# Should I buy the 35L now or wait for the price drop?



## shlomki (Mar 25, 2014)

There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
What do you think and what would you do?

Thanks!


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2014)

shlomki said:


> There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.



*snigger* yep, the announcement just around the corner!

But to answer your question: the "old" 35L1 won't drop in price, the 35L2 will just be considerably more expensive which might even mean a price *increase* on the old model like the time when 24-70L2 was released.


----------



## shlomki (Mar 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> But to answer your question: the "old" 35L1 won't drop in price, the 35L2 will just be considerably more expensive which might even mean a price *increase* on the old model like the time when 24-70L2 was released.



Really? do you think the older 35 will become a desired, somewhat unobtainable lens?
Do you think this still be the case, if the new 35 will not be considerably more expensive?
And thanks for the answer!


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 25, 2014)

shlomki said:


> Really? do you think the older 35 will become a desired, somewhat unobtainable lens?



Nope, but after the first enthusiasm over the 35L2's stellar quality people will realize that for many, the ol' 35L1 is "good enough" and the successor isn't worth an additional $1000 = more demand for 35L1 = higher price for quite some time (look at the 24-70L1's price curve).



shlomki said:


> Do you think this still be the case, if the new 35 will not be considerably more expensive?



Looking at Canon's pricing policy, they either try to sell something unique like the IS primes or extremely high iq items like the 24-70L2 - I don't expect any upcoming reasonably priced L "workhorse" lenses anymore, for that you have to look at Sigma I'm afraid to say. But there always will be enough people demanding Canon, even if for cps alone.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> shlomki said:
> 
> 
> > There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
> ...


+1


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> shlomki said:
> 
> 
> > Really? do you think the older 35 will become a desired, somewhat unobtainable lens?
> ...



Well, what would be the point of introducing another 35L if it's not significantly better than this one, right? Either it will have IS or f/1.2 or just amazing IQ


----------



## TeT (Mar 25, 2014)

Now.... the 35 L is trending upwards right now. evilBay is best option for cheap just make sure you buy from top rated seller ...


----------



## TeT (Mar 25, 2014)

Right now the Sigma 35 & the 35 L are both awesome from 2.8 or so and narrower with the edge going to the Sigma (maybe @ 1.4 to 2) What the 35L ii will add is better IQ and much better bokah(see 35 2.0 IS / which BTW has better Bokah then all of em right now) *AND* quicker focusing especially in lower light (less hunting).


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 25, 2014)

shlomki said:


> There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
> I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
> Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
> What do you think and what would you do?
> ...




...meanwhile you risking not taking the shots you want need.
It's not a collectible item (at least not yet), or a center display piece in your shelving, nor should be taken as an investment unless it's for work, or a very rare model; so get what you think you need, whithin your budget. 
Prices will drop in time, no matter what - unless it's a rare lens. Lenses will depreciate slower than cameras, but don't let that stop you to get it now. There will be always something better lurking in the future, but live the present and get out enjoying your hobby.
Can't tell you much about the sigma - rent one or both and find out for yourself. As others said, the new model might be quite expensive to start, and guess what? - it will have a price drop sooner than later after you buying it...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 25, 2014)

If you haven't already, then I recommend borrowing or renting a 35L to get a feel for how differently it renders vs what you currently use. Shoot a range of shots (landscape, close-up, products, pets, family etc.) to really see what it really offers. Once you know how much of an image quality benefit can you get from using a 35L over the lenses you currently are using...

How much of a price drop are you expecting to see?
When do you think a price drop is likely to happen?
How many 35L shots will you take in that time?

Does the value of the immediately improved image quality outweigh the potential savings that you may get further down the line?

e.g. if you think there will be a $200 price drop at some point in the future and in that time you will shoot 1000 images then buying now gives you images that cost you 20c more per pic. Is the improved image quality you've seen worth more than than 20c per pic or can you live with what you've got for now?


----------



## unfocused (Mar 25, 2014)

If you defer your lens purchases based on rumors that a lens may be replaced, you could be waiting a long time to buy a lens. See the 100-400 zoom for example.

If you want an investment, buy stock or real estate. If you want to take pictures, buy cameras and lenses. 

Yeah, Canon Price Watch did a blog post a few years back showing that Canon lenses outperformed the stock market, but I wouldn't be sinking my retirement money into lenses.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think I'd enjoy anything I bought nearly as much if I worried about what the resale value might be. 

Think about all those poor Beanie Babies that never got played with because their young owners were hoping to pay for college with them. They are all sitting in plastic bins in attics or selling on eBay for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> If you haven't already, then I recommend borrowing or renting a 35L to get a feel for how differently it renders vs what you currently use. Shoot a range of shots (landscape, close-up, products, pets, family etc.) to really see what it really offers. Once you know how much of an image quality benefit can you get from using a 35L over the lenses you currently are using...



+1. It took me only a few shots to see the difference between the [email protected] and my [email protected] This cannot be reproduced by images others have taken. If only the price was a few hundred dollars less...


----------



## preppyak (Mar 25, 2014)

There's also value in the shots you take between now and the actual availability of a 35L II. Even if Canon announced it tomorrow, odds are it'd be 2 months away from delivery, and that's assuming it doesn't back order. Others have already mentioned the fact that it wont be <$1400 on release ($2000 is more reasonable). By the time it actually is purchasable, you could have 100s or 1000s of shots on your lens.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Mar 26, 2014)

preppyak said:


> There's also value in the shots you take between now and the actual availability of a 35L II. Even if Canon announced it tomorrow, odds are it'd be 2 months away from delivery, and that's assuming it doesn't back order. Others have already mentioned the fact that it wont be <$1400 on release ($2000 is more reasonable). By the time it actually is purchasable, you could have 100s or 1000s of shots on your lens.



This is absolutely correct. I have a bit of bias, as the 35L is THE lens of choice for me. Among everything we shoot, the 35L gets use in every portrait or wedding event.

When I read the subject line for this post, I instantly thought, "buy the son of a gun". We actually purchased ours used from Adorama and it has been a stud this entire time.

I hope this helps!

Cheers!
-Tabor


----------



## PhotographAdventure (Mar 26, 2014)

I'd look at the sigma 35mm art again. A lot better price for similar quality to Canon. Sigma has raised quality standards for issues like focus. My copy is superb. One of my favorites for lenses.


----------



## Zv (Mar 26, 2014)

What price drop? 

You'll be waiting an eternity. 

Buy it now. Use it a lot. Sell it whenever you like and you'll prob get back about 90% of your money if you treat it kindly. Don't know if the Sigma will retain it's value like the 35L.


----------



## infared (Mar 26, 2014)

PhotographAdventure said:


> I'd look at the sigma 35mm art again. A lot better price for similar quality to Canon. Sigma has raised quality standards for issues like focus. My copy is superb. One of my favorites for lenses.



+1


----------



## shlomki (Mar 26, 2014)

Wow, lots of replies that I haven't been getting notifications on! 
Thanks for all of your help!

I'll clarify a bit more:
The 35mm focal length isn't such an urgent necessity for me, I'm not missing shots and everything is ok  The 50mm 1.4 is usually my go-to lens (on FF), but I have been interested in shooting wider and getting in on the action. I also have the 17-40mm F4 for when I want to go really really wide, and of course it covers 35mm as well, but F4 is hardly F1.4 

I'm actually not so sure how I would feel about 35mm in the long run.
Renting would be a perfect option if I weren't living in Israel, where lens prices are higher by about 30% and so are rental prices. Renting it for a week would just be not cost effective. So I thought I would buy it used, use it for a longer period of time (1-2 months), and then make an informed decision. If I would then decide to sell it, the loss of value should be pretty small, UNLESS the value of the lens will suddenly drop dramatically because of the 35L2, which I why I came here to ask for your opinion.

So I think I will indeed go for it and not wait around. I can't buy it via eBay because not many Israelis sell there, and if the seller would be outside of the country, the lens will be subject to customs, which means about 20% taxes. So I have to look for it on local forums.

Thanks for all your help!


----------



## Radiating (Mar 26, 2014)

shlomki said:


> There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
> I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
> Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but *I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma*. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
> What do you think and what would you do?
> ...



You seem very uninformed.

You are almost 1.1 times more likely to have a focusing issue with the Canon 35mm L than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma 35mm A, based on actual reliability history from lens rentals which rents hundreds of copies of these lenses.

Read that a few times if you need to. *You are MORE likely to have a FOCUSING issue with the Canon than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma.*

The Canon 35mm is a 16 year old lens and one of the least reliable lenses you can buy regardless of manufacturer, it has all the problems the Sigma has, and issues with dropping dead and decentering. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a brand new design, which comes with an incredibly long warranty.

If you're buying a used copy you're not going to have a few months left on the warranty at most with the Canon, which gives you a 1 year warranty.

Sigma gives you a 4 year warranty and it's a lens that is 2-3 times more reliable overall. The weight difference is also not noticeable, we're talking around a 10% difference. You'd be crazy to get the Canon for your needs.

The only reasons not to get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is that is has harder to correct distortion and much stronger purple fringing, which can both be annoying to correct. Otherwise the Canon is inferior in every way.


----------



## shlomki (Mar 26, 2014)

Radiating said:


> You seem very uninformed.
> 
> You are almost 1.1 times more likely to have a focusing issue with the Canon 35mm L than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma 35mm A, based on actual reliability history from lens rentals which rents hundreds of copies of these lenses.
> 
> ...



Uninformed? I have personally tried 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm F1.4, and 2 or 3 Sigma 30mm F1.4 on three different Canon bodies (5DIII, 40D, 60D). All had either focus inaccuracies or focus inconsistencies. This is not user error, I have been shooting for 3.5 years, and I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I do know what I'm doing.
I have also personally worked with the one and only one qualified Sigma lens technician available in Israel to try and calibrate a few of the said lenses, using their lab tools and using Sigma's new USB dock - we were unsuccessful and eventually I got refunded for the copy I have originally purchased.

Maybe the Canon uses old technology, but do you have any references for what you're saying? This is the first time I'm hearing such a review on the 35L, usually I hear only good things about it.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 28, 2014)

shlomki said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > You seem very uninformed.
> ...



Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.

- Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L. 

Like I said if you have problems with lenses having focus calibration, then you don't want a 35mm f/1.4L 

Check the link if you have any skepticism:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

"Canon 35mm f/1.4	14%	Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure" 

The Canon 35mm f/1.4, not only cannot focus properly and requires calibration, but it's focusing system simply breaks, and many copies are severely decentered.


With that said 80% of copies of pretty much any lens are going to be good. What probably happened to you is that you bought multiple copies from a bad batch. I have purchased 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, to get the sharpest one and 2 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and haven't really had any issues with any of them, but what concerns me about the Canon is long term reliability. The lens simply breaks due to it's antiquated focusing system over time. You don't want to completely lose your investment.

If I were you I would just buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from another source.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

Radiating said:



> Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.
> 
> - Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L.
> 
> ...



I don't want to go into a Canon vs Sigma argument, but here's the latest version of Roger's lens repair stats:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013

... drawing attention to a few points:

1. The main issue with the 35L is the AF/MF switch, which not many people need to use- it has instant manual override.
2. The rate of problems with the 35L has gone down.
3. The much revered 70-200 II has a significantly higher breakage rate. Does not mean people should stop buying them. 

Also, saying 35L is one of the least reliable lenses is probably overstretching the data. Again, quoting Roger Cicala:
"...from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh"


----------



## Radiating (Mar 28, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.
> ...



The rate of problems with the 35L has only gone down a tiny bit, it's gone from being the 12th least reliable lens you can buy to the 15th least reliable lens you can buy, out of 700 other lenses. That is not good. I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...




> 3. The much revered 70-200 II has a significantly higher breakage rate. Does not mean people should stop buying them.



People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it. 

The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment. The Sigma with it's lower defect rate and lower calibration issues rate, lack of risk in being replaced soon, lack of risk of dropping dead, and 4 times longer warranty is a much safer bet.

I would just get a working Sigma 35mm if I were the OP.





> Also, saying 35L is one of the least reliable lenses is probably overstretching the data. Again, quoting Roger Cicala:
> "...from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh"



From a pure accuracy standpoint the 35mm f/1.4 L will be more consistent. My Canon copies of the 35 1.4 had half the variation in focus accuracy of the Sigma 35 1.4, but we're talking about a difference of around 1/4 of an AFMA step so that's not really meaningful. I think what most people care about is whether a lens has severe focusing issues, ie severe defects not tiny little differences. The Sigma has fewer severe focusing defects related to calibration than the Canon. So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Mar 28, 2014)

Radiating said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...


If you don't like it, then just say so, you're overdoing it a big now. 

I have the 35L and haven't had a single problem with it. Very consistent performer. I have only had it for two years but to me it seems to just keep working. I always bring it out when I want that extra artistic touch.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

Radiating said:


> I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...



One can use back button focus.




Radiating said:


> People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it.



True, and similarly people buy 35L despite those stats, and I am yet to see a single thread here complaining about the lens.



Radiating said:


> The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment.



Not really. The OP wants to get the 35L, period, and the only question is whether he should wait.



Radiating said:


> So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.



True. So if the OP can get a 'good copy' of the 35L he/she is set, right? I understand the 35Art is a fantastic lens and more power to Sigma for that, but if someone has decided specifically not to go with it, is there much point in going over the same thing?
I hope the OP decides to get the 35L now and furthermore, decides to post some of the pictures here 
Cheers


----------



## shlomki (Mar 28, 2014)

Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 28, 2014)

shlomki said:


> Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon



I suppose you are familiar with fredmiranda.com? Good ones get snapped up quickly, though... Good luck!


----------



## shlomki (Mar 28, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> shlomki said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon
> ...



I'm from Israel, so no fredmiranda  but thanks! looking on some local boards.


----------



## Radiating (Mar 29, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...
> ...



I don't think you're understanding my point. The OP gave us a set of reasons why he wanted to get the 35L. The Canon 35L is seriously much worse at fulfilling his needs than the Sigma 35A. It is a completely illogical purchase fueled by the fact that he got a bad copy of the Sigma.

It would be like buying a motorcycle to drive to work every day because your car crashed and you feel unsafe driving a car.

Like I said I've owned multiple copies of both the Sigma 35A and the Canon 35L. I initially went from the Canon, to the Sigma, and then back to the Canon because I really disliked the fact that lightroom didn't properly correct distortion for the 35A at the time (this is fixed now), and it had crazy levels of purple fringing which I hate, but I went back to the Sigma again because the stunning clarity of the Sigma made a huge difference in my photos. If the OP said that he wanted a 35mm lens with low purple fringing then I'd recommend the 35mm L. But the OP does not want a lens with low PF. He wants a lens that is reliable and a safe bet financially. The Sigma is way more reliable than the Canon, and is a much safer bet. It's basic logic.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 29, 2014)

shlomki said:


> There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
> I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
> Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
> What do you think and what would you do?
> ...



The significant advantages I could see Canon adding to the 35L II would be:

1) Rounded aperture blades - for more rounded bokeh balls when stopped down. I see this as a significant advantage, unless you shoot at 1.4 100% of the time. This will definitely be incorporated in a 35L II.

2) Weather sealing - I don't see anything about the 35L's design that would complicate weather sealing (unlike say the 85L). Thus, adding weather sealing would likely be a new added feature of a 35L II.

3) Other optical improvements - the current 35L is a very old design. I believe that a new 35L would have other optical improvements and perhaps improvements in coatings, though they could be subtle.

There is a possibility that image stabilization could be added, but I would not count on it as a definite because of the wide focal length.

But, it is a definite that a 35L II would likely cost at least 1699-1899. So, would the above three points be worth it? That is for you to decide! There are very good cases that could be made either way on that point. For me, #1 is a big deal, so it would be worth it for that alone to me. Others might not care.


----------



## Light Sculptor (Mar 29, 2014)

I had to get my canon 35 repaired as the AF stopped working. I consider it as an OK lens, but not a "wow" lens. For me predictability of autofocus is more important, than absolute sharpness, so I would probably not go for the Sigma in the near future.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 29, 2014)

Sigma, for cryin' out loud.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Mar 30, 2014)

I prefer the Sigma 35 1.4 to all the L lenses I have owned. Including the 135. I have had no issues with the AF but lots of issues with the AF failing on my Canon lenses. It really leaves my 5d mkiii.


----------



## beckstoy (Mar 30, 2014)

forget the 35L. Get the Siggy 35 Art. You'll not regret it (and you'll have $700 left over in your pocket). I'm constantly stunned at the sharpness fully open at 1.4.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 30, 2014)

Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed. Outstanding images wide open in near darkness on my 6D. Was also fortunate to snag one refurbished thru Sigma website for $680 shipped; looks, feels, and tastes brand new.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 30, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed.



How is the 6d af with this f1.4 lens (center point)?


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 31, 2014)

No issues so far with AF, but my tests have been pretty informal.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 31, 2014)

JumboShrimp said:


> Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed. Outstanding images wide open in near darkness on my 6D. Was also fortunate to snag one refurbished thru Sigma website for $680 shipped; looks, feels, and tastes brand new.



Wow, that's a really good price. I have been looking at their website periodically in search for it. Were you able to set up any alert?


----------



## IsaacImage (Apr 10, 2014)

Siggy all the way !


----------

