather-sealing is the only major difference that I can see so far.</p>

<p>Does it have IS?</p>

<p>Doesn't seem to have IS.<br>

WRT weight, the difference can be significant, compare the 135/2.0 offerings from Canon and Zeiss, the latter is much heavier/bulkier. Perhaps the trick is to make the lenses bigger/wider as if they were for formats larger than 35 mm, thus enlarging the sweet spot or a wider lens gives more options for optical improvement. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The people who will buy this lens will probably already own a 24-70mm f/2.8 that weighs even more. If you need f/1.4 you expect it to be heavy.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What about if you want to carry both at the same time? Not an uncommon scenario. I think the main reason to buy the Canon II (and the ver I for that matter) is that the Sigma AF is not 100% reliable as most of the reviews admit. There's no point having great optics if you are worried about AF. Sigma owners have to accept the issue - often it doesn't matter, but it can be annoying.</p>

<p>I have found that my sigma glass misses focus just about as often as my EF and L glass does - pretty much identically - ie. virtually never. It's far more of an internet forum issue than it is a photography issue - probably even an "(airquotes) issue"</p>

<p>Of course now there is a new player at the party. Tamron apparently has a 35/1.8 VC that'll be available in October... <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0524469310/tamron-relaunches-sp-series-with-35mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-and-sp-45mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd"> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0524469310/tamron-relaunches-sp-series-with-35mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-and-sp-45mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd</a></p>

 

<p>Well it is my experience too, admittedly not from ART lenses and I don't think the reviewers (the digital picture, etc etc) are making it up. It may not matter, but I reckon it remains an issue with Sigma on Canons. Tamron do not seem to have this problem.</p>

<p>I must say I tried out the 50mm ART and in the brief time I used it, it seemed to AF fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the main reason to buy the Canon II (and the ver I for that matter) is that the Sigma AF is not 100% reliable as most of the reviews admit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Before the ART series was released I would agree with you 100%. I've owned quite a few Sigma lenses over the years and their AF has definitely been the weak point. However, I am beginning to believe that the ART lenses are a different breed altogether. The AF on these lenses seems to be bang on, much like you would expect from a Canon lens i.e fast, accurate, no hunting and little need to mess about with AF micro-adjustment etc. </p>

<p>Well, of course YMMV is true, depending upon everything from your light, to your subject, to your camera, to your lens, to your camera's mode, to your subject's actual motion.</p>

<p>But unless you can, <em>and do</em>, <strong>quantify</strong> the failure, your experience is only anecdotal, just as mine is. If a reviewer <strong>chooses</strong> <em><strong>not</strong></em> to quantify the failure, their experience is <em>just as anecdotal. - whether or not they made it up.</em></p>

<p>While the AF "issue" might be the 'main' reason, frankly it's a pretty <em>bad</em> reason - especially given the overall quality, the superior IQ, and otherwise similar features of the Sig to the L. This is especially true with the A series stuff. Not to mention that if somebody identifies a repeatable, verifiable fault, a FW update may be able to fix it without returning the lens via the dock. To me, this system is pretty hard to argue with. Like I said, every lens fails to achieve focus on occasion, sometimes it just happens. Ls are no exception.</p>

<p>At a cost that is 2/3 -> 1/2 that of the L or L II, the 35/1.4A is a bad@ss lens. I don't know how the L II will perform, but I suspect it will be similar or slightly better than the Sig - and at double the price, I would hope so.</p>

<p>Marcus,</p>

<p>Read some of those reviews. There are attempts at quantification. See the digital picture for example. When I read the reviews I am reminded of my current Sigma lenses. I am still using my Sigma lenses so it is clearly not too awful, but it happens enough to make me wary. This is not an issue with the Canon Ls. Whether it is worth the price differential it is difficult to say and an individual choice.</p>

<p>I prefer the Sigma ART to the old standard Canon 35/1.4. (Which I was my primary lens for eight years.) Autofocus is easily as good and there is pretty much no vignetting wide open. At much less cost as well. I think Canon is going to lose a lot of business to this new Sigma glass.</p>

<p><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3818/18237517784_a08a3a7213.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8857/16857976733_5c81f228e1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Sigma</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there is pretty much no vignetting wide open.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 35mm ART really is incredible, but no vignetting wide open? C'mon... :-)</p>

<p><em><em>The 35mm ART really is incredible, but no vignetting wide open? C'mon... :-)</em></em><br>

<em><em> </em></em><br>

Uhh, I didn't say there was "no" vignetting, I said "pretty much", none. Which I stick to.<br>

I am not a Pixel Peeping Geek, but if you are of that inclination, you can go on the intergoogle and find plenty of tech forums where they will tell you the same thing.<br>

I am just a photographer, I've used the Canon 35L on over <a href="http://iantaylor.ca/">1000</a> jobs. I shoot wide open much of the time. I found myself correcting the corners in post every now and then. I have done 40-50 jobs with the Sigma, again wide open much of the time, and I haven't needed to correct the corners once. For me it's a better lens. Maybe your experience is different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me it's a better lens. Maybe your experience is different.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that the Sigma is easily the better lens but I find the vignetting fairly obvious when shooting wide open with my copy. It's no bad thing, I actually like the resulting effect and sometimes I even enhance it in post. </p>