# Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Pricing Information [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

```
<strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>A retailer has written in and said they were told the lens would launch at $1699 USD. This info has apparently come from a Canon rep in a recent conversation with the retailer, and not an official price sheet.</p>
<p>Sometimes reps enjoy conjecture as much as the rest of us.</p>
<p>Original Post:</p>
<p>We expect to see the brand new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II to be announced next month, with the popular date for the announcement being Friday, August 14, 2015.</p>
<p>Exact specifications for the lens are still unknown, but the big one a lot of people want to know is pricing.</p>
<p>We’re told the EF 35mm f/1.4L II will cost <del>$1899 USD at launch</del>, which is about $400 more than the current Canon version and more than double that of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296/DFF/d10-v21-t1-x393562" target="_blank">Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, which is $899</a>.</p>
<p>We’re told that this pricing may not be set in stone, as it’s “older information”. Currency movement could change the launch price next month. For the record, the Nikon 35 f/1.4G is currently around $1799.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
```


----------



## infared (Jul 19, 2015)

Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

infared said:


> Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.



There's more to IQ than sharpness, and the Canon will also autofocus reliably.


----------



## infared (Jul 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.
> ...



That remains to be seen at this point. (Canon lenses have their focusing issues as well).
My Sigma does auto focus reliably but I know that is an issue with these lenses.. As with the Sigma 50mm, I had to get a good copy and fine tune it on The Dock. Fantastic lenses....but not a given.
When I bought my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 the only other choice was the Canon 35mm f/1.4. I think it was worth the savings and the extra effort that I had to put in.


----------



## JoeDavid (Jul 19, 2015)

The current 35/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses. Other than the weather sealing I have a hard time believing that the optical quality improvement will warrant that high of a price over the original. I'll wait until the price drops or Canon has a significant rebate before I'll consider it.


----------



## lux (Jul 19, 2015)

It's also competing with a very nice canon 35 f2 is lens that is reasonably priced and excellent.

I don't see myself buying a new 1800 35 1.4.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 19, 2015)

lux said:


> It's also competing with a very nice canon 35 f2 is lens that is reasonably priced and excellent.
> 
> I don't see myself buying a new 1800 35 1.4.



It's not for me either since the 35 f/2 IS serves my needs nicely at this time, but I'm glad Canon continues to upgrade the staple lenses. I'd rather they come out with a cracking 24mm f 1.4L, or even a 24 f/2L, the f/2.8 is not satisfying, and the current 24 f/1.4L II is not that great at f/1.4-2, and I had lots of focus issues with it on the 5D2 (got rid of it before I upgraded to the 5D3, so focus might be better).


----------



## madspihl (Jul 19, 2015)

Given that my Sigma 35 focuses accurately, has all the positive optical qualities this lens is known for, and I try not to swim with it, I guess I have what I need 

I am sure the new Canon 35 will be amazing. Sharp, weather sealed... and stuff. But the weather sealing aside, more than double the price sounds like a lot compared to the known performance of the Sigma - even if, seen in isolation, the Canon might not be that crazily priced if it comes out a stellar performer. But... nothing can be seen in isolation, and that's where I have a feeling the Canon might face stiff competition, and at the suggested price point Canon does not think of this as a kind of Otus-level performance (different focal length, yes), which again puts it closer to Sigma, which again brings up the price vs performance considerations.

Anyway...


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jul 19, 2015)

It'll drop to $1300 in no time with rebates and CPW Street Prices. Then it will be compelling. Assuming they will be close optically, is the extra $$ worth the likely more reliable AF, weather sealing, and likely smaller size and weight.


----------



## joejohnbear (Jul 19, 2015)

Yesss! I sold my Sigma lens in anticipation for this. It was nice for fooling around with friends but not consistent enough for high pressure weddings.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 19, 2015)

People said the same thing about price and "it can't be that good" with every new Canon, BEFORE they got out, then we got 70-200 II, 24-70II, 200-400, 16-35 f4 and so on... I suggest people stop guessing and just expect this, as all the others, will be best in it's class in every aspect. I for one hate the brutal vignetting of the Sigma, and it took 5 Art
Lenses to find a decent copy in terms of AF. If the 35 L II matches all aspects of the 50 Art (and it will) it will be the best 1.4 lens for anything moving, delivering epic IQ in any situation..


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 19, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Really makes my Sigma look like a bargain! The new Canon can't be any sharper...so $900 for two O-rings for weather-sealing seems kind of steep.
> ...



+1.  I've shot the 35L and 35 Art, and the 35L was a proper robust hit-all-the-time sort of tool, with the rare exception of shooting f/1.4 with large/boxy 5D3 AF points that might grab an eyebrow or the bridge of the nose rather than the eye itself. The Sigma had that similar problem -- perhaps the reality of large aperture, non-LiveView work -- but it was also a solid step behind the older Canon lens for AF _consistency_. The Sigma was not poor by any stretch, but I had the odd miss from time to time that I just didn't seem to see with the Canon. (In fairness, both were week long rentals -- I did not log a ton of flight hours with them, though both went through AFMA or dock tuning)

So I expect to see the 35L II winning on the AF reliability front. That said, I can't possibly defend $1,800 until I see how it performs, but the value proposition appears to be: 

Sigma 35 Art IQ + weathersealing + tougher build quality (sturdier hood as well) + proper/reliable Canon USM AF

And I'd peg that around $1,300-1,500.

If the IQ is _above and beyond the Sigma_, then you are drifting into 'near-Otus with AF' territory, and you could command a silly price at that point. We shall see.

- A


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jul 19, 2015)

i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.

and for weather sealing, give me an effing break. it's not worth $1,000. just buy a second sigma if you're that worried - it'll still be cheaper.


----------



## jcarapet (Jul 19, 2015)

What makes me interested in this is the price drop on the previous gen 35L to push it to more reasonable. I'm done dropping crazy cash on lenses for a while.


----------



## lux (Jul 19, 2015)

I am happy with my 35 2 is. It's sharp and great for video. I don't see the 35 1.4 adding enough difference to purchase it. 

As for those worried about AF when comparing it to the sigma…I had a sigma 85 1.4 and it was disappointed with the focus. I use a 6D and it may be that on a better focusing camera it would have been fine but I'm a little spoiled with the 6D center point and expect it to focus in the dark…that was not what happened with the 85 1.4 (of course that is not an art lens)

I second the desire for a good sharp across the board 24 1.4. I've done some astrophotography with the rokinnon 14 2.8 and would love to try it at 24 1.4 but none of these lenses seem to have great reviews…which means if I'm really going to only use if for astrophotography I might as well just buy the rokinnon and save some money. 

I like the look of the 16-35 f4 for landscapes and that covers 24mm

Ok, now I'm not sure where I'm going with any of this. I think that I just convinced myself that I should buy the 16-35 F4 and the rokinnon 24 1.4 and not buy any more 35mm lenses. Of course I guess I won't mention this to my wife.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2015)

Just a price comparison on fast 35mm prime lenses (no rebates or discounts).

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art $899
Canon 35mm f/1.4L $1479
Sony A 35mm f/1.4 $1499
Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 $1589
Canon 35mm f/1.4L II $1699 (Updated from the $1899 original post via USA retailer)
Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G $1799
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 (No AF) $1843
Leica Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 FLE $5150 

I honestly expect the Canon to be $1699 - $1899 USD at launch. Considering Canon's recent L lenses and how they perform, this will end up being worth the price of admission.


----------



## kevl (Jul 19, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> Yesss! I sold my Sigma lens in anticipation for this. It was nice for fooling around with friends but not consistent enough for high pressure weddings.



I read comments like this on forums, but all the reviews make the lens sound as though it is almost flawless. I wish there were long-term lens reviews that cover things like this. I stopped using Sigma after 3 failed copies of the 24-70 they currently sell. These Art lenses are tempting but if they are not reliable then what is the point?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

I paid $1300 new for my Canon 35mm L. It was a wonderful lens, it front focused, but Canon adjusted it to be right-on. After getting my 24-70L MK II, I found it was no longer getting much use and sold it.

Eventually, I sold most of my prime lenses, keeping my 100L and a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 that I like.

I'll pass on the new lens, since I know it will not get used, even though it will be wonderful. I suspect that many are feeling the same way, and sales will slow down after the initial rush. 

As noted, the Sigma 35mm is owned my many, and if the price is not competitive, it will not become a top seller.

The autofocus issue might be solved with a dual pixel sensor or other improved phase detect technology. That will benefit Sigma more than Canon, AF on Canon lenses tends to be excellent across the board.

Third party lens makers have a difficult hurdle trying to make their lens work across the various Canon camera bodies. Its not a QA thing, its just difficult to tell a Canon camera that you are a Canon lens but not being identical. They have to do this to make it work, but its a big compromise.

All the AF accuracy issues go away with the dual pixel AF. Of course, there are some other drawbacks and limitations, its not a free ride. That's why so many are watching the new Sony A7II R, it has limitations with Canon lenses, but they are not a huge issue for many.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Jul 19, 2015)

i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 19, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.



I'm sorry, but LOL... It's not user error in the cases we see here on CR and other more serious threads/forums. I've used the fastest lenses ever made including 200 f2 and 85 f1.2 and so on and the faulty Sigma's are exactly that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 19, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.



I tend to believe you are overestimating user error and underestimating copy variance.

I have the Sigma 35mm Art, love it, and hit with it consistently at f/1.4 near MFD. I have the ef 85mm f/1.2 L II, same good fortune.

However, I sadly gave up on the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art because AF was erratic. Rather than try and try again, I'm patiently waiting for Canon to replace the current ef 50mm 1.2.

I use these lenses on a 5DIII.

Sure, there are some cases where photographers get frustrated with shallow depth of field and give up; maybe that style was never for them. 

Unless you know a photographer's skill level, have seen his or her work, why just assume they don't know what they are doing?

I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)



I'm not yet sure which field I fall into. Others who do not know me or have not seen my photos are always telling me what I need or don't need. I am, of course the ultimate authority, and I am always right with the exception of times when I am wrong, and that's due to inaccurate autofocusing of my eyes when reading the post


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Jul 19, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I also tend to believe most people who post on the Web, myself as much or more than others, think they are the sharpest knife in the drawer. Those other posters just don't know what they are talking about! 8)



Not me. I tend to assume that I'm about as sharp as a potato.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 20, 2015)

Viggo said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.
> ...



There honestly aren't a lot of professionals posting on CR...

I can understand receiving a single copy that might be bad, but those people who go through 3 of 4 copies? I think the consistent, obvious variable in such cases is the responsible one...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.
> 
> and for weather sealing, give me an effing break. it's not worth $1,000. just buy a second sigma if you're that worried - it'll still be cheaper.



Canon has been hit or miss with absurd launch prices the last few years. It's not _all_ terrible.

The good: 

16-35 f/4L IS only $1199 at launch -- best in class UWA zoom, a _great_ deal.
All the (great!) pancakes and the nifty fifty reboot in the $149 neighborhood

The bad: 

24-70 f/2.8L II at $2299 at launch. It's only 'the bad' and not 'the ugly' in that _for_ that price, you get a best in the world sort of standard zoom.
100-400L II for $2199 at launch. Again, the lens delivers and a certain subset of birders and wildlifers had to buy this lens or they were in big-white territory price wise, so it actually could have been priced even higher, IMHO.

The ugly: 

11-24 f/4L at $2999 at launch -- yes it's a fine tool, but a good deal of that price is Canon claiming 'first' and gouging those with the UWA bug or unique professional need (interiors photographers, for instance).
24-70 f/4L IS at $1499 at launch -- I still contend that this is a fantastic lens, but it's not a $1,499 product. The price has thankfully plummeted to more reasonable price.
All the 24/28/35 non-L IS lenses a few years ago were outlandishly priced $799-$899 at launch. They are fantastic improvements over their predecessors, but their lack of speed and that pesky little red ring saw their price drop down into the more appropriate $500 range.

Just my two bits. Canon is unreasonable, but at times they can surprise us.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> All the AF accuracy issues go away with the dual pixel AF. Of course, there are some other drawbacks and limitations, its not a free ride. That's why so many are watching the new Sony A7II R, it has limitations with Canon lenses, but they are not a huge issue for many.



Just curious, do we know that DPAF improves the AF consistency of current Sigma Art lenses? Has anyone ever run a 'hit rate' comparison between two similarly spec'd AF systems that do and do not have DPAF?

That would be very interesting to see. I would have thought that with a new proprietary DPAF system, Canon may have made 3rd party lens AF routines _even harder_ to develop. But perhaps DPAF helps everyone after all?

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.
> ...



I have a "unique professional need" but absolutely don't feel gouged by the $2,799 I paid for the 11-24, heck the 14mm prime, a truly awful performer, was over $2,000 for years, oh, and still is.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jul 20, 2015)

infared said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > There's more to IQ than sharpness, and the Canon will also autofocus reliably.
> ...



You think so, huh? 



infared said:


> As with the Sigma 50mm, I had to get a good copy and fine tune it on The Dock.



That's too bad you have to mess around like that.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 20, 2015)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > keithfullermusic said:
> ...



You think, but you're wrong. Plain and simple.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 20, 2015)

Viggo said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...


+1
You´re right, I am not a professional, but I believe I know how to assess a lens. In my +40 years as a photographer, I have been through a few ... 

Both the 35 Art and 50 Art have been totally inconsistent. I am now on copy 3 of the 50. I gave up the 35. Focus on the previous copies were all over and FoCal was unable to determine AFMA values. It is a well known problem. My latest copy of the 50 seems to be quite consistent, but I have not really used it yet, so time will tell if I have a good one this time.


----------



## infared (Jul 20, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...


----------



## infared (Jul 20, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > CarlMillerPhoto said:
> ...



If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?


----------



## infared (Jul 20, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> i've heard a lot of complaints on forums that the sigma misses focus a lot, but i'm going to tend to believe that it comes down to user error. i say this because i hear this about every fast lens. i'm not sure what people are expecting from lenses at 1.4, especially on cameras with 20+ megapixels. i also tend to hear that people sell their fast lenses for 2.8 zooms a lot. if you fall into that category, fast primes were never for you. there are no substitutes for large aperture lenses. i'm on a few facebook groups dedicated to the 35 art, and man the pictures are beautiful. i'm not sure why people would be willing to spend around twice the price for a canon lens, but that's just me.



I agree with you...the Sigmas DO have to be carefully tweaked...but I think a lot of the misses are users error...at f/1.4 it does not take much.


----------



## JRPhotos (Jul 20, 2015)

Any updates on the 50 1.4 II?


----------



## Viggo (Jul 20, 2015)

infared said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I don't own the 35. And I have on countless occasions praised the 50 as my favorite lens. The one issue they have is AF. Never said anything bad about 50 Art IQ. A good reason I went through 5 Art linear to find a 50 that has a working AF. It is epic, but when you can't trust the AF ..


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

JRPhotos said:


> Any updates on the 50 1.4 II?



As this forum's resident nut about wanting the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM (i.e the 50 1.4 II you speak of), the only update we've had is that the next two lenses we shall get will be the 35L II and an EF-M 15-45 f/3.5-6.3 STM. So it doesn't look this it's happening this year.

And there is only a very very very small chance it will be called the 50 f/1.4 USM II as all indications are that they'll be putting IS on it, which means it won't be a II, but instead be a first version of a new lens (in Canon's nutty terminology world, which they seem to be very consistent with). The only way I see a 'II' happening is if Canon reserves IS for the 50 f/1.2L, which would be madness in my book. 

But we should probably keep discussion to the 35L II on this thread. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 20, 2015)

infared said:


> If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?



I don't own one, but if you shoot landscapes, architecture, astro, product or macro photography, you don't really care if the AF is flaky. Let's face it -- the optics are spectacular, regardless of what's going on with the AF.

- A


----------



## infared (Jul 21, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?
> ...



And my AF works great on both the 50mm and the 35mm! :-X


----------



## Eldar (Jul 21, 2015)

infared said:


> If the Sigma lenses are so bad...why do you own them?


I never thought I would own a Sigma lens again. However, if you read my other posts on this lens, you´ll see that I have made lots of positive comments about its optical performance. I even posted a Sigma 50 Art/Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 comparison thread, because I was so impressed. The problem has been the inconsistent AF and because of that, I said that I would never buy a Sigma lens again, unless I got confirmation that the AF issue was solved. 

Then Viggo, who has had about as much trouble with previous copies as me, got his n-th copy and reported that it worked consistently. That, combined with the Scandinavian distributor having a 30% discount for a couple of days, I decided to give it one more go. Optically the 50 Art is fantastic value for money and if the AF system could work, I´d give it lots of use. The new copy seems to be better than the previous ones, but I have not really tested it yet.


----------



## Andrewccm (Jul 21, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.
> 
> and for weather sealing, give me an effing break. it's not worth $1,000. just buy a second sigma if you're that worried - it'll still be cheaper.



Amen. I bought my super sharp 300L F2.8L IS new for $3600 back a few years. When v2 was introduced, it was nearly double the price. Crazy. My original is still working great and delivering beautiful images. The Lens lust factor seems to be more prevelant than the ROI these days. 

For the record, other than the plastic AF switch coming lose, my current 35L F1.4 is doing a wonderful job as well.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 21, 2015)

Andrewccm said:


> keithfullermusic said:
> 
> 
> > i really hope no one buys this thing, and it puts a little pressure on canon to stop all these price hikes. if you can't take incredible pictures with the sigma art lens then you just can't take pictures.
> ...



Give it a year or two and see where the price settles. The 24-70 II came out at 2300 but now you can get it for 1650. The 100-400L II came out at 2200 and can be bought at 2000-2050. If the newer lenses are better, they will command a price premium.

It is also a different situation if you already own an alternative for the lens. I would love to buy a new 300L f/2.8L IS for 3600, but that's no longer an option. Buying used has its own risks.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 21, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> JRPhotos said:
> 
> 
> > Any updates on the 50 1.4 II?
> ...



Don't forget the mystery 70-300 is still floating out there, too, with more chatter than for a new 50.

Loving my 50A though! Seems to hit most of the time with no adjustment; I'm quite relieved.


----------

