# cannon 35mm 1.4L now or wait for 35 f/1.4L II?



## scottb (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm wondering if anyone can help me decide if I should go ahead and pull the trigger on the 1.4L or wait for the 1.4L II that is supposedly coming out later this year. 

I'm taking a 2 week trip to Alaska in June and was hoping to buy the lens before this trip but with this new announcement I'm wondering if I should wait on it or perhaps pick up a different lens (or just use what I have now and wait altogether)

I have a 5D MarkIII on pre-order which will be my first DSLR. My current lenses are the canon 24mm 2.4 which I use almost all of the time and the canon 28-135 which I hardly ever used because I really prefer using primes. I mostly take low light/indoor shots along with some everyday street shots. On vacations I will do landscapes/portraits so for the most part the 24mm has served me very well for all of these purposes. I have for a long time wanted to upgrade to some L glass and I almost pulled the trigger on the 24mm 1.4L (in the early 00's) but then everything went to digital and I didn't feel like investing any money at the time.

From everything I've read the 35mm 1.4L is a good lens (and better than the 24 1.4L which is why I decided to pass on that) so would it be worth it to go ahead and purchase it now if it probably is going to drop in price when the 1.4II comes out? Or should I not even bother and just wait for the new lens? Or maybe get something different all together. 

Again I'm pretty partial to wide angle primes, so it'd be hard for me to go with a zoom. I might consider the 50mm but then I probably would pick up the 1.8 or 1.4 of those since they're so cheap (and well liked)

Anyhow any advice is welcome. Thanks.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 7, 2012)

I have the current version. Apart from some softness at f1.4 it is an excellent lens. Really sharp all the way down to f2. 

Also keep in mind the new version may fetch well over $2k. You might be able to get a good deal on the current version. Of course, if you prefer to wait but need something now for a particular trip, you could always rent out the current one and then get the new one once it's out.


----------



## payluder (Mar 7, 2012)

I had the version one and loved it for the sharp photo down to f2 but in the end I returned it because this lens doesnt have weather seal. For an L lens I expect it to have some kind of weather seal to complete the weather seal on 5d mk II so I end up returning it. Will be waiting for the Mk II version hopefully this year. For now I will have to do with the 24-105L.


----------



## jwong (Mar 7, 2012)

Picked up the 35L earlier in the year for about 1250, and I won't regret it when the 35L II comes out. The 35L is sharper than the 24L II and the 50 f/1.4. The 35L has less light fall off than the 24L II and it has better AF than the 50 f/1.4. It has replaced my 17-55 f/2.8 as my go to lens for indoor use, and I almost use it exclusively at f/1.4. It can be sharper -- the new Zeiss is according to TPP but is MF -- but it's plenty good right now.

Based on Canon's recent history, the 35L II will cost much more than the current version, so unless you're willing to fork over 2k+, version I might be a good option. You could always rent the 35L for your trip to AK and see how you like it.


----------



## photogaz (Mar 7, 2012)

I went for the version 1 in the end as I was in the same dilemma. I really don't regret it as mine is sharp at f1.4. The only thing that could be improved is the CA at f1.4 and f1.6.

Regarding the weather sealing, If I'm right no lens shorter than 200mm has weather sealing.


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 8, 2012)

The 35L is an excellent lens... I enjoyed it when I had it.

And yes, keep in mind if the 35L II comes out and shares the 60%+ price increase like all the other lenses, it will be $2200-2400.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Mar 8, 2012)

Buy it now. Great lens and no real faults. MKII will just have a bigger price tag. No guarantee it will actually come out anyway - only a rumor. The 5D3 was also rumoured to come out last year - we all know that didn't happen!

Go take great photographs!


----------



## JoeDavid (Mar 8, 2012)

It may end up being the bargin that you missed if you decide to wait. I have one and can't image that they'll improve the optical quality much. I'm sure they'll add their latest micro-coatings to the elements (plus their incredible price increase!) and bring the weathersealing up to the current level of the other L glass introduced recently but it's still a well built, sharp lens "as is".


----------



## dirtcastle (Mar 8, 2012)

I will wait for the new one to come out, even if it takes a few years. Either I will get the Mark II or I might even get a Mark I if the used price drops to the point where there is no risk in buying it. The reason I'm willing to wait is that this will likely be my default lens, I want the best possible performance at f/1.4 (low CA would be a big plus), and I'm already covered in this range with an f/2.8 lens. The price tag will surely be severe, but I would keep the lens forever, no doubt.


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 8, 2012)

When in doubt over buying the "current" version of a body/lens/gadget versus waiting for a yet to be announced replacement, please be sure to check out the (un)Official Canon Rumors FAQ:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2783.0/topicseen.html ;D

Good lenses hold their value and, in _some_ cases (especially for good/popular lenses), even go up after they have been discontinued. (This usually occurs because the replacement costs _so_ much more than the original lens that individuals are willing to pay more than what the old one cost when it was new. Being a "collectors" item also drives up the cost.) So don't be worried about buying the "old" one, if you have to.

That being said, you state that you won't "need" it until your trip in June, so you can afford to wait for at least a month. Expect at least 2 months between announcement and availability, however.

My best advice is find a camera shop where you can compare the two. You stated you already like the 24mm focal length, so getting the 24mm f/1.4L Mark II isn't a bad choice.

*Also, there are instant rebates on both the 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 II, but they end on March 31st!*

Good luck, have fun in Alaska and bring back some pics to share! 



photogaz said:


> Regarding the weather sealing, If I'm right no lens shorter than 200mm has weather sealing.


I believe some sub-200mm "L" lenses, such as the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, are "sealed," but _only_ if they have a filter on the front.

From the 16-35mm f/2.8L II manual:

*Since the front element of this lens moves when zooming, you need to attach a Canon PROTECT filter sold separately for adequate dust-and water-resistant performance. Without a filter, the lens is not dust or water resistant.*

(I think a good UV filter will suffice.)

The manual for the 24mm f/1.4L II simply states: 

*Tight seal structure ensure excellent dust-proof and drip-proof performance.*

Not exactly what I would call "weather resistant," but it's got to be better than the 50mm f/1.4!


----------



## chengpenguin (Mar 8, 2012)

I have the 35L currently and it is razor sharp at f/1.4, full frame. The only thing I think Mark II can improve on is the weather sealing.


----------



## scottb (Mar 8, 2012)

Thank you all for the replies so far. Since weather sealing was brought up (and filters for that matter) I have another question. Is this lens be fine for use in moist conditions? I'm thinking light rain or the splashes from boats/paddles. The parts of Alaska I'm going to be in (Kenai peninsula) is a temperate rainforest so the odds of me being out in some sort of rain are likely and I'm chartering a boat to go fishing and going out in a kayak. I dunno how ballsy I will get about taking the camera out on the kayak (or at least leaving it in a dry bag until on shore) but definitely on the boat and possibly in some light rain. How does the weather sealing in the lenses that have it work exactly?

And is it common practice to put a simple UV filter on a L lens to protect it, or is that like taking the engine out of a Ferrari and replacing it with a civic just in case you get in a wreck?

If so, what are some decent filter brands? I think I have B+W filters on my cheaper lenses.


----------



## jwong (Mar 8, 2012)

I've taken the 17-55 which is less rugged than the 35L to Ketchikan, Alaska and it did all right. It rained the whole time there, but I kept the camera out of the elements by keeping it in the bag or under a jacket most of the time.

Taking the camera fishing might be OK, but I'd avoid the kayak unless your experienced. If you capsize, the equipment is ruined. It might be worth looking into a P&S with a "waterproof" housing for the kayak.

UV or skylight filters are a good idea. UV filters are easier to find, but there is no difference for a digital camera. A lot of people like using them to protect the front element, others prefer lens hoods. Good filters should not degrade IQ perceptibly -- B&W is a good brand and multicoat is preferable to single coat. I'd rather clean a filter rather than the expensive front element of a lens.


----------



## mjp (Mar 8, 2012)

You'll certainly be happy with this lens no matter which version you get. I have used this lens extensively for both street and travel photography and as a general walk around lens and love it. It's a great one for both full frame and crop, too. I only wish it was weather sealed - though this hasn't stopped me from using it in the rain, cold, extreme heat.


----------

