# EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2014)

```
<p>We’re told that that Canon will replace their 35mm f/1.4L following the announcement and shipping of the upcoming EF 11-24mm f/4L, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">which has been rumoured since August</a>. We’re told that an announcement date hasn’t been set, however the lens could appear as early as Q1 of 2015, or fall into the second quarter of next year.</p>
<p>This lens has been rumoured for replacement since the EF 24mm f/1.4L II was announced back in 2008. There <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/" target="_blank">have been a lot of patents for such a lens</a>, but nothing has come to fruition.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 14, 2014)

Nice


----------



## Etienne (Nov 14, 2014)

It's got to come some time. I have the 35 f/2 IS now, so unless this is irresistibly stellar, I'll probably pass. IS is just so handy for video. 

Please bring a 50 or 85 (f/1.4 or f/2) with IS soon! Yesterday would be nice


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2014)

Love my 35L. I'll likely preorder the 35L II when it comes out.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 14, 2014)

If comes out before June, I will get one. Otherwise will go for ART.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 14, 2014)

Don't need a 35 for my work. I'm holding out for a new 50mm lens. It may be a long wait! :'(

It's really strange to be in a situation where there is nothing I can justify buying in the Canon (or Sigma) lineup. I've been something of a fanboy for the last several years, but lately my disposable cash has been going elsewhere. At least there is LensRentals.com to keep me interested in trying out new gear and help me use up my extra $.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 14, 2014)

Maybe when they said, Year of the lens, they meant a twelve month period and not specifically 2014.

So what was the first big lens announced... and how many more months are left in the twelve months of the lens.... It just does roll off the tongue.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 14, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Maybe when they said, Year of the lens, they meant a twelve month period and not specifically 2014.
> 
> So what was the first big lens announced... and how many more months are left in the twelve months of the lens.... It just does roll off the tongue.



The 16-35 and 10-18 were both announced sometime in the middle of May, so I suppose they have until then to fit into a 12 month period. If the 35 pans out then the only thing missing is the supposed TS-E updates.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 14, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe when they said, Year of the lens, they meant a twelve month period and not specifically 2014.
> ...



They could squeeze out a new 50/1.4(1.8) IS USM while at it


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2014)

I very much fell out of love with the 35 f1.4L when digital got to >20MP on the 135 format, the CA just bothered me too much, on film and early digital it just didn't seem to show up as much, I have long considered getting the 35mm f2 IS and was going to look for seasonal deals, this now means I'll wait even longer and see what falls out of the tree regarding an L MkII. 

Ah choices choices. When the 1Dx MkII comes along, if it suits my use, I'll put much less emphasis on a stop of aperture over the size, weight and IS of the smaller though very capable primes. It seems I have already talked myself into a 1Dx MkII and 35 f2 IS!


----------



## lintoni (Nov 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I very much fell out of love with the 35 f1.4L when digital got to >20MP on the 135 format, the CA just bothered me too much, on film and early digital it just didn't seem to show up as much, I have long considered getting the 35mm f2 IS and was going to look for seasonal deals, this now means I'll wait even longer and see what falls out of the tree regarding an L MkII.
> 
> Ah choices choices. When the 1Dx MkII comes along, if it suits my use, I'll put much less emphasis on a stop of aperture over the size, weight and IS of the smaller though very capable primes.* It seems I have already talked myself into a 1Dx MkII and 35 f2 IS!*


Worse things happen at sea...


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> The 16-35 and 10-18 were both announced sometime in the middle of May, so I suppose they have until then to fit into a 12 month period. If the 35 pans out then the only thing missing is the supposed TS-E updates.



Goodness, no. You forgot one of the great bread and butter gripes of this forum.

The EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM to replace the ancient EF 50mm f/1.4 fake-USM would also go in the "things missing" bucket. I want a sharp-in-the-corners 50mm lens with quick autofocusing and a size less than a pickle jar, _and that new lens will be it_. 

- A


----------



## sb in ak (Nov 14, 2014)

Hopefully the presence of the Sigma will keep things lower to $1k than $2k. I like the rendering quality of the 35L but it would be good to see something with some weather sealing and less CA. 

Hopefully Canon doesn't take the route of a sharp but sterile rendering lens instead of something with some character. 

To be honest, I'd rather see an update to the 50 1.4.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 14, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Maybe when they said, Year of the lens, they meant a twelve month period and not specifically 2014.
> 
> So what was the first big lens announced... and how many more months are left in the twelve months of the lens.... It just does roll off the tongue.



Really, it has been a pretty good year....with 1.5 months to go:

EFS 10-18
EF 16-35 f/4 IS
EF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6
EFS 24 f/2.8
EF 100-400L II
EF 400 f/4 DO II
EFM 55-200

Did I miss any? Best year in awhile for lens releases. Granted, I have yet to buy one, but 2-3 are under consideration.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 and 10-18 were both announced sometime in the middle of May, so I suppose they have until then to fit into a 12 month period. If the 35 pans out then the only thing missing is the supposed TS-E updates.
> ...


I think raptor3x was referring to Canon Rumors' original post re 'Year Of The Lens‘:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18167.0


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2014)

lintoni said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I very much fell out of love with the 35 f1.4L when digital got to >20MP on the 135 format, the CA just bothered me too much, on film and early digital it just didn't seem to show up as much, I have long considered getting the 35mm f2 IS and was going to look for seasonal deals, this now means I'll wait even longer and see what falls out of the tree regarding an L MkII.
> ...



Oh I know, I sailed the Caribbean and Andaman Seas, along with the Gulf of Thailand and Mallacca Straights for ten years.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

As far as the announcement itself, of Sigma's Art lenses for Canon...

35 f/1.4 
50 f/1.4 
18-35 f/1.8 (EF-S mount only)
24-105 f/4 IS
30 f/1.4 (EF-S mount only)

...three were _showered_ with accolades (the first three) and one was very well-received (the 24-105). As for the fifth lens, I haven't read enough about the crop 30mm to see how people thought it landed. 

But in particular, the 35 and 50 Art really shook things up. They are spectacularly sharp, a phenomenal value, and they represented a major course correction for Sigma's quality reputation. But sharpness is not everything in a lens, and I am very careful to not make a blanket statement that the 35 Art and 50 Art are categorically better than their L counterparts -- _but I think that many people actually do believe that._ 

In fairness, Sigma was trying to outperform some older Canon L designs at those two focal lengths. So that's why this 35L II is such a big deal. 

This is Canon's first 'response' (if you want to call it that) to Sigma's Art line. I know Canon doesn't actually respond to its competitors and this lens was going to happen anyway, but it will be fascinating to see what sort of price to performance value proposition the 35L II will be.

- A


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 14, 2014)

lintoni said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



You got it.


----------



## TeT (Nov 14, 2014)

Come to Papa...

Ouch expensive month, buying both of em... Ouch.


----------



## TeT (Nov 14, 2014)

guess I gotta sell/unload my existing 35L before the bottom falls out... (bottom falling out meaning a $150 down swing at most)


----------



## dolina (Nov 14, 2014)

Since the 40mm pancake came out I had very little incentive to wanting/waiting for the 35/1.4 II.

Not that it should discourage anyone for waiting another 6 years or so for it. ;D

Now, a 135/1.8 with IS is mighty interesting to me.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

And the second important bit about this: the last non-suptertele L prime Canon released was... the 100L and tilt-shifts in 2009, right?

So this is the first non-white L prime in a long time, and it's replacing one of the vital ones that defined what L lenses could do. Interesting questions come from this:


Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now... Any chance they'd put IS on this? Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size? It may not _need to be_ for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible? 
Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens? Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?

Or should I stop looking at it as a harbinger of future-L-things-to-come and just think of it as an update/refresh at one focal length?

- A


----------



## Good24 (Nov 14, 2014)

I hope it's true re: the 34mm L II. Not sure if I'd get one right away but one thing is true - I won't buy the current 35mm L precisely because I expect it to be updated soon. And this is a problem I'm sure Canon understand. When a lens is rumored to have an update coming soon, people are going to hold off.

And I echo the desire for a new non-L 50 and 85 (and maybe even 100 and/or 135) in the model of the 24/28/35 non-Ls with IS. Again here, I'm loosely interested in a 50 (that is more affordable than the L) but there's no way I'll buy the current 1.4, with an update certainly coming soon.

And another thing: while different shooters have different priorities for new lens, I think the frustration with a lack of a new non-L 50 is that it's such a basic focal length with widespread appeal. The percent of DSLR shooters who want a 50 is way up there. Too many of the "year of the lens" lenses seem to be specialty lenses like the 400 DO. If you simply count the number of lenses released recently, yes, it's a good number. But I feel like recent lenses have more limited appeal. 

So if Canon will update the 35L, and the non-L 50, 85, and 100 - then I will truly shut up. Those are my personal priorities, lenses I see myself buying in the near future.


----------



## TeT (Nov 14, 2014)

Good24 said:


> .... I won't buy the current 35mm L precisely because I expect it to be updated soon....



No No buy my 35L's dont wait....


----------



## sb in ak (Nov 14, 2014)

It's been a good year for the high performance 50s but not for the lower end stuff. The 50 1.8 is fine--an IS version might be nice-- but the lens is fast, cheap and sharp enough. The 50 1.4 is the current weak link. The 50 1.2 is even fine. It's really supposed to be a portrait lens, and its rendering quality is really nice for that. It doesn't need to be knife sharp. For the folks that want that, there is the Sigma or Zeiss. Give me a nice update to the 50 1.4 that's not in a huge package. I don't want a solid 50 that's as big as a zoom.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

Good24 said:


> Too many of the "year of the lens" lenses seem to be specialty lenses like the 400 DO. If you simply count the number of lenses released recently, yes, it's a good number. But I feel like recent lenses have more limited appeal.



True in some cases, but debatable in others. FF landscapers were screaming for a sharper UWA zoom for some time, so I think the 16-35 F/4L IS addressed a big need (even if it lacked f/2.8 for the event photogs). It's a nice improvement over its predecessors.

I also think that a value-oriented FF standard zoom was needed, and the 24-105 non-L f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens fits that bill (presumably it will be a nice improvement over the venerable 1998 EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens).



Good24 said:


> So if Canon will update the 35L, and the non-L 50, 85, and 100 - then I will truly shut up. Those are my personal priorities, lenses I see myself buying in the near future.



+500 on the non-L 50mm. I love my tiny 28 f/2.8 IS USM and would love a 50mm version with a larger aperture. I just shot last night with my semi-trusty jalopy of 50mm f/1.4 and it laid an egg at nailing focus on a portrait with a fairly forgiving f/2.8 aperture (and that was using an off-center point and deliberately not reframing after focusing). I need that new 50 for AF reliability if nothing else.

The 85 f/1.8 needs the refresh as well, but that lens has its fans -- it makes more people happy today than the 50 f/1.4 does. 

Interesting you bring up the 100 (non-L) f/2 -- it's probably the 2nd-_least_ discussed lens in this forum behind the 200 f/2.8L. I had almost forgotten about it. If it is to get the non-L IS treatment, good money would be on it happening with the 85 as I recall the current 85 and 100 share a good number of components.

- A


----------



## tphillips63 (Nov 14, 2014)

I really like the 35mm f/1.4L but will for sure get the new II when it is available as long as it is as good as I imagine it will be.
The good thing is, the people that get the older versions at a good deal will benefit too!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

sb in ak said:


> It's been a good year for the high performance 50s but not for the lower end stuff. The 50 1.8 is fine--an IS version might be nice-- but the lens is fast, cheap and sharp enough. The 50 1.4 is the current weak link. The 50 1.2 is even fine. It's really supposed to be a portrait lens, and its rendering quality is really nice for that. It doesn't need to be knife sharp. For the folks that want that, there is the Sigma or Zeiss. Give me a nice update to the 50 1.4 that's not in a huge package. I don't want a solid 50 that's as big as a zoom.



Excellent comments. Agree wholeheartedly. 

The list of people who would want this new 50 f/? IS is pretty long:


People prefer sharpness over draw. Heck, _even the ancient EF 50/1.4_ has sharper corners over the 50 1.2L -- imagine what a newer design will be able to do.
People who prefer smaller primes, both in weight and size
People who need IS for hand-held low-light or video work
People who want modern, super-reliable USM focusing performance

The list of niggling little wants on the non-L 50 -- if addressed -- add up to a lens many people will want. Canon just needs to deliver it to us. Then we'd have a 50 for beginners learning about primes, a 50 for pros who want that magic wow pop factor, and the 50 that does eeeeeeeverything else. 

- A


----------



## josephandrews222 (Nov 14, 2014)

For my needs image stabilization is essential. I have had nice results with the newish 35mm f2 IS paired with a 5DMkIII. The image below was hand-held with exposure time of a quarter-second, I think. I would have to think long and hard about getting an additional stop if there was no IS.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 14, 2014)

Nice shot Joseph, Animal Kingdom if I am not mistaken.


----------



## jebrady03 (Nov 14, 2014)

Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 14, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!



That's the question isn't it? 

I am stunned the 35L is still being offered at $1,479 (before rebate) at B&H right now, which represents a 65% premium over a lens of the same max aperture that beats it from a resolution perspective (and handily so on the wide open end).

I recognize there is far more to a lens than it's sharpness and max aperture, but the disparity in price between the L and the Art would imply there is something important missing from the Art lens (other than the red ring), like reliable AF, great color, control of flare / distortion / chromatic effects, etc. I haven't tortured those reviews -- has that been the case?

If not, Canon's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat to ask for $1500-2000 for the 35L II.

- A


----------



## josephandrews222 (Nov 14, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Nice shot Joseph, Animal Kingdom if I am not mistaken.


Correct! Shot taken from the balcony of our room at Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge.


----------



## bereninga (Nov 14, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!
> ...



I totally agree w/ this. I have no idea how they will price this new lens w/ the Sigma 35 1.4 Art out there. Sigma truly creates disruptive innovations that Canon has yet to answer.


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 14, 2014)

My 35L is so close to perfect that I've always struggled to understand what else people would want. It's only fault is too much ghosting when shooting fireworks. When I use it for events and people and such, I don't even give sharpness a thought. I shoot it at f/1.4-f/2 and it's so sharp where the subjects are (i.e. not at the corners) that sharpness just doesn't matter.

That said, I'm thinking of selling it, but not because of any faults. I seriously doubt I'd be in the market for a version II even if I did sell it, and I definitely am not interested in a 35ART from Sigma.


----------



## Ruined (Nov 14, 2014)

Hope this actually comes out and fixes the 35L's bokeh weaknesses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2014)

My 35mmL was impressively sharp, but the 24-70mm L MK II relegated it to staying in my bag, so I finally sold it.

I'm going to be selling a few more seldom used lenses soon, I seem to be changing the equipment I use most.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 14, 2014)

This is a must have for my kit, really looking forward to an updated model


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 14, 2014)

What about the 50 1.4???? THat is the one that is broken (literally). I'm surprised Canon doesn't have a class action against them on that lens yet. They have known about a fundamental design flaw with the AF system for like two decades now.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 14, 2014)

I'm curious, if this turns out to be bigger than a Zeiss Otus, would that put people off buying the updated lens?


----------



## bobby samat (Nov 14, 2014)

lintoni said:


> I'm curious, if this turns out to be bigger than a Zeiss Otus, would that put people off buying the updated lens?



i dont mind heavy glass


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 14, 2014)

I am completely satisfied by the 35IS at this focal length. Beyond being sharp and having IS, there is one other HUGE quality - it is the most accurately focusing lens that I have used to date (and I have owned or reviewed something like 50+ lenses over the past few years). It never misses. I am currently reviewing the ART 50mm right now, and it is an excellent lens, but the focus accuracy of the 35IS is head and shoulders above it.

I agree with those who are looking for a 50mm equivalent of the 35IS. I'm not interested in my prime lenses being so big. I often carry them to compliment zooms, and the Sigma 50 ART (although a very tempting lens) is actually longer and heavier than the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8.

I've got the Otus 85mm in hand for review right now - talk about a BIG, heavy prime! Wow.


----------



## preppyak (Nov 15, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!


Actually, Canon has been releasing the updated lenses and cameras at essentially the same retail price as their predecessor. So, the new 100-400 was within $100 of the retail price of the old 100-400 at its initial release. Likewise for the 7DII and a few others. I cant find what the retail price for the 35L was on release, but, I'd bet it'd be within 10% of what that was.

Probably $1799 if it doesnt have IS


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 15, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I am completely satisfied by the 35IS at this focal length. Beyond being sharp and having IS, there is one other HUGE quality - it is the most accurately focusing lens that I have used to date (and I have owned or reviewed something like 50+ lenses over the past few years). It never misses. I am currently reviewing the ART 50mm right now, and it is an excellent lens, but the focus accuracy of the 35IS is head and shoulders above it.
> 
> I agree with those who are looking for a 50mm equivalent of the 35IS. I'm not interested in my prime lenses being so big. I often carry them to compliment zooms, and the Sigma 50 ART (although a very tempting lens) is actually longer and heavier than the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8.



+1

I was about to pull the trigger on the 35 IS earlier this year (due in no small part to Dustin's excellent review), but I got 100-400 II fever, and so held off. Now I'm glad I did! (I try to restrict my G.A.S. to two lenses per year max, and I got the 70-200 II in July.)

But on the 50mm front, I would buy a 50 f/1.x non-L IS as soon as a reputable review reported it to be as good as the 35 IS, and finally retire my super-sharp but buzzy and IS-lacking 50/2.5CM.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

lintoni said:


> I'm curious, if this turns out to be bigger than a Zeiss Otus, would that put people off buying the updated lens?



Of late, pickle jar primes have sold just fine. Both the EF mount Art primes are large and heavy and few seem to mind. Heck, that 50 Art is effectively the mass of a 24-70 zoom.

I'm in the minority in that I'd gladly give up a stop to reduce the size, especially if IS is on offer. I wouldn't even mind if the new 50 IS was f/2. But keep in mind, this is coming from a guy with the 28 f/2.8 IS and the 24-70 f/4L IS and_ I love them both_. My sensibilities are clearly not normal.

Further, small size is as important as weight to me. When I'm shooting casually with friends and family, the pickle jar lenses and red rings and lens hoods don't make it into my bag. I pack the 28 2.8 IS and the 50 1.4 and call it good. Unassuming looking gear is useful for candids and street, of course.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I am completely satisfied by the 35IS at this focal length. Beyond being sharp and having IS, there is one other HUGE quality - it is the most accurately focusing lens that I have used to date (and I have owned or reviewed something like 50+ lenses over the past few years). It never misses. I am currently reviewing the ART 50mm right now, and it is an excellent lens, but the focus accuracy of the 35IS is head and shoulders above it.



+1. My 28 2.8 IS _just doesn't make mistakes _with focusing.

That's why I want that 24/28/35 non-L IS lens at the 50 focal length. It would probably be in the 35 f/2 IS shape and size (based on the past 'groupings' of non-L lenses: 24/28, 35/50, 85/100, etc.), and I would pre-order on day one.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

preppyak said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!
> ...



I hope you are right. But as I stated before, we haven't seen an new non-supertele L prime in 5 years. Canon may have been using all this time to unleash a real corker of a lens on us. This could be the super duper future glass for the high MP bodies, it could have IS, or the next DPAF / anti-flicker / batsh-- left field innovation no one was beating the drums for. If that happens, matching the old price isn't going to happen.

- A


----------



## Andrewccm (Nov 15, 2014)

preppyak said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone get your credit cards ready for a $2,000 hit! Regardless of how good this lens is, it's about to make the Sigma look like a steal!
> ...



I don't know that I agree about that. My 35L was purchased for $1100. While things may not be doubling, they certainly went through a trend of being priced much higher than previous versions. 70-200L IS, the 24-70L and 300f2.8 L IS are examples. I bought my 300 from B&H on sale for less than $3700. The new version II came out and it was $7200+. It has since gone down a bit, but all of these lenses are significantly higher than their predecessors. 

Fwiw. 

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media


----------



## ggweci (Nov 15, 2014)

Seems like everyone is more interested in the potential 50mm 1.x w/ IS than the 35mm 1.4 II that this thread is supposed to be about. ;D

But, I'm guilty of that too. I've been patiently waiting for one to add to pair with my 6D. Current options don't do it for me:

1.8mm - cheap build, noisy focus
1.4mm - weak AF system, soft wide-open
1.2mm - would love this lens, just too pricey

A 50mm 1.4 IS the built just like the 35mm f2 IS would be perfect. Sharp wide open and quick, accurate AF. I would think it could be about the same size as well. 



ahsanford said:


> That's why I want that 24/28/35 non-L IS lens at the 50 focal length. It would probably be in the 35 f/2 IS shape and size (based on the past 'groupings' of non-L lenses: 24/28, 35/50, 85/100, etc.), and I would pre-order on day one.



Agreed 100%. And I'd be right behind you on the pre-order


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Nov 15, 2014)

YES YES YES YES YES!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 15, 2014)

I will pre-order it.

One of three missing lenses in my kit.


----------



## sanj (Nov 15, 2014)

Am confused. I wonder if it will be of more use than my 35 f2 IS. 1.4 and better IQ will be tempting but perhaps the IS will tilt my decision in favor or the 35f2. 
I feel the IQ of the new lens will be almost the same as my other 35: Zeiss 1.4 but the manual focus of the Zeiss will be more useful when shooting video. 
Confused….


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 15, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I will pre-order it.
> 
> One of three missing lenses in my kit.



Only because I have very little shame...

Is your name pronounced Dih-lan or Die-lan... because in my mind I've been using the latter for the past few years... and I feel a little racist when I think maybe I'm just adding the odd pronunciation because I know you are of asian decent.


----------



## Zv (Nov 15, 2014)

docsmith said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe when they said, Year of the lens, they meant a twelve month period and not specifically 2014.
> ...



If you count the video lens releases there is also -

Canon CINE-SERVO 17-120mm T2.95 zoom lens (April) 
Canon CINE-SERVO 50-1000mm T5.0 - 8.9 Ultra telephoto zoom lens (October) 

Which makes 9 so far plus two rumored for release soon. If they announce either of those before Dec 31st I will count that as 10 and it will most definitely qualify it as year of the lens!


----------



## lexptr (Nov 15, 2014)

Good news (rumors). What they need to have success:
1) About equal (or better) IQ to sigma's 35mm Art (on average)
2) Weather sealing (something sigma doesn't offer)
3) Less than crazy price tag =)
I hope canon won't fail short. Sigma becomes a very good competitor and it eventually pushes canon in right direction =)


----------



## Eldar (Nov 15, 2014)

If IQ equals the Zeiss, it has proper weather sealing and good AF : I know I´ll be tempted despite how happy I am with the Zeiss.


----------



## infared (Nov 15, 2014)

Canon is mostly missing my boat (as there is an Ocean theme running through some of the thread! 8) <polarized shades for water glare).....
I bought Sigma 35mm and 50mm Art lenses. After some adjustment (and the 1st 50mm being return and exchanged for a "good" copy :-[)....I am thrilled with the image quality. Thrilled!!!! I also like the Sigma Dock, although I feel like I am doing someone else's work for them, it does allow me to fine tune the lens in 4 focus zones and see what is going on with my personal copy. So...I would rather have that, than not.
The only lens from Canon that made sense to me in "The Year of the Lens" was the 16-35mm f/4L IS. That hit the perfect note for me with IQ, WA range, and MOST importantly cost. I can live with the f/4 and IS...enough so that I was able to sell my 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and my Zeiss 21mm and almost pay for the new Canon wide angle zoom AND the Art Series Primes.
I will say the new Canon's are hitting the note with IQ...but ever since the Tsunami the prices have just been painful for me. I did get a copy of the 24-70 f/2.8L II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and while totally destroying my piggy bank..they do make me smile and say "WOW"  every time I use them! 
A $3000 11-24mm is just something that I see no need for most the images I make.... I have the 16-35mm and a 17mm TSE and if I go wider, I go all the way baby... to my vintage Canon fisheye. After 16mm the distortion and the cost is out of my visual needs..although I know that some will jump all over an 11-24mm for their style of shooting. 
Also ...I am going to that a guess the the 35mm f/1.4 will be in the range of $2000 and for me ..the only thing I would be getting is a $1200 little rubber "O" ring to keep out moisture...so I will just keep shooting with the Sigma.
I know everyone has a different take on what they buy and use...and why...That is just my take on the situation.
Also...I think that the 5DIII sensor is more than I need... I know that the Sony's are "better"...but their "system" isn't....and while it definitely has some nice assets...there are not enough to make me change systems.
What I see in my future (nearer..than farther) is selling off my entire FF kit..and just using my ever-improving MFT kit. I can fit 10 lenses in a small bag (by FF standards) and get image quality that is good enough for 80% of my needs right now.... I think the next couple of generations of MFT sensors there will put it over the top for me... and the lens range is REALLY filling out nicely. It gets better every month..not every year because a LOT of quality manufacturers are making glass for the system.
I can see the eyes rolling : ..but I get killer results with a tiny kit when using the best lenses.
I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!

(oh..just thought I would ad that the new 100-400mm looks like a killer lens at a "pretty" good price...I guess that will drop somewhat after release as usual making it a reasonable mix of quality vs. cost).


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 15, 2014)

infared said:


> ...
> I am turning 60 yrs. in 5 days...and although I still going strong (I put 8 widows in a house this week!) ... I am just going to have to let the beast go!!!! Times (and gear) are a-changin..... LOL!!!!


Congratulations a few days ahead of time! Both to the 60th birthday and to have managed to do whatever it is that you did to those widows. I'm impressed! 

May the light be with you, and your shutter finger steady!


----------



## infared (Nov 15, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thanks! 4 of them were on the second floor and one was a DOOOOOZEY to get to for the install!!! 
I am planning on going to the new Fulton Center in Manhattan early tomorrow morning to just take some images. The architecture looks unbelievable. I am traveling from Jersey car>train>train and a lot of walking..so ..alas..my FF kit will be sitting at home....AGAIN!!! It is supposed to be my day off. LOL!


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 15, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I will pre-order it.
> ...



Call me whatever you want JD, except "late for dinner" ;D

Just in case: http://www.babynamesofireland.com/dylan


----------



## tron (Nov 15, 2014)

infared said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...


Ehhhmmmm, 8 widows      or may be ... 8 windows? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Zv (Nov 15, 2014)

infared said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



That's how I felt on my last holiday - it felt like work and that was just with two lenses. The EOS M came to my rescue though so I totally get what you mean. 

Congrats on turning 60 soon! Hope you continue doing what you love for a long time!


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 15, 2014)

tron said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > DominoDude said:
> ...



Shhh! It's funnier this way.
Either way it's a feat to manage eight of them in a week - at any age. Typos can happen to any of us, and some turn out to be funny, easy to make and hard to spot.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And the second important bit about this: the last non-suptertele L prime Canon released was... the 100L and tilt-shifts in 2009, right?
> 
> So this is the first non-white L prime in a long time, and it's replacing one of the vital ones that defined what L lenses could do. Interesting questions come from this:
> 
> ...



Re: the 35L II

Other than a few folks responding about IS, my question largely went unanswered. I realize it's fairly wild speculation, but do you have any thoughts on the bullet points above? Thanks in advance.

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 15, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > And the second important bit about this: the last non-suptertele L prime Canon released was... the 100L and tilt-shifts in 2009, right?
> ...



No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 15, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now... Any chance they'd put IS on this? Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
> Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
> Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size? It may not _need to be_ for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible?
> Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens? Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?
> ...



[list type=decimal]
[*]None, not with the very well rated and liked 35mm f2 IS already out there.
[*]Probably engineering plastic, it works better, is more durable, lighter, easier to work etc etc. The 100 L is a fine lens, the 17 TS-E a recommissioned tank.
[*]There was always a prime and f2.8 zoom filter distinction (until the 82mm 16-35 MkII?), 72mm and 77mm, that the zooms have gone bigger doesn't necessitate the primes following
[*]No, none, it is possible but there is little reason and probably an even smaller market, besides, it would make it yet bigger and heavier and that seems to be against the current ideology, as does additional speed
[/list]


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.



I was always curious about that. I see many folks running the math on a minimum front element diameter necessary to be able to allow a certain max aperture, but I rarely see talk about _oversizing_ the front element for the job at hand.

Yet we've seen some 'Mk II' versions of lenses go +5mm bigger than their predecessors (e.g. 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8 ). So that only helps with vignetting?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now... Any chance they'd put IS on this? Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
> ...



Thanks for the reply. Agree across the board, save perhaps the lack of IS with the 35L II. I feel like Canon wants its L lenses to be the best tech and clearly better than the non-L lenses, so there's an argument for offering IS with this lens -- it kills off the possibility of folks having to choose between IS or f/1.4.

Plus, it would be a nice distinctive over the Art lenses and the Zeiss MF glass for (presumably better funded) videographers. It might help them keep the price up in that light.

But I could certainly see it going the other way.

- A


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 15, 2014)

The addition of IS would be a different line, so instead of being the 35L mkii, it would be the 35L is (mki).

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this... so I need to read the original post again.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 15, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> The addition of IS would be a different line, so instead of being the 35L mkii, it would be the 35L is (mki).
> 
> I'm pretty sure I'm right about this... so I need to read the original post again.



Totally forgot. You are correct. 

So if indeed it is a 35L mk II -- and Canon is consistent with its past naming schemes -- it won't have IS.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.
> ...



add the 70-300L to the list too.

(it does seem like the 70-300L maintains a wider open aperture higher up the focal range than the non-L or old 100-300L, it also has sharper edges on FF than those too)

oh and also add the 100L to the filter size went up list as well (this one seems to be able to retain more cross AF points than the older ones)


----------



## infared (Nov 15, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Ha Ha!!! It is funnier that way! I'm 60...my eyesight $ucks...Thank God for AF!
Hmmmm... I do work for some widows....hmmmmm LOL!
Hey...hey...I had a helper with the W-I-N-D-O-W-S..but I lead the charge! They are all set...I still have a lot of finish work to do this week....without the helper. ;D


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 15, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > No one would know anything, but I will point out that the current 35L has a filter thread of 72mm. I can't see them going to 82mm. It won't change the amount of light captured, it would just reduce vignetting in the corners.
> ...



And "cat's eye bokeh", yes.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 16, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens? Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?



I hane no idea about what Canon is gonna do, but a 35mm f/1.2 is technically possible. 
Have a loot at the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 for Leica M mount, which is quite small and currently in production for a reasonable amount of money (about one grand if i'm right).
Here it is, compared to a 50L :






Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2014)

RomainF said:


> Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.




The Leica M mount has a flange focal distance of less than 28mm, meaning a 35mm lens doesn't need to be a retrofocal lens design; that's not true of a 35mm lens for the EF mount.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RomainF said:
> 
> 
> > Voigtlander is actually selling a 35mm f/1.4, just as Canon, but in a different size…here is a picture to show you the difference in size…both of them are 35mm and f/1.4.
> ...


With a distance shorter flange saves a lot of glass in the manufacture of wide-angle lens. But in the digital age, it demanded an image sensor with microlens that become inclined to capture light rays near the corners.

Neuro, a question: ???
What do you think is more beneficial to image quality? :
1- short flange distance, and sensor with microlens sloping corners.
2- Distance flange Canon EF and retrofocus lens?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 17, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>We’re told that that Canon will replace their 35mm f/1.4L following the announcement and shipping of the upcoming EF 11-24mm f/4L, <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/08/canon-ef-11-24-f2-8l-coming-cr1/" target="_blank">which has been rumoured since August</a>. We’re told that an announcement date hasn’t been set, however the lens could appear as early as Q1 of 2015, or fall into the second quarter of next year.</p>
> <p>This lens has been rumoured for replacement since the EF 24mm f/1.4L II was announced back in 2008. There <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/" target="_blank">have been a lot of patents for such a lens</a>, but nothing has come to fruition.</p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>


I have the 35 f/2 IS now and it performs supperb, so unless this one has a stellar performance, I'll probably pass. I (personally) prefer the IS over 1-stop of light. f/2 is already bright enough for my applications.

In my wishlist is a 50mm (f/1.4 or f/2) with IS, in line with the 24mm,28mm and 35mm recent prosumer lenses. All perform very good but the 35mm f/2 IS is the best.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 17, 2014)

I am satisfied with my Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. The AF is ok, although I don't actually use AF much, I tend to use this lens for landscape or astrophotography, both suited to or requiring MF (and yes, I have a MF brain, having grown up with all-manual equipment). I have the 40mm f/2.8 STM for lightweight autofocusing lens. I am considering a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art as well sometime in the future. It's the old "convenience" (of a normal or WA zoom) vs weight and bokeliciousness (of multiple primes) dilemma.


----------



## Dean Martin (Nov 23, 2014)

Besisika said:


> If comes out before June, I will get one. Otherwise will go for ART.



I personally sold my 35L for the Art. The L was my absolute favourite lens, until I tried a friends Art. I assumed that he only brought because of its price but damn its brilliant. I think the only thing that would make me purchase the 35mm L II, would be if they added weather sealing. I doubt it'll be sharper than the Art. I suppose there is only so sharp a lens can get.... Maybe they will prove me wrong.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it being f/3.5, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an *L*-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: *L*, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it being f/3.5, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an *L*-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: *L*, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.



It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.


----------



## Zv (Nov 24, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is over-kill for me. I'd have preferred it *being f/3.5*, weather-sealed and possibly with IS ... unless the latter significantly increases the size. It being an *L*-grade lens goes without saying, but just for clarification: *L*, of course. Such a lens, with great optics, would be the ideal travel lens with a "full-frame" camera.
> ...



Why 35 f/3.5 when there is an 35 f/2 IS already in existence? The point of a prime lens is speed*. No use owning a f/3.5 prime L when there are f/2.8 L zooms kicking about. 

Edit - *exception TS 24mm f/3.5 L


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 24, 2014)

Zv said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



+1. 35 f/2 IS: great optics, affordable price. Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Viggo said:


> It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.



Size, or more specific, too much of it.



Zv said:


> The point of a prime lens is speed.



Wrong.



Random Orbits said:


> +1. 35 f/2 IS: great optics, affordable price. Buy a few bags for "weather sealing."



Not the same. Bags of what? Oh, a few bags full of those 35mm lenses ... disposable, then? Also, an f/3.5 can be even smaller, 'cause note I said "travel lens".


----------



## Lee Jay (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > The point of a prime lens is speed.
> ...



It is for me. Or for a focal length for which I can't get a zoom.

If it's not either faster than a zoom or of a special focal length, then I don't need it.

(Owner of four primes and three zooms).


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why bother? Just buy yourself a 40 f/2.8 and be done with it. The size can't be beat. yes, get a few bags/covers for the rain. Given the low price of the 40 f/2.8, I'm sure you can afford some if you're willing to pay L prices. Want IS, the 24 and 28 f/2.8 IS are small. The 35 f/2 is a bit fatter, but it's not a big lens.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > It's called 2470 f4 L IS or 17-40 or 16-35.
> ...



If the prime is not faster than the zoom, its existence is then quite redundant. By the way, slap a filter on the 35/2 IS and be done with it. What's to seal anyway? Internal focusing, constant length - there is not much room, where the dust/water could get inside anyway...


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 25, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



For me a prime is shallow depth of field with a corresponding large aperture... but then I was really fond of the 100L and that is only a f/2.8... so that isn't really a big aperture. But with a single focal length, image quality is generally better than a zoom counterpart at a comparable aperture... save for the 200L f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8L is mkii... but that doesn't happen often.


----------



## bsridev (Nov 25, 2014)

Hi Admin

Any new updates for Canon 35 f1.4 ii. Just curious 

Thanks


----------



## Dick (Nov 25, 2014)

Zv said:


> The point of a prime lens is speed.



What speed? If you think that DOF makes no difference, then yeah, there might be some additional speed. But if you use the same aperture on a zoom and on a prime (= same DOF), there is no additional speed.

It is not a solution to shoot everything wide open and thereby use a faster shutter speed. That kind of shooting will just get you a blurry set of photos. A few photos like that here and there are nice, but a full set with just 1 eye in focus is somewhat boring and annoying.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

bsridev said:


> Any new updates for Canon 35 f1.4 ii. Just curious



Please don't embarrass the site by asking if rumors became true after some time 



Lee Jay said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



For others, it's less weight/bulk for the same performance, better sharpness esp. wide open, better bokeh and some people simply like being forced to zoom with your feet.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> For others, it's less weight/bulk for the same performance, better sharpness esp. wide open, better bokeh and some people simply like being forced to zoom with your feet.



Thanks.


----------

