# Review - Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 7, 2016)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II here.


----------



## Maximilian (Jan 7, 2016)

Thanks again to Dustin and his great review work.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 7, 2016)

There's is so much more dimension to a review like Dustin provides here, over and above a technical comparison of spec sheets and so on.

Otus type quality with auto focus really allows me to understand the magnificence of this lens!

Great review Dustin and thanks to Canon for creating another legendary lens


----------



## bseitz234 (Jan 7, 2016)

this review made my wallet cry...


----------



## infared (Jan 7, 2016)

bseitz234 said:


> this review made my wallet cry...



LOL! It made my Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art cry, too. :'( (although it will have to make do, I do not have $1800 for a 35mm prime).
The new Canon is a sweet lens though. 
Nice job on the review as usual, Dustin! (BTW: your cat is a poser! LOL!).


----------



## mclaren777 (Jan 7, 2016)

Canon's new 35mm is so much better than my Sigma 35 – it's really quite remarkable.

It was definitely worth the cost of upgrading.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 7, 2016)

Dustin for president, *finally* an AF hit-rate study!
_
"I went through and counted 9 improperly focused shots from the Canon (out of 113), for a hit rate of around 92%. Most of these misses were with the subjects right on top of me and weren’t in situations where I would have expected to get good results. There were about 2-3 obvious misses where I would have expected accurate focus to be possible. This raises the keeper rate to better than 98% – very good under the circumstances I was shooting in.

The Sigma was another story altogether. I counted at least 15 missed focus shots, including almost all of those beyond 20 feet. My hit rate was highest when the subjects were in the range of 5-10 feet (the lens was calibrated at a six-foot distance). The keeper rate with the Sigma dropped to under 64%. If you intend to shoot events, sports, or photojournalism, the Canon proved the much more reliable option in this scenario…and that might be worth the premium price in and of itself."_

Nice work, sir. After having shot the 35 Art, I'll expand the blue passage (I highlighted it, not Dustin) to 'any photographic pursuit that requres accurate f/1.4 autofocus use.' I said it before and I'll say it again, the 35L II is worth $1,500 to me if it's only the same optically as the 35 Art with reliable first-party AF. What good is f/1.4 if you have to throw out 1/3 of the shots?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 7, 2016)

Dustin,

one question: would you get the Tamron over the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM? 

I know the Tamron is fractionally quicker and has better max magnification, but the Canon has first party AF and it costs about the same. Which would you pick if you could only own one 35mm lens?

- A


----------



## Standard (Jan 7, 2016)

Nice thorough review Dustin as many of your reviews are. Beautiful, processed shots.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Dustin,
> 
> one question: would you get the Tamron over the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM?
> 
> ...



I'm still pretty conflicted about that question. The Canon has served me very, very well, and I'm in no rush to get rid of it. The build on the Tamron is at another level, though, and that maximum magnification is very tempting. I also got very consistent AF results with my review copy. I do think the Canon still has the focusing edge, but it's slight. Sorry to waffle, but I don't really have a strong answer. I don't think there is a bad decision, so the right choice comes down more to an individual's person needs.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 7, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Dustin,
> ...



A+ answer. I trust first party AF and value it greatly. At no cost savings, I can't see a reason I'd get the Tamron.

Sorry, back on topic. 35L II. 

- A


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> I said it before and I'll say it again, the 35L II is worth $1,500 to me if it's only the same optically as the 35 Art with reliable first-party AF.
> - A



Are you saying you don't think its worth the price of 1799 currently? or was it listed at 1500 at one point? Either way, it sucks the canadian dollar is taking such a hit. The 35Lii is listed for 2199 at a local store. Thats a tough price for prime.
The Sigma is half the price, even more as I've seen it for 949. thats 1200 reasons for one to choose the Sigma over the Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 7, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I said it before and I'll say it again, the 35L II is worth $1,500 to me if it's only the same optically as the 35 Art with reliable first-party AF.
> ...



No, I'm just saying that the often heard "$1799 = ridiculous" is an easy black/white position to take on it, but when you think about it, highly accurate/consistent/reliable AF performance is worth a ton in a wide aperture lens unless you are shooting something highly scripted/controllable, like portraiture, astro, etc. 

Personally, I shoot my life and travels, and I'm with a constant companion that is so so so not down with taking the same shot twice. I have to stick and move, and for that to work with a large aperture lens, it's got to nail the focus nearly every time.

So, if you twisted my arm, I'd say $1,799 is too expensive. But I'd consider it a fair price at $1,500. Consistent/reliable AF is that important to me in this kind of lens.

But YMMV. You may have the time to chimp and reshoot if you miss your subjects' eyes at f/1.4, or what you plan to shoot with this lens is not nearly as transient and fleeting as what I shoot. In that case, absolutely get the Sigma. If AF at f/1.4 is not a major consideration for you, it's the best photographic bargain short of the 40mm f/2.8 STM.

- A


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 7, 2016)

Foregoing all the test charts and pixel-peeping, my bottom line is this: are the images visibly different from a Sigma 35? If you can't tell images one from another in a random test, then it's not worth the price difference for me.


----------



## Click (Jan 7, 2016)

Thank you Dustin. Great review.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2016)

dash2k8 said:


> Foregoing all the test charts and pixel-peeping, my bottom line is this: are the images visibly different from a Sigma 35? If you can't tell images one from another in a random test, then it's not worth the price difference for me.



They certainly look different when focus isn't nailed


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Foregoing all the test charts and pixel-peeping, my bottom line is this: are the images visibly different from a Sigma 35? If you can't tell images one from another in a random test, then it's not worth the price difference for me.
> ...



+1. Why buy an f/1.4 lens _only to have to use it at f/2.8 because you keep missing focus?_ AF really matters for some of us. 

If AF consistency is less of a priority for you and what you shoot, get the Sigma 100%. The value is amazing. I'll leave the really subtle light falloff / color / bokeh / rendering comments for pros like Dustin to comment on (in his review!).

- A


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 8, 2016)

My Sigma 35mm has taken over 12,000 images and AF has never been bad enough to ruin my day. Sure there are occasional inconsistencies ("occasional," not "often" or "frequent" or "all the time"), but some people make it sound like the thing cannot focus at all. I never pick up the Sigma and say, "Damn, I hope it focuses correctly today."

If the Canon is visibly identical and only boasts much better AF, I'd only pay an extra $300. I'm not saying anything negative about the new Canon 35 except the price. If others can afford it, by all means get it. I paid through the roof for my 85 1.2 II and have no complaints, even though the focus is slow as hell.


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 8, 2016)

I had the 35 mk I and loved it... fav lens over most of the others...walk around...
but sold it for about what I paid. Now I have the 35 Sigma and it beat up the canon a bit... 

I dont see any focus misses and I shoot wide open on a 5D3. bokeh almost as good as the canon was.. sig sharper and cleaner.

But
I promised myself I would go back to the 35 MKII if it was a fair bit better. Seems it has arrived. 
now
what to do with the sigma....hmmm
grandson has a 1 yr modern small canon cropper ...so I will maybe give him the sigma and a dock to tweak it..

well, here's my BIG offer to canon:
Come out with a similar quality 135 f2 WITH I.S. and I will get it, the 35 mk II and a new 1dX mk II.
(sounds like $11,000...yikes)

or maybe make the 1 DX mk II available with 35 mkII as a kit lens for a little discount....

I love my 14mm f2.8 II. The new 35 and the future 135 f2 I.S. will give me all I need (and can carry)

.............



////////////


----------



## [email protected]c.com (Jan 8, 2016)

Dustin, I love the review. My one concern is that it sounded like you didn't use the dock to micro adjust the Sigma 35. I have a few Art lenses, and I've found that doing in-camera MFA will only solve for a particular distance to subject. Using the dock to develop the curve of correction over 4 subject distances made my Art lenses very reliable at any distance. 

That a Sigma Art lens mis-focused at distances where it wasn't MFA'd seems like it should be expected. I'd love to see that focus test you spoke of (what a great coincidental test opportunity) run with both lenses MFA'd as their respective manufacturers would optimally expect. 

All that said, even as a Sigma Art fanboy, I just got the Canon 1.4 35mm II. With it's Blue Goo element, weather resistance and the build quality, it just was irresistible. Tamron might have come close had the focusing been better. 

Thanks again for the reviews.


----------



## infared (Jan 8, 2016)

dash2k8 said:


> My Sigma 35mm has taken over 12,000 images and AF has never been bad enough to ruin my day. Sure there are occasional inconsistencies ("occasional," not "often" or "frequent" or "all the time"), but some people make it sound like the thing cannot focus at all. I never pick up the Sigma and say, "Damn, I hope it focuses correctly today."



I have had very good results with my Sigma, too.....but only after painstakingly calibrating it on the Sigma Dock for my 5DIII. Does it it hit focus all the time? No.....but it is pretty damn consistent. I just cannot spend $1800 on a 35mm prime. It's just insanity. LOL! ...but, of course the Canon is the better lens. ...but I will say that most times...looking at a photo....no one would know which lens shot the image. i.e. It just a little more of a challenge at times with the Sigma. I guess that I will just have to live with that. It's just a small part of my lens quiver. I love the lens, though.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 8, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Ryananthony said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I sold my 35A as i was not happy with the autofocus. I was only curious about your opinion, and was curious if it had been on sale for 1500.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> I sold my 35A as i was not happy with the autofocus. I was only curious about your opinion, and was curious if it had been on sale for 1500.



Sorry if my answer was misleading. I rented a Sigma 35 Art out, used the dock to dial it in, and had a horrid time shooting wider than f/2 on my 5D3. My hit rate wide open with a careful but handheld composition technique on my 5D3 was well under 50% -- it was not front or back focused, it was inconsistently missing (which the dock obviously can't fix). So I gave up on using it wider than f/2, which kind of defeated the purpose of lugging it around. Rental returned and no purchase followed.

So I'll keep an eye on this 35L II and if it's price walks down to the $1,500 neighborhood (through an authorized dealer), I'll give it a hard look. 

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Dustin, I love the review. My one concern is that it sounded like you didn't use the dock to micro adjust the Sigma 35. I have a few Art lenses, and I've found that doing in-camera MFA will only solve for a particular distance to subject. Using the dock to develop the curve of correction over 4 subject distances made my Art lenses very reliable at any distance.
> 
> That a Sigma Art lens mis-focused at distances where it wasn't MFA'd seems like it should be expected. I'd love to see that focus test you spoke of (what a great coincidental test opportunity) run with both lenses MFA'd as their respective manufacturers would optimally expect.
> 
> ...



I didn't use the dock, as I don't own it. I've reached out to Sigma here in Canada multiple times to provide me a dock for reviews, and they have never followed through. I don't own any Sigma lenses at the moment, so have no reason to spend money on the dock, and I refuse to order in a dock every time B&H sends me a Sigma lens for review if Sigma isn't motivated enough to provide me one. I've done seven Sigma reviews in the last 16 months that have been read by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, and I would think that they might be motivated enough to make sure that I have the best tools to make their lenses shine.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 8, 2016)

P.S. I would be interested in knowing what the "attach rate" is for the Sigma dock. I am doing my best to do an optimal AFMA as anyone without a dock can do, and I expect that many users at best are doing only that.

P.S.S I've heard a LOT of reports from subscribers of continuing to have AF issues even after dock calibration, while others say that their lens is reliable (kind of like this thread).


----------



## infared (Jan 8, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> P.S. I would be interested in knowing what the "attach rate" is for the Sigma dock. I am doing my best to do an optimal AFMA as anyone without a dock can do, and I expect that many users at best are doing only that.
> 
> P.S.S I've heard a LOT of reports from subscribers of continuing to have AF issues even after dock calibration, while others say that their lens is reliable (kind of like this thread).



The Sigma Dock is so cheap $69 new. (I get your point Dustin...Sigma should be willing to send you that). I have 3 of the Art Series lenses...so it's a no-brainer for me. My experience (I will just discuss my experience with the 35mm here, I also own and have calibrated the new 20mm and 50mm Arts as well), was that my 35mm out of the box was hitting off focus in all 4 focus areas that are settable on The Dock. At f/1.4, obviously the lens must hit focus or its useless. I did not use a focusing aid, etc... I just went out and shot at different distances (not as scientific a FoCal etc....I know the peepers can feel free to tear me to shreads! LOL!).... the lens was quite a bit off in some of the focus zones more than others. Now, I get it that people don't want to be bothered with this...after all ..you feel like you are doing Sigma's work for them after you just spent $800-900 on a lens. It breeds resentment from the start. LOL! I get that. It certainly did for me the first time around. I would not have bothered except the lens is so spectacular that I made a personal decision that it was worth the time. (My 50mm and 20mm needed less adjustment, but did need it).
I now find my lens hitting focus very consistently...but as has been noted by you and others...sometimes the lens (rarely BTW) just seems to randomly focus "somewhere else". (I have a plug-in for my LR and can check where the focus point actually was).... I find that may happen in situations where the focus point covers two different distances and can't chose or something (and focuses on neither???, LOL)...i.e. normally its a tricky focus hit anyway, or a more challenging focus hit.
..but yes it does do that. I can understand that photographers do not want to put up with that. I get it. You are out there with a $3000 camera in your hand and a $900 lens...and God knows what else...yeah...it should just work. For me, I got out of "The Biz" years ago...so I just shoot for my own love of the craft (Thank God LOL!)..so I can live with the Sigma anomaly... I get it that others may not or can not...so they will just have to skip an f/1.4 35mm or pay thru the nose to get the best or go with a slower prime or zoom. Oh well....there are more important things in life. 
These forums are great to at least find out the truth or something close about topics that the manufacturers will not even fairly discuss or perhaps even admit too. Different people have different experiences, too.
Your review is great, and you are so thorough your opinions always carry weight for me. All the best.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jan 9, 2016)

With an Amount of "free Cash" i would like to fill up my Bag with an fast Prime roundabout 35-50mm .

I don´t like "AF-Roulette" - ok, Canon´s new 35 1.4 L II is really expensive - but would match for me.

3 Arguments where against the 35mm: Size, Weight and my Exif´s witch more often show´s 50mm with
my 24-70 2.8 L II - so i am not sure it´s better to wait for an 50mm 1.2 L II Version ?
( Assuming the 50mm will be lighter/smaller and better matching my favorite focal length )

I´ve got no Crystal Ball to see when will Canon Update the 50L .

There is enough of Time to think about it - but on the other Side the Wish 8) .

Greetings 

Bernd


----------



## bholliman (Jan 9, 2016)

Terrific review Dustin! I always find your reviews more useful than the highly technical reviews since you are looking at the product from a working photographers perspective.

The 35mm f/1.4L II is nearing the top of my wish list. I own the 35mm f/2 IS and love it, but the L II takes things to another level, and f/1.4 opens up additional creative possibilities.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 9, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> P.S. I would be interested in knowing what the "attach rate" is for the Sigma dock. I am doing my best to do an optimal AFMA as anyone without a dock can do, and I expect that many users at best are doing only that.
> 
> P.S.S I've heard a LOT of reports from subscribers of continuing to have AF issues even after dock calibration, while others say that their lens is reliable (kind of like this thread).



I used my dock to re-calibrate my 50mm f/1.4 ART for my new 5DS/R which needs super-sharp MA. To me it was easy to use and the results show in real life use afterwards.

The results were illustrative of the value of the dock. I had to dial in +14 to +16 for 40cm, 70cm and 150cm respectively but "only" +10 for infinity.

This spread would make a single MA setting very difficult to get "right". The 50mm ART is truly impressive with the 5DS/R when it nails the focus. As with so much else when shooting 50MPIX it is worth the effort optimising every aspect of your equipment. 

35L II gets a lot of good reviews on its AF. 

To compare I am pretty sure my "old" 35L no longer can match my 50mm ART for AF after it was calibrated with the dock. Maybe that's why the old 35L did not make Canon's short list (even if a marketing ploy seems the more obvious reason ??).

If I did not live across the globe you could borrow my dock. Its just going to sit in my closet for many months now. I imagine a lot of them do.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 9, 2016)

Dustin, please email me, and I'll send you my extra dock. Got it with lens I bought used. It would be only a partial payment for all of the grief you've saved me with your reviews. I'd selfishly like to be able to better gauge how sigma vs canon glass stacks up in optimally corrected circumstances in your future reviews. [email protected]


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 10, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Dustin, please email me, and I'll send you my extra dock. Got it with lens I bought used. It would be only a partial payment for all of the grief you've saved me with your reviews. I'd selfishly like to be able to better gauge how sigma vs canon glass stacks up in optimally corrected circumstances in your future reviews. [email protected]



That is extremely kind of you. Email sent. You'll definitely get some props in the next Sigma review


----------



## Pookie (Jan 14, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I've done seven Sigma reviews in the last 16 months that have been read by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, and I would think that they might be motivated enough to make sure that I have the best tools to make their lenses shine.



I think that statement alone makes the purchase of a Sigma dock imperative, if not, why would you even review Sigma lenses. If 59$ breaks your bank maybe lens reviews should be left to others.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 22, 2016)

Those of you interested on how the 35L II performs on crop sensor bodies might want to take a look at this brief video where I run over balance, autofocus, DPAF, EF adapter (for Canon mirrorless), and share a number of samples. http://bit.ly/20iUc2M

Here's a favorite taken with the 35L II and the M3 via adapter:


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Jan 22, 2016)

Pookie said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I've done seven Sigma reviews in the last 16 months that have been read by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, and I would think that they might be motivated enough to make sure that I have the best tools to make their lenses shine.
> ...



If it was considered imperative by Sigma they would include it in the box. 

I've used three sigma lenses:

100mm macro - Just fine...no major issue but didn't have it long
30mm F1.4 DX (non-art)...focused alright in some conditions and some targets but my confidence was never high with the lens. I was always hoping it would perform ok and sometimes it would...other times...not so much.
35mm F1.4 ART - Terrible focus performance. I tried the dock...but like others have said you can't fix something that is inconsistent. When it hit...it was great...when it missed it was WAY out of focus. To make matters worse this lens was a lens in their refurb store which means they evaluated it and considered it ok. After this lens I swore to myself I'd avoid Sigma in the future.

When I have a lens that isn't consistent I find myself shooting test targets more than shooting things I actually care about because I am always trying to dial the lens in to "fix" it. I've since gotten the 35mm F2.0 IS and it does wonderfully. Focus is spot on. It may not have F1.4 but like others have said its worthless if the lens doesn't focus correctly. I'd love to get the 35mm F1.4 II but its out of my price range at the time. Maybe at some point I'll make the upgrade.


----------

