# Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Mentioned [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 24, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13764"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=13764">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A new 35L

</strong>We haven’t heard anything in regards to a replacement for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L</a> lens in a long time, however this weekend it was mentioned that the EF 35 f/1.4L II is in fact in testing. There is no imminent announcement date,  and it may be held until a new full frame camera is ready to go in 2014.</p>
<p>We’ve talked about this lens a lot in the past and it has been rumoured to be replaced since the EF 24 f/1.4L II was announced. We also know that <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/" target="_blank">patents do exist for the optical formula</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma’s 35mm f/1.4 DG</a> seems to be taking a lot of sales from the current Canon equivalent, here’s hoping that forces Canon’s hand on getting a replacement ready.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## teedidy (Jun 24, 2013)

I have already saved up for this lens twice! Instead I picked up the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Hoping 3rd time is the charm.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 24, 2013)

still too wide for my tastes, but it is good to hear.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 24, 2013)

God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.


----------



## MK5GTI (Jun 24, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.



well said, but my $ already goes to Sigma.

but i guess i will keep buying body from them


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jun 24, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Sigma’s 35mm f/1.4 DG seems to be taking a lot of sales from the current Canon equivalent, here’s hoping that forces Canon’s hand on getting a replacement ready.



The Sigma is cheaper than the EF 35mm f/1.4L mk1, and would be all the more so compared to a mk2.

So Canon would have to either cut the mk2's price or make it a magnificent performer. I wouldn't bet a fart on 1st option, so I guess Canon is taking it's time to make the best 35mm f/1.4 mk2 it can make.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 24, 2013)

I don't own the Siggy, but from what I've seen I'm not sure how Canon could make it optically better. Build quality and QC are another story, but is it worth a likely $1,000 premium over the Sigma?


----------



## LuCoOc (Jun 24, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma’s 35mm f/1.4 DG seems to be taking a lot of sales from the current Canon equivalent, here’s hoping that forces Canon’s hand on getting a replacement ready.
> ...



If they make it a 35mm f/1.2 and/or insert IS they can bumb up the price to 1.8K - 2K for me. IS-version is never going to happen, though.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 24, 2013)

Why can't Canon also make *L*-primes alongside these with more "normal" apertures, like a 35mm f/2 lens?


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jun 24, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.


Really? How long do you think the development cycle is for a product like this? A couple of months? Get real dude!

What we have here is a fantastic lens that will be even better.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 24, 2013)

All of you that is raving on about the super-slowmo AF'd Sigma like it's the end all lens, there is a thread or ten for the people who love it here, please let me enjoy every little word that's rumor and fact about the 35 L II that I've been waiting for for the last 8 years 

I do not care what it costs, because if it's anywhere near as much better than the 35 L as the recent upgrades from Canon (70-200, 24-70, TS-E24, all the super teles and so on) it will eat all other primes for breakfast.

I think it will be by far the fastest and best focusing prime under 200mm, and yes I realize that includes the 135. 

I can't wait! ;D


----------



## shutterlag (Jun 24, 2013)

They've gotta be feeling the pain at this point. With the Tamron and Sigma lineups, many of the core lenses everyone buys (18-35 APS-C, 24-70, 70-200, 35, etc.) are as good if not better from 3rd parties. It has to be taking a toll on sales. In this particular case, everyone who needed a better 35mm F1.4 already has or will have the Sigma by the time this mk2 comes out. The remaining mk1 owners that didn't upgrade will have a choice of the Sigma for $900 or the mk2 likely for $2200 minimum $1800? And barring some massively revolutionary engineering break through, it will only be as-good as the Sigma, not better. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see changes from Canikon soon, as far as technology lock-down. It's the only way they're going to maintain profit margins. "Foreign Lens Detected, disabling feature XXXX".


----------



## deleteme (Jun 24, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to see changes from Canikon soon, as far as technology lock-down. It's the only way they're going to maintain profit margins. "Foreign Lens Detected, disabling feature XXXX".



Edit: "Foreign Lens Detected, disabling AF"


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jun 24, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> They've gotta be feeling the pain at this point. With the Tamron and Sigma lineups, many of the core lenses everyone buys (18-35 APS-C, 24-70, 70-200, 35, etc.) are as good if not better from 3rd parties. It has to be taking a toll on sales. In this particular case, everyone who needed a better 35mm F1.4 already has or will have the Sigma by the time this mk2 comes out. The remaining mk1 owners that didn't upgrade will have a choice of the Sigma for $900 or the mk2 likely for $2200 minimum $1800? And barring some massively revolutionary engineering break through, it will only be as-good as the Sigma, not better.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see changes from Canikon soon, as far as technology lock-down. It's the only way they're going to maintain profit margins. "Foreign Lens Detected, disabling feature XXXX".


Yes we all know the Tamrons and Sigmas are much better than the latest 70-200 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 from Canon. Also I am very dissatisfied with my 35L as it has been underperforming since the day I got it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2013)

shutterlag said:


> With the Tamron and Sigma lineups, many of the core lenses everyone buys (18-35 APS-C, 24-70, 70-200, 35, etc.) are as good if not better from 3rd parties.



Except for the Sigma 35/1.4, 'decent or nearly as good from 3rd parties' would be a lot more accurate than 'as good if not better'. Of course, they're cheaper...and there's always a market for cheaper stuff.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> there's always a market for cheaper stuff.


And there's always a market for the best-of-the-best at any price, but you already knew that. And that is why these things can co-exist, and each can be successful doing what they do.


----------



## roadrunner (Jun 24, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > there's always a market for cheaper stuff.
> ...



And currently, the best of the best happens to be cheaper (The Sigma 35mm f1.4). I'm not a sigma fanboy by any means, as the 35mm is the only sigma I own, but it is absolutely excellent, and cheaper to boot. That is why everyone is saying canon has their hands full.

That said, the sigma isn't perfect. I had to buy 2 copies, as the first one's focus was way off, and the focus slows down greatly in really dark environment. Since I'm a wedding photographer, that's really important to me. So, if this new canon can be just as good optically as the sigma, better quality control, is weather sealed, and maintains quick focus in low light, I would gladly pay a premium over the siggy, maybe around $1300-1500. The problem is, canon will likely price this new lens much higher. It will definitely be interesting.


----------



## shutterlag (Jun 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > With the Tamron and Sigma lineups, many of the core lenses everyone buys (18-35 APS-C, 24-70, 70-200, 35, etc.) are as good if not better from 3rd parties.
> ...



I would submit the Tamron 24-70 definitely better than the Canon, depending on your use case. The equivalent to the 18-35mm F1.8 Sigma doesn't even exist in the Canon or Nikon lineups, so that would also be "better" if not "holy crap better". That leaves the Tammy 70-200, which dxomark has as edging out the Canon mk2 by a hair. I'll stand by my "as good if not better" statement.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 24, 2013)

I'll probably get the 35 f/2 due to it's smaller size and lower weight, if the price drops. 

Other than that, I'd rather have a new and improved, cracking sharp 16-35 f/2.8L III, 50 f/1.4 II (L), 50 f/1.2L II, or a really good 20mm f/2.8 (L), a 135mm f/2L IS II that can take teleconverters, a 200 f/2.8L IS II that can take teleconverters ... In that order. The 35 f/1.4 II comes after all these for me.


----------



## switters (Jun 24, 2013)

Not a Sigma fan boy by any stretch of the imagination, but have to agree that it will be difficult to improve on the Sigma 35 optically. The thing is razor sharp at f/1.4 and doesn't really have any optical flaws to speak of. There's a reason people rave about it.

AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens). This 3rd copy is better, and using the USB dock I think I've been able to calibrate it so that it's very accurate. Still, that's taken a lot of time and effort (and 3 copies, to boot). If the Canon 35L II was out now, I probably would have been willing to pay $1,500 for it if it matched the Sigma's optics but had more consistent AF out of the box (like my other Canon lenses typically do).


----------



## drjlo (Jun 24, 2013)

switters said:


> AF is another story. I'm on my 3rd copy of this lens. The first two were erratic and inconsistent, so I returned them (which was a shame, because it's such an incredible lens).



That's the kind of thing I just don't have the time or patience to deal with.

Something has also been bothering me the more Sigma 35 photo's I look on various forums. Those photos certainly seem very sharp, but at the same time they tend to look a bit "muted," not as 3-D and popping off the page as 35L photo's. Not sure if this is contrast and/or color-rendering difference; it could even be the fact Canon 35L was/is a more expensive lens, likely being used more by professionals, presumably with more experience/skill.


----------



## Pi (Jun 24, 2013)

If Canon improves the bokeh, I would replace my 35L with it. Yes, I know that this would cost me, I do not mind. But I will keep both for a while to make sure that the new one focuses as perfectly as my 35L.

I am glad that the Sigma exists. This may drive the cost of the 35LII down. There is a downside though - Canon may decide to compromise on the bokeh to please the chart shooters and to "beat" the Sigma. Well, this would save me $1K.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 25, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.



LOL! I was thinking the same thing!


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 25, 2013)

I rented the current version once... I thought it was quite soft... Compared to the Zeiss 35mm f1.4.

You can bet that the new version is going to cost at least $2k. But then again, the Zeiss already does ;D


----------



## infared (Jun 25, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.



...but they won't be on the same playing field as Sigma when it comes to pricing....and, in this case possibly performance.


----------



## jrista (Jun 25, 2013)

rpiotr01 said:


> God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.



First, the previous 35mm f/1.4L was an excellent lens. Claiming it wasn't good at all is completely laughable! The 35/1.4 L was one of Canon's best-regarded lenses for, what...at least a decade??

Second, Canon is not necessarily updating this lens _solely _because of competition. It is probably a factor, for sure (third party lens makers have never been as aggressive as they have been the last five years, and they are starting to produce some great stuff.) I believe Canon has been updating their entire lineup of L-series lenses in order to prepare for a future world where the EF mount is matched with _very high density sensors_ that will be demanding much more from lenses than DSLRs have to date (keep in mind, it was only about four years ago that CMOS pixel density reached levels where it started producing images that surpassed the resolution of a drum-scanned 135 slide.) 

Third, even IF Canon only made this lens in response to competition....well, that is the very nature of a *COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE*! One shouldn't be surprised by any _competitor _in a _competitive_ marketplace holding out as long as they can so long as they continue to have a superior product, or a product that their customers are not regularly complaining about (and, in my experience, most people seem to love their 35/1.4 Ls...I'm surprised by the comments in this thread so far. My personal experience with several rented copies has been nothing but excellent...does no one use AFMA?) The best time to one-up the competition is when the competition is trying to one-up you. No point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing new lenses when neither the competition, nor marketplace, nor sensor technology are demanding them. 

Those factors have only RECENTLY changed...so, Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.



At least, since we've all been paying attention to Canon's recent releases, the 35L II's price tag won't come as a sticker-shocker.


----------



## jrista (Jun 25, 2013)

I am not sure if what I've been reading is sarcasm, but a number of comments seem to be stating that the new lenses from Sigma and Tamron are better than the latest similar lenses from Canon. While I am happy to note that Sigma and friends are producing better lenses, and in some cases excellent lenses, when Canon competes and produces a new version of the same lens, it is usually much better. As an example, the Sigma AF 24-70 mm f/ 2.8 IF EX DG HSM Lens:

Sigma Wide:






Sigma Tele:






Canon Wide:





Canon Tele:





The newer Sigma 24-70/2.8 is definitely better than it's predecessor, but the Canon 24-70/2.8 II is still kicking the crap out of it in general, with superior center and mid-frame resolution, as well as better corner resolution. People complain about the price of Canon gear...but you get what you pay for. Even the older 24-70/2.8 still offered center-frame resolution that was on par with the newest Sigma 24-70/2.8 in most respects (although the Canon definitely had worse corner performance):

Canon Wide (old):





Canon Tele (old):





I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it *is* an *excellent* lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)


----------



## jrista (Jun 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is updating and competing...wow, shocker.
> ...



And yet, I'm quite sure (and again, unsurprised) that quite a number of people will complain about it nevertheless. ;P


----------



## tnargs (Jun 25, 2013)

When was the last time Canon released a general purpose prime L? It was the 24mm in 2008.

I'm not sure they are still prioritising L primes like they used to, when 4 were released from 2006-2008 in 14, 24, 50 and 85mm.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jun 25, 2013)

It will need to be damn good and priced well to make me swap my Sigma...but then I would just for the sake of red rings and giggles.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm more concerned with color reproduction, CA, distortion, bokeh quality, and AF performance in low light (where it's supposed to excel anyway) A bump in sharpness and resolution wouldn't be too shabby but I wouldn't make sharpness a top priority as the old version of the lens is already quite sharp. I didn't buy the Sigma even if it has great reviews, because of the orange cast, and strong velvets. I much prefer the dominant reds from Canon L lenses. Add 9 rounded blades in the new version, somewhat faster and more accurate shots wide open, updated resolution and micro-contrast, and I'll buy.


----------



## J.R. (Jun 25, 2013)

Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?


----------



## ecka (Jun 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Any possibility there might be a EF 35mm f/1.2 L?



I hope so. Only f/1.2 would justify the price of a new 35L.


----------



## melbournite (Jun 25, 2013)

Too late! Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.


----------



## roimund (Jun 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it *is* an *excellent* lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)



now, now... no need to tell lies. the 24-70 mk2 is good.. but not THAT good.

http://www.lenstip.com/359.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/358.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24-70_mm_f_2.8L_II_USM_Image_resolution.html


----------



## infared (Jun 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> rpiotr01 said:
> 
> 
> > God bless Canon, who only makes good things now when forced to by a competitor.
> ...



I agree with most everything you said...the current Canon lens is a good lens. I recently bought the Sigma (mine seems just fine out of the box, uber sharp)...it's just refreshing to see an alternative for what should be a reasonably priced lens...it is just a 35mm after all. I also splurged two weeks ago and bought a 17mm TSE (amazing) and that seems like a super bargain compared to Canon's post/tsunami pricing on newly released glass....but the lenses with the high pricing are phenomenal. I will say that.
If Sigma brought out an Art Series 50mm f/1.4 and it got GREAT reviews...I would not hesitate to buy it.


----------



## infared (Jun 25, 2013)

roimund said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it *is* an *excellent* lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)
> ...




+1
I own both of these...24-70mm is an amazing zoom...but honey...the Sigma holds its own here and blows the former away with bokeh.


----------



## Zv (Jun 25, 2013)

I came really close to buying a the Canon 35 f/2 IS (had it preordered at one point) then I thought long and hard about the Siggy 35 1.4, had it in cart and finger on the buy button but backed out last second. Now this rumor. It will likely be out of my price range though so I might still end up buying the Sigma. Can't decide if I'm actually a 35mm kinda shooter or more of a 24 in which case I might lean towards the 24IS. But damit I just want something fast and wide, don't make my buy more L glass! (Referring to 24L which is wide and fast).


----------



## fstoparmy (Jun 25, 2013)

would love to see the improvements Canon make to a already awesome lens. Sigma sure did bring out a killer 35. Cant wait to see the head to head between the two


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 25, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> and it may be held until a new full frame camera is ready to go in 2014.



Can anybody explain this to me - why would Canon hold the 35L2 even if it's ready? Because they're still making lots of $$$ with the mk1 and only a high-mp ff camera would really need a mk2?


----------



## jrista (Jun 26, 2013)

roimund said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect a 35 f/1.4 L II will be in the same ballpark as the new 24-70 f/2.8 L II at the very least, which would put its IQ just a little better than the Sigma 35 f/1.4 (which, while it *is* an *excellent* lens, still doesn't have the center and mid-frame performance of even the 24-70/2.8 L II...which is a ZOOM!)
> ...



No lies involved. 

Regarding the test cases you linked...I see no mention of any kind of calibration to maximize the performance of each lens with the camera body they were tested on. As a matter of fact, the FAQ on that site quite explicitly states they only test with one copy of any given thing, and still makes no mention of optimizing each lens for the camera body that is used in testing. One has to wonder if the samples used were producing the best results...in both cases (Sigma's 35mm and Canon's 24-70mm). Second, the post of mine you quoted was comparing the Sigma 24-70 with the Canon 24-70. Your two links are, effectively, comparing the Sigma 35mm to the Canon 24-70...something I never attempted to do. My final statement is a prediction and projection, not a direct comparison of any 35mm lens to any 24-70mm lens. According to the MTF charts, the Canon 24-70 is quite a bit better, from a resolution standpoint, center to corner, than the Sigma 24-70. I am PREDICTING that, IF Canon releases a 35mm f/1.4 II, there is no reason to suspect it will not perform on a similar level...which would make it's performance slightly better than the Sigma 35mm (not necessarily by as much of a margin as with the 24-70...but enough over the old Canon 35mm f/1.4 to make the upgrade, and the price, worth while.) 

Regarding the tests you linked...you are making the same mistake many people do, in thinking that a test, like those you linked, is truly indicative of THE LENS. Most review sites test "camera systems", not lenses or cameras. Combining a lens with a camera is going to produce a result that is a convolution of all the components in combination. Those particular tests both use a 1Ds Mark III...which, while it has a high megapixel *count*, is not particularly high in *pixel density*. The sensor is going to be the limiting factor there...diminishing returns have already set in. To truly compare the resolving power of a lens when tested as part of a camera system, you need to throw the highest density (highest spatial resolution) sensor you can find at it. One of Nikon's 24mp APS-C cameras would probably do the job well enough. I would bet money that the 24-70/2.8 II would start show it's strength there.

The only true way to get an idea of the *real* resolving power and sharpness of a lens is to reference a mathematically generated MTF chart from the mathematical models of the lens design itself, which factors in the optical materials, their refractive and dispersion indexes, etc. You can never produce an MTF from an image produced by a lens attached to a camera that truly represents the capability of the lens itself...you are only producing an MTF of that particular camera system...that lens and that camera specifically. You could compare your own MTFs of say a Sigma 24-70 and a Canon 24-70, so long as you produce those MTFs with the *exact same* camera, in the *exact same* lighting conditions, with *exact precision* in terms of sensor plan distance and angle from the test chart, so long as each lens is ideally calibrated *for that camera*. To improve the accuracy of such a test, several copies of each lens should be used with several copies of a camera body, and better yet, with a couple sets of camera bodies of differing pixel densities (say an 18mp FF and a 24mp APS-C), and each setup should be run through a test sequence multiple times, with statistical outliers discarded from final average results and standard deviations. Only then could one say a comparison of any one lens to any other lens is _truly objective_.

Such subjective tests are useful in a general sense, and are useful for a casual comparison of someone browsing the web for information on what lenses to consider buying. Personally, if I just want to compare two lenses, I opt to compare the manufacturer's mathematically generated MTF charts that demonstrate JUST the performance of the lens, and nothing else. I am not trying to "lie"...just trying to be as objective as I can. I'm not in it here to make a purchase...if I was, I'd factor in a whole lot more sources, providing a variety of viewpoints with a variety of test methodologies ("real world" tests, scientific/objective tests, etc.), including testing out the lenses myself, before actually making a decision.


----------



## jrista (Jun 26, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



You do realize I was projecting...predicting that the RUMORED *EF 35mm f/1.4 L II*, would probably be better than the Sigma...right? I know that the old 35mm f/1.4 L has its issues, I stated as much myself. However its CA in the corners does not change the fact that for over a decade, Canon's EF 35mm f/1.4 L has long been a highly regarded lens. I also clearly stated that Canon had no reason to redesign the lens until the last few years, as their lens, even with the CA in the corners, was still better than the competitions. It is no surprise that Canon is replacing it now, and it is also no surprise that it is taking a little while...they still have to spend the time and money designing a new lens that will be competitive, work out the kinks, field test it, and manufacture a boatload so that when it finally hits the shelves...its really ready to go for the masses.


----------



## Zv (Jun 26, 2013)

Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion. 

:


----------



## J.R. (Jun 26, 2013)

Zv said:


> Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.
> 
> :



+1 ... well spotted! ;D


----------



## jrista (Jun 26, 2013)

Zv said:


> Trying to remember the last time I visited a thread that didn't end in jrista and angkorwatt have a difference of opinion.
> 
> :



LOL

Well, if the guy would actually READ what I WRITE, then I wouldn't have to correct him all the time. These days, I generally try to keep my interactions with him to a minimum, or ignore him completely.


----------



## jrista (Jun 26, 2013)

melbournite said:


> Too late! Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.



Just out of curiosity, how does the build quality feel? Is it a solid build like a Canon lens? How does the focus ring feel? (Just interested in knowing how a modern Sigma lens compares in the less-talked-about aspects of lenses...)


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2013)

jrista said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > Too late! Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.
> ...



I hate everything that's not Canon and I felt the Siggy 35 was VERY well built, beautiful focusing ring and a bing chunky heavy lens that feels as it will take pretty much any abuse except for water .

I almost felt it was a bit too heavy for a 35 though.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 26, 2013)

I agree with Neuro. The only non-Canon L-series lens I own is the Sigma 35/1.4 (I have 9 L-series, from 14mm - 600mm). I have not tested them all, but I have read enough tests to be fairly persistent. But the Sigma 33/1.4 can stand up to any of the competitors, regardless of price. I truly hope they will produce other focal lengths with the same quality. That will put pressure on the likes of Canon, Nikon and Zeiss. 

I just saw an add today, where the Sigma sells for just over 1/3 of the price of the current Canon L. So if Canon releases a 35 vII, I think we are in for a treat. Sharpness, vignetting (the only weak point of the Sigma), CA etc. will most likely be stunning. Build quality will be great (but so is the Sigma), whereas IS is not something I will miss, but handy if it is there. f1.2 would be cool tough. But having seen Canon´s price policy over the last years, it is very easy to predict that it will be (very) expensive.


----------



## roadrunner (Jun 26, 2013)

jrista said:


> melbournite said:
> 
> 
> > Too late! Look what I bought today... my first non Canon.
> ...



Like Viggo already stated, the build quality is awesome. This is also my first Sigma lens, as I try my hardest to buy all Canon, but I couldn't pass this thing up. The build quality is certainly on par with my collection of L lenses. It seems built like a tank, awesome smooth focus ring, the lens hood snaps into place very satisfyingly (Weird thing to say, I know, you just have to feel it to understand). I love everything about this lens.

The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance. My first copy misfocused so bad, not even AFMA could fix it, so I sent it back and I am in love with my second copy. It is unfortunate that you may have to buy multiple copies, but I would still recommend doing so, because the lens is that good. If they would have just put a 50 cent rubber gasket on the base of the darn thing, it would be perfect.

Seriously everyone that has ever made camera lenses: Shell out the 50 cents and make this weather sealing a standard lens feature.


----------



## tnargs (Jun 27, 2013)

roadrunner said:


> The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance.



That's code for quality control. :-\


----------



## roadrunner (Jun 27, 2013)

tnargs said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance.
> ...



I'm not sure what you are getting at. That was exactly my point, just worded differently. To be fair, the variance only seems to be in AF adjustment, so their quality control is only bad in that one area. I readily admit that. Still, the hassle was worth it for me.


----------



## tron (Jun 28, 2013)

How many years is there a CR1 about a new: 35mm 1.4L and 100-400L :

OK, it's a rumors site but still...


----------



## J.R. (Jun 28, 2013)

tron said:


> How many years is there a CR1 about a new: 35mm 1.4L



Too bad it there isn't even a CR1 rumor about a new 35mm 1.2L


----------



## Pi (Jun 29, 2013)

tnargs said:


> roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing it is lacking is weather sealing and copy variance.
> ...



It might be a poor design as well, too sensitive to manufacturing tolerances.


----------

