# More Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Talk [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 6, 2015)

```
We’re told that the eagerly anticipated Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II is now being tested by select photographers and should be to market within the next 6 months. An announcement date hasn’t yet been set, but expect it some time in 2015.</p>
<p>The new lens will have the latest coatings from Canon, dust and weather resistant, a smaller filter thread (67mm?), and will be physically longer than the current version. The difference in weight wasn’t known, but I suspect it’ll be very close to the current lens.</p>
<p>More to come…</p>
```


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 6, 2015)

Filter thread 67mm (less than the current), ??? and longer than the current one? 

A clone 35mm Sigma Art.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 6, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Filter thread 67mm (less than the current), ??? and longer than the current one?
> 
> A clone 35mm Sigma Art.



Except for the small matter of price, perhaps. The current Canon lens is already twice the price of the Sigma. They will undoubtedly feel the urge to increase the price if they are doing a full re-design of the lens (unlike the new 50mm where they did show admirable price restraint, but also the lens is optically the same).


----------



## brad-man (Jun 6, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Filter thread 67mm (less than the current), ??? and longer than the current one?
> ...



I doubt the new Canon will improve upon the optics of the Sigma, so how much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 6, 2015)

brad-man said:


> I doubt the new Canon will improve upon the optics of the Sigma, so how much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?



That's the $64k question. Weather sealing not so much, but focus. I really want a fast 35mm prime for my 6D and I've been tempted to pull the trigger on a 35mm Art off Craigslist but Sigma focus still has me nervous.

Here's hoping the Sigma has put pressure on Canon and this thing debuts at "reasonable" price.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2015)

"How much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?" ANYTHING they ask, quite simply. If Canon made the 50 Art with Canon AF, I would pay 5000 dollars for it.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 6, 2015)

Viggo said:


> "How much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?" ANYTHING they ask, quite simply. If Canon made the 50 Art with Canon AF, I would pay 5000 dollars for it.



The weather sealing is meaningless to me but the AF is important. I have read that you had bad luck with Sigma 35's (or was it the 50's?), but fortunately I definitely did not. My 35 Art nails focus quickly and dependably, and of course the optics are incredible for color, contrast and sharpness.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > "How much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?" ANYTHING they ask, quite simply. If Canon made the 50 Art with Canon AF, I would pay 5000 dollars for it.
> ...



It was actually 2x 35 Art and 2x 50 Art, all four with the same issue. I'm beginning to think that it might be a 1dx issue, because I know a few 5d3 owners that are very happy with them, and no 1dx owner that is happy with them.


----------



## TommyLee (Jun 6, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem......you beat me to it...
ha!

description sounds familiar.....
I always swore I would get the new 35L mk II .......IFF it wasa good bit better than my sigma...
.......which beat up the 35L mk I......


67 mm, longer?....that's a start


my sig 35 focuses fine on a 5D3.....
the 50mm looks less reliable from reports...but I dont know ....about that real performance...
just my reliable sig 35

Tom


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 6, 2015)

With all the talk about the mark II, and the exceptional 24-70 II in my arsenal, I was almost tempted to put my 35/1.4 on Craigslist. However, last week I visited the Portland Rose festival and the amazing portraits I was able to get at f/1.4-1.6 made me change my mind.

I don't know what I will gain from weather sealing, and I don't think the AF and image quality on the Canon 35/1.4 can be much improved upon. So I suppose I am definitely not going to be one of the early adopters of the mark II.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 6, 2015)

Viggo said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Here's an owner of the 5d3, the 7d2, the 24A, the 35A and the 50A.

the 24A and 35A work fine on both 5d3 and 7d2. The 50A is a bit inconsistent on both camera's, but it's still very usable for me. What I experience in 'real life' is also confirmed by the FoCal focus reliability tests that I have done with all six combinations.


----------



## Machaon (Jun 6, 2015)

brad-man said:


> I doubt the new Canon will improve upon the optics of the Sigma, so how much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?



With those wide-aperture lenses & narrow DOF, high reliability AF certain becomes more valuable.

Not much point buying an f/1.4 lens that misses focus half the time when you're wide open.


----------



## vscd (Jun 6, 2015)

For me the weathersealing is *very *important as I really like to go out for streetphotography in the rain. I don't know why Sigma isn't able to include some rubberelements into it, but it seems it's not that easy anyhow.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 6, 2015)

vscd said:


> For me the weathersealing is *very *important as I really like to go out for streetphotography in the rain. I don't know why Sigma isn't able to include some rubberelements into it, but it seems it's not that easy anyhow.



What body do you use? Canon told me that even on the 5D3 and 1D X, there is no warranty on weather sealing and that they highly recommend to keep both camera's out of the rain...


----------



## TeT (Jun 6, 2015)

brad-man said:


> I doubt the new Canon will improve upon the optics of the Sigma...



I bet you are wrong... The current 35 2 IS is better than the sigma in the mid range apertures. I imagine the 35 L II will not take a backseat to the sigma in any aspect outside of price.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 6, 2015)

niels123 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > For me the weathersealing is *very *important as I really like to go out for streetphotography in the rain. I don't know why Sigma isn't able to include some rubberelements into it, but it seems it's not that easy anyhow.
> ...



Perhaps no warranty, but considering the conditions I've used my 1-series cameras in, no doubt it works. I once took out an 85 L II in the rain, and after 50 meters walking, I had to return home and dry it off. Never experienced that with any sealed L-lens.


----------



## meywd (Jun 6, 2015)

Viggo said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



I still didn't try the 5D3 in the rain, however I once took the 600D + 50mm 1.8 II out in the snow for a 30 min walk around the block, it was snowing and the snow was melting on the camera, however nothing happened, and when I arrived home I kept it in a cool area until it dried, but yeah a weather sealed lens is less risky.


----------



## vscd (Jun 6, 2015)

> What body do you use? Canon told me that even on the 5D3 and 1D X, there is no warranty on weather sealing and that they highly recommend to keep both camera's out of the rain...



For most street+wet shootings I use an EOS 1n and some black/white rolls. The EOS 1n is rated for 1/3 inch of rain, so this is really strong rain but no tornado  As the 5DM3 is announced to be at least equal to the EOS1n I think there should be really no problem with the body under any circumstances. I had my own doubts about it but as the (old) body only costs about 100$ at ebay I tried it with intense rain and now I know you can do *anything with* it except of swimming.  Just trust the engineers.

The successor EOS 1V was sealed far more than the 1n and is known to be nearly waterproof in any condition. I think the 1DX even tops that one out.

Some informations: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1n/Reliability/index.htm


----------



## paulrossjones (Jun 7, 2015)

what are they changing the filter size? One of the nice things about the canon primes is that they almost all take 72mm (the 24,35,50, 85 and 135 primes). 
this is a big deal for me, and I use a lot of ND's and filters, and having to have multiple sets is a pain.

not sure how they will improve on the sigma 35mm art though, its a very good lens and leaves my canon 35mm 1.4 in edge sharpness and lack of CA. 
I have been using a 67 to 72mm step up on the sigma.

paul


----------



## Pixel (Jun 7, 2015)

My 35 1.4L is the finest optic in my arsenal already. Other than weather sealing, I can't see where an improvement will come from.


----------



## chromophore (Jun 7, 2015)

A lot could be done to improve upon the EF 35/1.4L, as can be seen in the Sigma 35/1.4 Art.

First, reduction of coma in the image periphery. The existing design has huge coma.
Second, better correction of astigmatism and field curvature. Again, these adversely affect corner performance.
Third, reduction in chromatic aberration, especially wide open. There's not as much color fringing as, say, the 85/1.2L II, but there is still room for improvement here.

Those are optical design issues that can be addressed in an upcoming revision. Other improvements include weather sealing and less vignetting (although it's actually pretty good here already, certainly better than the 24/1.4L II). I have no issues with AF accuracy and speed--these are quite excellent. The existing design is relatively old. If Sigma can do better at half the cost, why can't Canon? The fanboys will argue that Canon needs to make back the money they spend on R&D and retooling production. Or they might say that you can only get so much optical improvement for the price point. But considering that the only reason why prospective buyers would choose Canon over Sigma in this case is that the latter might have AF issues--this is not related to optical design nor is it related to production or R&D costs. Canon has their own PCBs, ICs, and AF algorithms to work with their own lenses and bodies. That's already settled technology for them. If anything, it cost Sigma more to backwards-engineer and continually have to tweak their understanding of Canon's AF systems on various bodies. So that kind of excuse-making does not fly.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2015)

chromophore said:


> ..........But considering that the only reason why prospective buyers would choose Canon over Sigma in this case is that the latter might have AF issues--this is not related to optical design nor is it related to production or R&D costs.................



Not true, I would never buy a Sigma because they have been proven to abandon their customers and not give a damn. For me it isn't about ultimate IQ, it is about enough IQ to get the job done with reliability, consistency, and service.

Many forum members slag off the Canon EF50 f1.4, but, mine works effortlessly and entirely reliably on the new fangled DSLR's that were introduced well after it was designed and sold, I can get it serviced and I can buy parts for it if I choose to service it myself, I can use it on all my current cameras and any future EOS camera I decide to buy (and any EOS-M), that is not true of Sigma and when they had issues in the past they didn't stand by their product. Oh, also, my 50 f1.4 is worth around $150 less than I paid for it 14 years ago, show me a Sigma like that.........


----------



## chromophore (Jun 7, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > ..........But considering that the only reason why prospective buyers would choose Canon over Sigma in this case is that the latter might have AF issues--this is not related to optical design nor is it related to production or R&D costs.................
> ...



I should have been more precise in my statement: what I am trying to say is that many people who choose not to buy Sigma--in particular, the Art lenses--are making that choice for reasons that are not related to the optical performance. Their more recent glass is great, and the build quality is quite good; it's the other stuff like spotty AF compatibility, poor legacy support, poor customer service, that pushes customers away, even if that means paying more money for Canon's inferior glass. My point is that Canon is incapable of producing a new, improved optical design without charging 2x what Sigma does, or 4-5x what Samyang does.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I should have been more precise in my statement: what I am trying to say is that many people who choose not to buy Sigma--in particular, the Art lenses--are making that choice for reasons that are not related to the optical performance.



I agree with that comment.



chromophore said:


> Their more recent glass is great, and the build quality is quite good; it's the other stuff like spotty AF compatibility, poor legacy support, poor customer service, that pushes customers away,



And that one.



chromophore said:


> even if that means paying more money for Canon's inferior glass.



I don't necessarily agree with that. The EF 50 f1.2 is more money than the Art 50 f1.4, but is faster, and there are many people who like the optical formula as is with its designed in quirks. The EF50 f1.4 is much cheaper than the Art 50 f1.4 and inferior in the optical department, though not the service and compatibility departments, I have had no issues with mine in the 15 odd years I have owned it.

The 35 Art might be 'better' optically and cheaper than the EF 35 f1.4 so does make your case slightly better, were it not for the EF f2 IS option that is pretty close optically from f2 and much cheaper with IS.



chromophore said:


> My point is that Canon is incapable of producing a new, improved optical design without charging 2x what Sigma does, or 4-5x what Samyang does.



That I strongly disagree with, I believe Canon are more than capable of making a better optical design than Sigma for less money, but market forces dictate they can sell one for a premium, so they will.

If I have a need for a fast 35 prime I'll get an EF MkI or MkII when it comes.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 7, 2015)

ScottyP said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > "How much are you willing to pay for weather sealing and Canon AF?" ANYTHING they ask, quite simply. If Canon made the 50 Art with Canon AF, I would pay 5000 dollars for it.
> ...


+1, weather sealing is not relevant for more than 95% of photographers, AF is what really matters. I tried the 50mm Art and I was amazed with the AF improvement over the previous Sigma 50mm. Af nailed focus always and sharpness is at the top of the 50's except for the Otus.
It Canon wants to preserve the market share in the 35mm's shouldn't increase the price above the current lens price.
Anyway I am very happy with my 35mm f2 IS, which is quite compact, excellent AF and has IS that helps


----------



## vscd (Jun 7, 2015)

> weather sealing is not relevant for more than 95% of photographers, AF is what really matters.



I think you're right, but for the remaining 5% people... weatersealing may be everything as the jobs needs it to be done. It's not for heavy rain only, but also for moisture or against fungus over the years. I can assure you that my 24-85 has dust in it like an ashtray but none of my sealed ones.

For me Autofocus is not that important, eighter. Below 50mm or on wideangles in general, I really like the smooth focus of the manual lenses and to get more control of the scene (my 5D has only one useable focuspoint and on landscapes rarely the interesting thing is in the centre ). The growing size of newer formulas is also not my taste anyway, nowadays you have to carry 2 pounds for a 35mm lense or 4.35 lb (!) for a 55mm OTUS. I'm willing to loose some sharpness for a *really good* but small 6/5 formula again. There are fantastic 50mm/35mm lense out there like the leica ones, they proove that you don't need 12 elements in 10 groups to get a tack sharp image.

The best optics I own are on my Fuji GX680, they have all just a few elements. Maybe the canonengineers could calculate a 50mm f1.2 DO, sharp at f1.2 )) That would be the Killer for me.


----------



## Dick (Jun 7, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> AF is what really matters



Indeed. Doesn't even have to be as sharp as the Sigma, if the AF is decent.


----------



## sulla (Jun 7, 2015)

Dick said:


> Indeed. Doesn't even have to be as sharp as the Sigma, if the AF is decent.



Well, in this case Canon doesn't need to do anything, as the current 35 1.4L delivers exactly that.
It already is a very very good lens.


----------



## RChauhan (Jun 7, 2015)

What do you expect the ballpark price to be, keeping in mind the Sigma Art sharpness and price?


----------



## sanj (Jun 7, 2015)

Dick said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > AF is what really matters
> ...



Really? Seriously?


----------



## TeT (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. Doesn't even have to be as sharp as the Sigma, if the AF is decent.
> ...


+1 to sanj
It is going to cost more so it has to be more, across the board... 

speaking of cost, is the 72mm to 67mm(?) just a production cost thing?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jun 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Hjalmarg1 said:
> ...


+1, If it doesn't need to be as *sharp* as the Sigma then there is no need for an update. The current lens is just fine as it is reasonable sharp wide open (in the centre of frame) and focuses reliably.


----------



## JoseB (Jun 7, 2015)

Are there so big unsatisfaction with the lastest versions of the canon lenses?
Are those lenses worse than its formers and than the others from the competition?


----------



## dolina (Jun 7, 2015)

Itll happen but... i doubt i'll get one. I am too satisfied with the 40/2.8 pancake. ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 7, 2015)

Pixel said:


> My 35 1.4L is the finest optic in my arsenal already. Other than weather sealing, I can't see where an improvement will come from.



The plastic body isn't as robust as the newer L's, the AF accuracy can really drop in low light and the coatings are very old...so it flares badly...ooo and the Aperture blade design is very old too...more blades please. 
Plus weather sealing...a wee bit more sharpness...but not at the expense of the creamy bokeh!


----------



## Etienne (Jun 8, 2015)

dolina said:


> Itll happen but... i doubt i'll get one. I am too satisfied with the 40/2.8 pancake. ;D



I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.


----------



## TeT (Jun 8, 2015)

Etienne said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Itll happen but... i doubt i'll get one. I am too satisfied with the 40/2.8 pancake. ;D
> ...



yea but if 35 through 50mm isnt your main thing... then the pancake (and now the 50stm) are a quick and cheap fix for fast fixed lens


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 8, 2015)

Any manufacturer is capable of making the sharpest lens out there, but you end up with a huge and heavy lens.

I'd say Canon's skill is evident in how well they can design a lens at a given size and weight. Compare the 35 IS at half the weight of the 35 ART. For me I'd take IS at half the weight over the extra stop even if the Canon wasn't 2/3 the price. 

Since Canon has more skill than Sigma I am betting their lens will match or exceed the ART optically and be lighter.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Jun 8, 2015)

Etienne said:


> I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.



I'm curious what you were expecting from the lens that you didn't get? It almost sounds like you made a poor purchasing decision, and are blaming the lens. I mean if every other lens in the range is better, why did you buy it?


----------



## Dick (Jun 8, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Dick said:
> ...



That's how it is for me at least. At the moment I don't really use the 35 mm FL too much and the not so sharp 24L II does the job for me, because it nails the focus almost every time. I've never had a 35 mm that was good at focusing. The 35L was better than the Sigma at that.

Nobody has complained about the lack of sharpness even though the 24L II is far from the Sigma 35 mm level. The difference in sharpness is obvious in 100% size, but the basic sizes, used on screens for example, do not require the extra sharpness of the Sigma. Hell, the 85L II is not a sharp lens, but it is sharp enough & sharpening in PP helps a lot already. There are lots of other things to consider and not just the ultimate sharpness.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 8, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.
> ...



I bought it because it was cheap and small and I thought it would make my 5D3 more portable at times. In practice if I want to travel light I never pick the 40, but one of these: 24-105 (for focal length choices), 16-35 2.8 (ultrawide, my favorite lens), or the 35 f/2 IS (similar focal length but f/2 and IS is great, and it's still a small lightweight package). I even prefer the 50 f/1.4 over the 40 f/2.8. 
I don't regret buying it because it is dirt cheap, but it certainly would not cause me to avoid any other lens. It's only advantage is size and price. If those two things are more important to you than the image, then you've found your perfect lens.


----------



## vscd (Jun 8, 2015)

> I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.



You make something wrong or have a bad copy  I really like the images straight of the small pencake. For the given size the images are quite good and the performance of the autofocus is useable. But of course this is just to see in correlation to the size. 

The only thing I could blame is the boring focallenght, but that's the way it is :


----------



## Etienne (Jun 8, 2015)

vscd said:


> > I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure it is sharp and contrasty, but the focal length is readily available on better lenses, the aperture is nothing special, and there's no IS. So the only remaining qualities are that it is tiny and cheap. There's a place for that, but it certainly won't dissuade me from buying, and using better lenses when I can.


----------



## martti (Jun 8, 2015)

The law of diminishing returns tells us that you will pay 50 to 100 percent more to get an improvement up to 10% in the picture quality. Smaller, more compact, sharper, lighter and what have you.
The point matched improvements will be carrying a hign unit price.


----------



## surapon (Jun 8, 2015)

dolina said:


> Itll happen but... i doubt i'll get one. I am too satisfied with the 40/2.8 pancake. ;D



+ 100 for me too, Dear friend Dolina, For the low cost and Super High quality lens/ glasses like 40/ 2.8 Canon Pancake---She look like has a wings on the Lens too, She can fly---In my Imagination, from my Pants pocket to my jacket pocket.
Have a great work week, Madame..
Surapon


----------



## vscd (Jun 8, 2015)

> Sure it is sharp and contrasty, but the focal length is readily available on better lenses, the aperture is nothing special, and there's no IS.



It's nice for what it is. There will *always* be a better lens available, but the 24-105 or even 24-70 are too large and bulky. I was really surprised about the IQ from such a simple formula and you could go to the holyday with it if you just have a small package to carry. Stitch some picture together for wideangle or crop from the centre for longer focallenghts ;D

The f2.8 is a little bit slow, ok... but IS on a wideangle/standardprime is nothing I'm concerned about. Canon should check the 38mm f1.8 from my Konica Auto S3, a fantastic lens for fullframe and just a bit larger than the pancake


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 9, 2015)

Etienne said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > I have the pancake. Wish I could be satisfied, but it's mostly a body cap. There's nothing special about the images from that lens. Just about every lens in that range is better.
> ...



Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special? 
The 35mm f1.4 L is one of Canon's finest wide portrait lenses. It's an amazing lens, if you are finding your images from this lens are sub standard...it's not the gear that needs to improve...


----------



## vscd (Jun 9, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special?
> The 35mm f1.4 L is one of Canon's finest wide portrait lenses. It's an amazing lens, if you are finding your images from this lens are sub standard...it's not the gear that needs to improve...



Calm down kid and learn to read before you talk that big. I wrote about the 40mm 2.8 STM.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 9, 2015)

vscd said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Errr....what planet are you from? Have you even tried the 35L? F1.4 is nothing special?
> ...



Ah...that's ok then....putting my big hammer back in the box....


----------



## Bernd FMC (Jun 10, 2015)

Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .

If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .

AF is relevant for me, so Sigma´s ar not on my Wishlist for now.

It would be used for Streets in the Night, Party´s - whatever ... .

Portraits with 35mm - ok, if the Lens delivers f1.4 - new Possibilities : .

Greetings Bernd


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 10, 2015)

Bernd FMC said:


> Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .
> 
> If this is affordable ( not 5K$/€ ... ) for me - it could by my next Lens 8) .
> 
> ...



I have a 24mm f1.4 II L and a 35mm f1.4 L and comparing both side by side...the 24mm is better built and more sturdier feeling. The 24mm feels heavier and has newer coatings...It's AF is snappier and more accurate in lower light. But I prefer the photos I get from the 35mm, which is the focal length and not the quality of the optics. I find that my 24mm flares less and is a bit sharper in the centre. I couldn't care less about the wide open periferal sharpness...I use it for it's intended genre....portraiture and that's one of the features which I like....soft creamy corners.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 10, 2015)

If they produce a lens whose performance is on par with the ART for about $300- 500 more, I'd consider selling my 35mm ART. Same with the 50 if they can pull that off too. Certainly people are willing to pay more for the red rings, but it's not as elastic as it used to be, now with so many well regarded third party options in recent years. 

If it stays at or under $1500 (with the current model getting a drop to match Sigma pricing until it runs out), I think they do well. Canon has been very price conscious lately. Most people WAY over estimated the prices of things like the 7D2 and 100-400 mkII when they were announced. I don't see Canon veering off course here either.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 10, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Bernd FMC said:
> 
> 
> > Please let your Hammer in the Box - but i would like to see an improved Version of the 35 f1.4 L .
> ...



So you only shoot center comp? I very often use the outer most points for portrait.


----------

