New 35L Lens coming?

<p>I know the 35mm 1.4 is an excellent lens, but it is also one that has been around without revision for some time. Does anyone know anything about a version II coming? I'd buy one tomorrow if one with IS was added to the mix. I might buy one anyway.</p>

<p>It's very unlikely that an IS version will appear for various technical and marketing reasons. You'll notice that canon have no IS primes shorter than 100mm</p>

<p>It isn't even 20 years old. Why would Canon update this youngster (12 years)? The 85 1.8 (18 years) and 50 1.4 (17 years) are both older and even older lenses are still being sold. Canon won't say what is in the works but I find it unlikely we will see a new 35mm L with IS anytime soon.</p>

<h5>A version II is well overdue. Doubt very much if it will have IS though, but look at all the other L primes 14mm, 24mm, 85mm and 200mm are all on version II's. That only leaves the very young (comparatively) 50mm and the venerable 135mm awaiting MkII status along with the very highly regarded 35mm. The 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII has shown they are more than happy to mess with near perfection.</h5>

<p> And talking of the 2.8 zooms, the 16-35 is a MkII, the 70-200 is a MkII that only leaves the 24-70, which desperately needs an upgrade and IS. I'd put money on one of those appearing this year.</p>

<p>I would put money on a 35mm f1.4L MkII coming out this year too.</p>

<p>P.S. Sorry about the bold type but I can't seem to cancel it!</p>

<p>I was thinking about the same issue, but sooner or later you have to do your business or get off the pot...  I didn't want to wait forever and even if there is a new one, it doesn't render the current version unable to take good pictures. I found one new for under $1300 - and there is no way that next version, whenever it comes, will cost that little... If you want the lens, get the lens.  Go take some pictures!</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>Yes and no. I have a MkI 16-35 and the IQ is very good on my ff 21mp camera, same with the 70-200, I won't trade in either, but my 24-70 is certainly not as good (well the digital sensor shows up flaws that film never seemed to) as the other two and will be upgraded when a new version comes out.</p>

<p>Same with the primes, the 24 T/S MkI is almost not worth getting for use on high resolution ff cameras, the MkII is near perfect from a distortion and CA point of view. The other primes can fit the same criteria to better or worse degrees. Besides lenses are supposed to be for life, not just Christmas, bodies come and go with the seasons. If a MkII lens is due out, if I could wait, I would try to future proof myself.</p>

<p>I wouldn't get a 24-70 or a 35 L just yet if I could avoid it.</p>

<p>Scott you hit the nail on the head. The reason we are seeing a new 70-200 2.8 is mainly due to sensor resolution. Canon is testing the response with the new lens and seeing what the real world results are before going head first and updating every lens. 70-200 is one of there biggest sellers to pro's and consumers alike so its a good test for them. I suspect if it goes well we should see most popular lenses getting updated with a slight price increase on top with the next year and a half. The 5d MKII is out the 1D MKIV is slowly hitting the market and the 1DS will come out soon as well. No magic ball but I would think we would see a new 1DS mid next year. So there has to be an effort on their part to get the lenses up to the quality of there sensors. I think Canons biggest hangup right now is to see how the new lens formula works in the real world and if it proves its self then begin the slow process of updating the rest. </p>

<p>I agree that the 1.4 24mmL needed the upgrade to MKII, it showed its weaknesses even with 8 MP APS-C sensors (e.g. in the test on photozone.de). They had to do something to keep up with the needs of high end DSLR users. The 35mm and 135mm L lenses, however, are excellent. I don't expect an upgrade of these lenses in the near future. A 24-70 L IS would be a different story.</p>

<p>Ulrich,</p>

<p>Again, not really, the 70-200 f2.8 IS did not need upgrading, it is every bit as good as the 135 and 35 at what it does. The 200mm f2.8 didn't need an upgrade either.</p>

<p>There has been some speculation that some of these upgrades were forced on Canon by emissions regulations and toxic substance use limitations, the chemicals they use to make the good glass is bad stuff and newer manufacturing methods had to be brought on stream, that is almost certainly true of the 200mm f1.8 and its replacement the f2 IS version. Also the 85 f1.2 MkII seemed like a rush job, why does it still have that stupid fly by wire AF system? The AF is much faster than it was but still not what it should be.</p>

<p>But these very high pixel density sensors that are much more sensitive than film to the angle that the light hits them are probably the driving force now. Don't forget the 1Ds MkIV is due soon and it will be the first ff to go over the 30mp mark. I wouldn't be surprised to see the three launched together, 1Ds MkIV, 35mm f1.4 MkII and the 24-70 f2.8 MkII with IS.</p>

<p>Interesting year :-)</p>

<p>I agree about the 24-70... The lack of IS on that lens is why I purchased a 7D and not a 5DM2 (I love the 17-55/2.8 IS) and there is an obvious market for it. I would also say, though, that I have the 70-200/2.8 ISL and I feel no compunction to upgrade to version II as I doubt it will improve my shots (I'm still the limiting factor).<br /> I think few would question the excellence of the 35L, and IMHO a lot has to deal with the price you can get. If I were to have to pay $1400 or more, I would consider waiting. OTOH, if a good used model is available or you can get a good deal on a new one, as I did, than I think the purchase is worth considering. <br /> Neither way is wrong, but I'm not sure that you're ever "future proofed" with any purchase today (think of all the FD users of years past). There is always something better around the corner. The end result is what matters - the photograph - not what PhotoZone (or anyone else) reports in their tests. I think you could take fantastic photos with the 35L - and even if/when a 35L II becomes available, I would question whether the vast majority of individuals could tell the difference between two shots taken with the lenses.</p>

<p>Steven, if you consider the optical formula of the EF 50/1.4, it's close to 50 years old. It was introduced with the the F-1 and FD lenses in 1971. And my EF and FD 50/1.4's still deliver superb images.</p>

<p>Scott, apart from its lack of IS, what do you consider to be the optical deficiencies of the EF 24-70? My copy gives me very sharp handheld images, with good colour, contrast, and bokeh. Of course, it would be nice to have IS to enable the use of slower shutter speeds, but the high ISO capability of my 5D II somewhat offsets that.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the EF 35/1.4 L is one of my all-time favourite primes. Apart from a little CA wide open, I find it to be a perfect lens.</p>

<p>Jeff, where did you find one at that price? thanks, virginia</p>

<p>J&R. Buy it through <a href="http://Ebates.com/">Ebates.com</a> (3% discount). Free S&H. $1331 for the lens + 3% discount = 1291.07 (no tax as I live in FL). Enjoy!</p>

<p>I also just noticed a coupon on their web site for a President's Day sale and an additional $15 off...</p>

<p>http://www.jr.com/media/pdf/couponPresidentsDay-2010_v1_m56577569833682151.pdf</p>

 

<p>canon's 135mm f/2L has been around longer than the 35mm 1.4 and there are no updates. Usually Canon will update lenses based on popularity and need.</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>Center sharpness is not in question, edge sharpness and distortion could certainly be improved on at the wide end.</p>

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>Don't agree with that, where was the need and popularity of the 200mm f2.8 that necessitated the MkII? Is the 35mm f1.4 less popular and needy than the 24 f1.4?</p>

<p>The 24-70 has to be one of their most popular pro grade lenses and it is crying out (well the photographers are) for an IS included update!</p>

<p>Canon routinely updates popular "L" lenses with the latest features and sets a new high-end price. Despite being a marvelous lens, the 35L isn't weather sealed and doesn't have the latest coating technology. It's certainly possible that a new one comes out at a price point like that of the 24LII. So, be careful what you wish for!</p>

<p>Ken,</p>

<p>I'd very happily pay an extra $300 for a weather sealed better performing MkII. I don't think that is too high a price to pay, if it future proofs me (to a large extent) and will hold its value better all the more so.</p>

<p>If they try to match Nikon prices it will be the MkI though :-)</p>

<p>I think the 35mm 2.0 needs an update most of all.</p>

<p>Personally, I do not think a new 35mm L is needed. Nor do I feel that a 24-70 with IS is required as it will make an already heavy lens even heavier. Look at what happened when Nikon have VR in an f4 16-35mm: almost the same weight as the f2.8 equivalent.</p>

<p>scott, Canon does not usually put IS in lenses with short focal lengths so the 24-70 would not be an option.</p>

<p>Robin,</p>

<p>You might not think so but many do, you play King Canute, it will happen. Besides you have the option of getting your preffered current versions. The 24-70 IS will be lighter than the 70-200 IS, that is considered an absolute staple lens by many.</p>

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>What about the 17-55 f2.8 IS? Don't tell me it is an EF-S, it is an equivalent 27mm, close enough. Do you want to bet on the 24-70 IS coming?</p>

<p>Same as 30+ MP, whether you need it or want it it will happen.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the 35mm 2.0 needs an update most of all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hear, hear. I would gladly pay and extra $100 or so for a 35 f2 USM and a would like and affordable 28 f2.8 USM or 24 f2.8 USM.<br>

I'd like the 28 f1.8 USM updated with improved optics for around the same price. They could even make it a 28 f2 USM that was sharp across the frame and I'd be happy.</p>

<p>Canon never has made an IS version of the 24-70 and yes I WOULD bet you they never will. Honestly, why does it matter? IS comes in handy on longer focal lengths, but shorter lenses do not require it. If they did, Canon would have had made them by now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IS comes in handy on longer focal lengths, but shorter lenses do not require it. If they did, Canon would have had made them by now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, I see. So if Canon doesn't make something, then it's simply not needed! Interesting concept. I guess before Canon made Live View, no one needed it, and before Canon offered sensor cleaning, no one needed it, and before Canon offered autofocus....</p>

<p>Just because YOU don't need IS in a shorter lens doesn't mean nobody else does. I personally shoot at 24mm all the time <em>handheld </em> using 1/8 and 1/4 second (with my Canon 24-105 IS--yes, Canon makes a wide-angle with IS!), and I think that if I could get a 16-35 with IS I could probably handhold 1/2 second. Maybe that capability is of no use to others, but I would value it in a lot of landscape and architectural photography when I want depth of field (i.e., 2.8 doesn't cut it) AND I want a noise-free photo (i.e., high ISOs don't cut it).</p>

<p>I think that if Nikon's 16-35 VR does as well as I think it will Canon will come up with a similar lens with IS. Four stops of stabilization is a lot; it means you can shoot at 1/4 second while someone without IS has to shoot at 1/30 or shoot at a much higher ISO. That capability opens up a lot of possibilities.</p>