# Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II to Finally Arrive? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/canon-ef-35-f1-4l-ii-to-finally-arrive-cr1/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/12/canon-ef-35-f1-4l-ii-to-finally-arrive-cr1/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II

</strong>We received a a hands-on claim about a prototype Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II. We’re told that the lens is in the hands of select photographers and could be announced in the first half of 2014.</p>
<p>It’s said that the lens is slightly wider than the current version but weighs a bit less. The lens has a new type of coating on at least one of the elements. The version that was tested had a 77mm filter thread.</p>
<p>This lens has been long rumoured for replacement and a few patents (<a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/patent-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii/" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/" target="_blank">here</a>) have shown up over the years. However, it’s sounding like we may finally get to see one in 2014.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2013)

That will be an interesting lens to try out!


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Dec 10, 2013)

Yes, this would be great to see if Canon can compete with Sigma's 35mm f1.4, especially with a competitive price. I have the Sigma and it is extremely sharp in all respects but I'm not a big fan of the bokeh from this lens when compared to other Canon lenses.

Lets see what Canon can do.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Dec 10, 2013)

MARKOE PHOTOE said:


> Yes, this would be great to see if Canon can compete with Sigma's 35mm f1.4, especially with a competitive price.



The current 35mm f/1.4L mkI is ~$500 more expensive than the Sigma, and the mkII's price will fall below that of the mkI in the foreseeable future, so I don't see the two competing on price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> We received a a hands-on claim about a prototype Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II.



As long as that claim didn't come from M.ST… :



Canon Rumors said:


> This lens has been long rumoured for replacement...



Looking forward to it! I'd almost certainly purchase one...


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 10, 2013)

Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!



Just don't stand there like a turkey, yawning in the rain until you drown.  (In other words, does the Sigma 35/1.4 have weather-sealing, as the Canon 35/1.4L II is almost certain to have?)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2013)

I'd look at one, though the 35 f2 IS has me intrigued and at this point I, personally, like the idea of IS in an f2 wide angle more than twice the weight and size and cost, probably four times the cost, in an f1.4 wide angle.

If the 35 f2 IS was a 2.8, like the 28 and 24 then it would be less appealing, two stops is too much loss of dof control, but at only one stop slower the f2 IS is very interesting, and a deal at $550ish at the moment, (shame about the $50 hood! )


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2013)

Weather sealing isn't that big a deal to me, I used non weather sealed stuff enough to just not worry about it too much, though it was one reason I got the 100 IS macro over the non IS version (IS was the main reason). 

But Sigma will never overcome the bad feeling from their earlier lens issues in my mind, sure we have a younger newer generation who were not affected and really like them now, and all power to you, but for me bad feelings like that basically last a lifetime and although the Canon 35L is showing its age, it isn't like you can't take decent images with it.


----------



## Ricku (Dec 10, 2013)

Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon. 

If Canon wants to sell something new in this FL, they should release a tack sharp 16-35L III. (sharp corner to corner). I'd buy that!


----------



## dolina (Dec 10, 2013)

Gave up waiting for this lens and decided on the 40mm pancake.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 10, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon.
> 
> If Canon wants to sell something new in this FL, they should release a tack sharp 16-35L III. (sharp corner to corner). I'd buy that!



Yes. The S35 does outperform the 35L optically. Even so, the 35L is no slouch with regard to IQ. Taking it one step further, I think people still need to bear in mind that sheer optical performance doesn't necessarily translate into great images that are keepers. AF is still an issue for Sigma and their new line of lenses as documented all over the net. I can also vouch for this as my experience with 2 copies of the s35 on the 5d3 were horrid and ultimately returned. Yes, I am aware that some people find them to have perfectly sufficient AF. I didn't, and neither do plenty of other people. The facts are the facts (backwards engineering is backwards engineering). One day, sigma might get their hands on the actual AF protocols.


----------



## infared (Dec 10, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!


Small yawn.... The Sigma is so sharp that it scares me sometimes...so (Like the Canon 24-70mm or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS etc),...the bokeh is not all that soft...but I don't care because of the price and the quality all around of the Sigma....I am thinking that the bokeh could be better on the Canon like Markoe hopes above...but you are talking at least twice the price with the current "L" lens pricing...so that is a big no for me... the weather sealing is not a deal-breaker for me either....That is "if" it is weather-sealed...I am guessing it will be.


----------



## johnhenry (Dec 10, 2013)

The problem with Canon is they are still lagging behind in bringing lenses and cameras through the development cycle into the real world. This is a common problem when companies become huge and think they can either do no wrong or believe that people will wait for whatever they eventually come up with. Many companies have done this like Nikon and we know the story.


Take the 200-400f/4. It was pre-announced, marketed and hyped to death for what, 2 years?, before it became widely available. By then, I had tired of the relentless push and actually looked at what I needed, and got a 200 f/1.8 instead and relied on the smaller sensor size to gain added reach.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 10, 2013)

"Lagging behind" is a very broad/vague generalized statement. If we want to get technical about lag, we should take a look at the development of different brands. Yes, there are other companies (i.e. Sony, Olympus, Fuji) who have been doing a lot of innovative things which I am all for. However, it doesn't change the fact that Canon by far, has the largest, most fully developed ecosystem of all the imaging companies. 

So in reality, the argument could be made that it is all of the other companies who are "lagging behind" since Canon has offered so many things that these other companies have either taken longer to develop or are still not offering at all. 

Are there holes that we all wish Canon would fill? Absolutely. But let's look at some of the gaping holes that most other companies have as well before we deem Canon as "lagging behind." 

People need to bear in mind that there are billions of consumers out there. You can't be upset with a company because they haven't answered each and every person's specific need at the drop of a hat.

I have looked into other systems and have already purchased my first Fuji recently. I am very happy with my purchase (x100s) and would love to explore further with interchangeable lens models. But the main thing stopping me is the lack of development as a whole. One could theoretically say they are quite innovative. But one could also argue that they are simultaneously "lagging behind." The same could be said for Sony and their new product lines.

The point is, if Canon is truly "lagging behind" so badly that your ability to make the images you desire is restricted by that, then you should be taking a hard look at your needs and switching and/or buying into other systems if there is a better one out there for you.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 10, 2013)

Yay, finally! The 35L was my gateway drug into the world of fast primes. Used it when we visited a live nativity recently. I had brought a flash, but it was inappropriate to use, so it stayed off. ISO 10000 at f/1.4 at around 1/15-1/30s for the dimmest condition, and the pictures came out pretty good.

I'd expect it to be better than the S35 (otherwise, it's DOA), but by how much?


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!
> ...



I wanted to go turkey yawn shooting but I heard Greg Lemond's brother in law is still out there!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Dec 10, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!



The Sigma _is_ very good! Very happy with it


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

Let's don't get too excited. How many 35mm 1.4L II rumors have been proven wrong up to now? :

In addition, this is CR1 after all. But, I admit that the rumors rating is a good thing. It keeps our expectancies reasonable and at the same time keeps saves the credibility of this site.


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> As long as that claim didn't come from M.ST… :


Oh please! I am sure he has already tested it ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2013)

tron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As long as that claim didn't come from M.ST… :
> ...



He sent it back because it wasn't as good on his 40D with the "special" 17-55 EF-S he had in the top corners at 35mm.


----------



## Jesse (Dec 10, 2013)

So maybe an announcement in 2015? Delayed until 2016?


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

Jesse said:


> So maybe an announcement in 2015? Delayed until 2016?


Something like that could be even CR2


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

Now seriously, even if a new 35mm 1.4L II were a fact I would consider it only if it proved to not exhibit coma like the current 35mm 1.4L does. So I would wait for lenstip to test it and/or sites like extremeinstability (that guy has some really nice photos).


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 10, 2013)

Not interested. When I need a 35 prime again, I will buy the Sigma.


----------



## beckstoy (Dec 10, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon.
> 
> If Canon wants to sell something new in this FL, they should release a tack sharp 16-35L III. (sharp corner to corner). I'd buy that!



+1


----------



## tron (Dec 10, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks to my razor sharp Sigma 35, I'm not even interested in the 35L II. Not any longer.. The 35L II will probably match the Sigma 35 in terms of IQ. Maybe even outperform it a little bit.. But the price tag will be totally Canon.
> ...


Can you please stop suggesting interesting lenses? You whet my appetite ... ;D


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 10, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> "Lagging behind" is a very broad/vague generalized statement. If we want to get technical about lag, we should take a look at the development of different brands. Yes, there are other companies (i.e. Sony, Olympus, Fuji) who have been doing a lot of innovative things which I am all for. However, it doesn't change the fact that Canon by far, has the largest, most fully developed ecosystem of all the imaging companies.



What you're missing is that Sigma's lens conversion service, coupled with their rapid move towards higher-end lenses, is a potential game changer. Whenever a Canon camera owner buys a Sigma lens instead of a Canon lens, that's not just a loss for Canon's lens division. It's a loss for Canon's lock-in, because it means that more of their hardware is not tied permanently to Canon's ecosystem. As Sigma lenses start to look more and more tempting, I expect the DSLR body market to get a lot more competitive. Folks won't be as loyal to one system or another, and will choose whatever manufacturer's camera body best meets their particular needs.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > "Lagging behind" is a very broad/vague generalized statement. If we want to get technical about lag, we should take a look at the development of different brands. Yes, there are other companies (i.e. Sony, Olympus, Fuji) who have been doing a lot of innovative things which I am all for. However, it doesn't change the fact that Canon by far, has the largest, most fully developed ecosystem of all the imaging companies.
> ...



Their recent major moves would be potential game changers with the emphasis on "potential." There are documented AF issues with most if not all of the new line of lenses. This is by no fault of Sigma. So I am not knocking them in the sense that I don't think they make sh*t products. I commend them for their efforts and feel they are doing a lot of things right. However, that doesn't change the fact that they have to backwards engineer the most integral part of any autofocusing lens....the autofocus protocols. 

The lens conversion service concept is revolutionary. Again however, what good is converting from one backwards engineered AF system to another? I will be the first one in line to replace all of my lenses when Sigma or any other third party manufacturer is able to use OEM protocols and up the game with regard to IQ/quality.


----------



## Invertalon (Dec 11, 2013)

I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions. 

I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.

I will wait for rebates before I bite... Given the 24-70 II and 70-200 II dip to $1700 prices, I would wait until I could snag the 35L II for $1400-1500 before I do buy it.

This is all speculation of course, though! ;D


On the other side, "What If..." Canon surprised us with a 35mm f/1.2L.. If they could sell it at that $2000-2100 price range, I think people would have less of a problem for the increase in aperture. It would at least help justify it a bit more... As long as it performed very well, I think people would be a bit more happy with it at that cost.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

Invertalon said:


> I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions.
> 
> I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.
> 
> ...



I would love it if the Canon premium came justified with a larger aperture. I'd be quite impressed if they released a 35mm 1.2, but I highly doubt they will (and from what I gather it's extremely difficult optically). I'm currently considering the Sigma, but my main dilemma is OCD related, as despite its performance I don't want to ruin the aesthetic consistency of my primes (my 24mm, 50mm, and 135mm all have red rings). I'm one of those atypical weirdos who likes things to "match."


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2013)

Invertalon said:


> I expect prices on the 35L II to be around 40% more than the current, which would put it around $1900-2100 given the trends of all the other "Mark II" versions.
> 
> I don't think I will jump on this right away, even though I have been waiting for it. The current 35L I own is excellent, but I do expect the 35L II to be quite a bit improved in some aspects. The price will just suck.
> 
> ...


Yes sure, f/1.2. Now the fact that it would be bigger and heavier in addition to pricier is a slight detail I guess. Not to mention the slower AF speed. Sigma would love all these....


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2013)

One could compare the price of 24 1.4L vs. 24 1.4L II though...


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2013)

still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2013)

Etienne said:


> still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that



Bokah?


----------



## Dick (Dec 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 35 owners all yawn in unison!
> ...



I'm not sure if weather sealing really matters. I have taken the Sigma out in rain without any issues. I have also taken other lenses that are not weather sealed into rainy conditions with no issues.

What the Sigma fails at is focusing. The 35L is better at focusing than the "ultimate art lens". If the 35L II is better than the 35L in that aspect, I'd say it's most likely a better lens than the Sigma even if it isn't as sharp. There is no real point in sharpness, if the photos are slightly out of focus.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

Dick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



Yup


----------



## Menace (Dec 11, 2013)

sanj said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that
> ...



Of course - what else could it be?


----------



## zlatko (Dec 11, 2013)

johnhenry said:


> The problem with Canon is they are still lagging behind in bringing lenses and cameras through the development cycle into the real world. This is a common problem when companies become huge and think they can either do no wrong or believe that people will wait for whatever they eventually come up with. Many companies have done this like Nikon and we know the story.
> 
> Take the 200-400f/4. It was pre-announced, marketed and hyped to death for what, 2 years?, before it became widely available. By then, I had tired of the relentless push and actually looked at what I needed, and got a 200 f/1.8 instead and relied on the smaller sensor size to gain added reach.


Speaking of lagging behind, Canon users have had an AF 35/1.4 since 1998. Nikon finally introduced theirs in 2011. Canon users have had an AF 24/1.4 since 1997. Nikon users had to wait for theirs until 2010. Of course, these things balance out. Nikon has offered some lenses that Canon hasn't (28/1.4).

But there's no need to imagine that they think foolish things, like that they "can do no wrong". The reality is probably more like: no matter how big they are, they aren't big enough to make everything that everyone wants exactly when everyone wants it. Each company has a finite number of engineers, production lines, storage facilities & other resources. They are always prioritizing something to get done now, something else to get done next year, and so on. The result is in fact a stream of new & better products, though not a fast stream. Some products take a long time to develop and test, and some buyers will inevitably be frustrated no matter what they build.

In the same way you looked at what you "actually needed", the manufacturer looks at what it actually needs to produce. Canon may have decided that a $12,000 200-400mm zoom wasn't urgent, and could wait until it was tested and refined a few more times. Or they may just have allocated key resources to other products, which then got made and satisfied other buyers' needs.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd look at one, though the 35 f2 IS has me intrigued and at this point I, personally, like the idea of IS in an f2 wide angle more than twice the weight and size and cost, probably four times the cost, in an f1.4 wide angle.
> 
> If the 35 f2 IS was a 2.8, like the 28 and 24 then it would be less appealing, two stops is too much loss of dof control, but at only one stop slower the f2 IS is very interesting, and a deal at $550ish at the moment, (shame about the $50 hood! )



I have the Canon 35mm f/2 and I am very happy using it on my 7D. IS works terrific and 1 stop loss isn't a big deal. I was also thinking to purchase the S35 but my budget didn't reach it and I got a 2nd hand Canon 35mm f/2 at a bargain price. I am thinking to put on sale the Canon 40mm f2.8 I previously purchased now.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2013)

I'm so excited I almost want to cry with happiness ;D

This will be a game changer for my photography, finally those fast action rain shots I can't to with the 50 L AF 24 being to wide for me. 

Oh my oh my! ;D


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2013)

sanj said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > still CR1? ... this thing better make good coffee, deliver pizza, and give good B... I better not say that
> ...



ummmm, ok, yeah , ... that's what i meant


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I'd look at one, though the 35 f2 IS has me intrigued and at this point I, personally, like the idea of IS in an f2 wide angle more than twice the weight and size and cost, probably four times the cost, in an f1.4 wide angle.
> 
> If the 35 f2 IS was a 2.8, like the 28 and 24 then it would be less appealing, two stops is too much loss of dof control, but at only one stop slower the f2 IS is very interesting, and a deal at $550ish at the moment, (shame about the $50 hood! )



Agreed. I picked up the 35 f/2 IS, and it's a great little lens! A pleasure to use, the IS is awesome, it's a good price and light weight. If this lens didn't exist I might have gone for the 1.4, but can't really see it in my future now.

I'd much rather have a 16-35 2.8L mk III, or a 24 f/1.4 mk III, or a 20 f/2.0 (or 2.8). Even a new 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 IS


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2013)

My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F. Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true. 

I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 11, 2013)

I am convinced that when/if Canon releases this lens to the market, it is because it beats the crap out of the competition. I am happy with the Sigma and it has performed a lot better than any Sigma I have tried in the past. But with this new 35L I expect weather sealing and that both AF and IQ will be exceptional. Anything else would surprise me. IS or not isn´t very important to me, but I´ll be happy to have it.


----------



## Invertalon (Dec 11, 2013)

Not sure if you could honestly improve much on the quality the Sigma 35mm delivers, honestly. Extremely sharp across the frame, stunning quality all around. However, They can surpass them in build, color rendition and AF of course...


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.
> 
> I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.



While this (brand loyaltyl/blind faith) may be true for some Canon users with regard to third party lenses, it is certainly not true for plenty of other people. Many of us have actually pulled the trigger on a $899 chance in hopes that they would be surprised. I myself did it twice (and thought it was optically awesome enough that I have considered trying a third....still). I even went so far as to consider whether it was worthwhile to use it in manual focus only. But that just didn't sense for what I use the 35mm FL for.

I didn't have to convince myself that the Canon was better. But the facts are the facts. My hit rate was well below 50% in varying distance and lighting conditions (on both copies). My 35L (my most accurate fast prime I've ever owned) and now 35/2 IS have been at 85-90% dead on consistently. Coincidence? Perhaps. But it doesn't change the fact that even some of the people that are happy with the Sigmas weren't happy until they went through multiple copies.

I currently own or have owned plenty of non-Canon lenses and have been quite happy with many. But the S35 was not one of them (with regard to AF).


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2013)

Invertalon said:


> Not sure if you could honestly improve much on the quality the Sigma 35mm delivers, honestly. Extremely sharp across the frame, stunning quality all around. However, They can surpass them in build, color rendition and AF of course...



I agree as I really enjoy my lens as well but vignetting wide open seems to be it's main aberration. Still, close down to 2.8 on FF it's gone.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 11, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F. Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.
> 
> I don't care who made my gear as long as it performs.



When the 6D was announced, a lot of people on this forum did not see its value and swore that they would get the 5DII instead. Now, few people would opt for the 5DII over the 6D. Right now the S35 is better than the 35L. I'll wait for the 35L II to be reviewed and then make the choice. Right now people can't see a lens much better than the S35, but what if the 35L II is much better? And if it's not, then S35 will continue to do well in the marketplace.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > My Sigma 35 does not fail at focusing. I have used a few pre-2012 Siggys in the past and I know what the issues were and the new Art 35 has none of those. My copy focuses nearly as fast as my 135F. Me thinks some folks love Canon a bit too much and are not open to 3rd party lenses or at least to the possibility of those said companies improving and actually doing nearly or even better at times than the big C to the point they convince themselves it's not true.
> ...



If an image is out of focus it really doesn't matter if it would have been sharper :


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...



Exactly.

One of the curiosities I have had is whether the majority of people shooting with the S35 are actually achieving critical focus on a regular basis (or if they are merely focusing merely close enough). When I reference the issues I was having with the AF, I am referring it's inability to be dead on. I was able to get by with decent to good looking images with the S35 copies I had. I'd say "usable" shots were around 60-70%. But to have 30-40% be way off plus another significant portion of the keepers not be in critical focus, left me with zero confidence in the S35. This, in contrast to the 35L I had was night and day. Again, both copies I had behaved the same way.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2013)

And my copy is dead on 90% + without AFMA. So all in all I think this is a case that if you dig, sometimes deep others not, you will find all kind of stories and issues with ANY product. Praise the Internet! 
Just because one person has issues with something does not mean those that do not are not as exact in their findings. I am very persnickety when it comes to focus accuracy and you cannot convince me I have a poor product just because you do. 

btw, how was your experience with AFMA on your copies?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2013)

I want a 35 f1.4 that can keep up with erratic running children in all sorts of light and weather, does the Sigma work for that with the same fantastic dead on accuracy and consistency as the 35 L, no it does not, is it then "better, sharper for less money?" No.. To most people shooting One shot and slight moving subjects or simple movement the Siggy is "fast enough" for me, not even close.. That is the difference. It's not to say you can't shoot anything moving with the Siggy, but the consistency isn't there, and you'll be erasing a lot of images that would have been really cool, because it was oof.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> And my copy is dead on 90% + without AFMA. So all in all I think this is a case that if you dig, sometimes deep others not, you will find all kind of stories and issues with ANY product. Praise the Internet!
> Just because one person has issues with something does not mean those that do not are not as exact in their findings. I am very persnickety when it comes to focus accuracy and you cannot convince me I have a poor product just because you do.
> 
> btw, how was your experience with AFMA on your copies?



I didn't have to dig very far for stories about issues with the Sigma 35 as my own story unfolded right before my eyes. Also, as I have stated in another thread in the past, I had two friends that purchased the S35 as well (one on a 5d3 and the other in Nikon mount on a D800) both of which no longer own the lens due to similar issues. 

Also, I fully recognize that there are plenty of potentially happy owners of working copies of the S35 and in no way believe that it is a bad product all around. I just know that there are many instances of AF issues with it. Myself and the only other two people I know personally that have gotten their hands on the S35 all came to the same conclusion. That is a pretty poor batting average in my world.

It takes no more than merely looking through BH Photo and Amazon buyer reviews to find that there are plenty of other people that had to go through multiple copies to find one that worked consistently well with their body. Again, I am not knocking Sigma as they have come up with some very exciting stuff in recent memory. Just saying that I've seen, read, and experienced for myself, the problem that results from backwards engineering of OEM autofocus protocols.

RE your question about AFMA. I use Reikan FoCal for all of my lenses including the two copies of the S35 that I had. I was able to obtain a recommended adjustment setting in the lighting and distance that was set in my living room. However, as soon as there were any scenario changes (light, distance), I started getting inconsistent results again. Just with my kids and other statics subjects around the house, I was having trouble getting more than 1 hit out of every four or five shots (on both copies). The dock was not yet released at the time I had the lenses. Even with the dock though, that only alleviates part of the issue which would be distance.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 11, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I want a 35 f1.4 that can keep up with erratic running children in all sorts of light and weather, does the Sigma work for that with the same fantastic dead on accuracy and consistency as the 35 L, no it does not, is it then "better, sharper for less money?" No.. To most people shooting One shot and slight moving subjects or simple movement the Siggy is "fast enough" for me, not even close.. That is the difference. It's not to say you can't shoot anything moving with the Siggy, but the consistency isn't there, and you'll be erasing a lot of images that would have been really cool, because it was oof.


All I can say is that I bought one copy of the Sigma. Sharp as a racer blade and AF consistently presise. Bokeh could have been nicer, but still acceptable. The sigma is the only non-L lens I have at the moment (waiting for the Zeiss 55/1.4) and a 35/1.4L II has to be good to tempt me.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I want a 35 f1.4 that can keep up with erratic running children in all sorts of light and weather, does the Sigma work for that with the same fantastic dead on accuracy and consistency as the 35 L, no it does not, is it then "better, sharper for less money?" No.. To most people shooting One shot and slight moving subjects or simple movement the Siggy is "fast enough" for me, not even close.. That is the difference. It's not to say you can't shoot anything moving with the Siggy, but the consistency isn't there, and you'll be erasing a lot of images that would have been really cool, because it was oof.
> ...



Do either you or Crasher want to sell? ;D


----------



## BLFPhoto (Dec 11, 2013)

Perhaps I can help with those on the 35L vs Sigma vs wait for 35LII fence. I have both the 35L and the Sigma. 

In practice, both are very similar in focus reliability on my 5D Mark III and 7D. On my 5D Mark II, the 35L is more consistent in the focusing. I have verified these results also through Focal testing. The Sigma routinely tests more consistent than my 35 L to focus on all focus points of my 5D Mark III. On the 7D the focus consistency results are about the same. On the 5D Mark II, the 35L will achieve 96-98% on Focal's test every time. The Sigma seems to be around 93-95% every time. It has never tested better consistency than the 35L on my 5D mark II. The takeaway for me is to use the Sigma on only my 5D Mark III and 7D. As I noted first, real world usage validates the tested consistency for the Sigma on my 5D Mark III. I simply don't miss focus with it in any meaningful amount. That includes both bright, open light and low-light concert shooting. It's been performing as well as any of my Canon lenses, across the available focus points. This is a wholly different experience than the Sigma 70-200 OS I used for a while, which tested in the very low 90s for consistency using Focal. I probably dropped at least 2-3 shots of every 10 for lack of acceptable focus in practice with that lens. More about that lens, later.

Which is a good thing, because my 85L exhibits just the opposite between my Mark III and Mark II cameras. It is much more consistent, at least on the center point, on the Mark II than the Mark III. The consistency test results are something like 98% on the Mark II's center point and only 94-96% on the Mark III's. The 7D is about the same as the Mark III consistency, but I don't use my 85L on that camera, ever. So the 85L goes on my Mark II for weddings/events. 

Incidently, the AFMA on my Sigma is less absolute value(-5) than my 35L (+7) , as measured multiple times on my 5D Mark III. On the 5D Mark II, the results are about the same. The results are pretty consistent so I'm confident in the values. They certainly work well in practice. 

My 135L and 70-200L focus consistency are about the same between the Mark II and Mark III cameras, so nothing to draw from those results, other than that they don't seem to agree with the other lens's results.

As someone involved in complex system Test and Evaluation, I recognize there are enough uncontrolled variables that making any definitive conclusion from the results of my equipment, no matter how consistently I get the results reported, is ill-advised. 

Nevertheless, I suspect that my results point to the fact that the Sigma plays much better with Canon's more complex focusing systems in the 5D Mark III and 7D than it does with the 5D Mark II and other legacy 9-point AF systems. I'll have a 1Ds Mark IV next week to see how well it works on that body with the 45-point system. 

Bottom line, I absolutely would not and do not hesitate to use the Sigma where I formerly used the 35L. I've had my 35L for the better part of a decade and I know it's capabilities well. The Sigma works better for me in nearly every situation. 

Weather sealing, while it would be welcome on a 35L, is not a deal breaker for me. I've used my 35L in nasty, dirty, wet conditions without issue before. I can't imagine the Sigma will be any worse. 

Color, rendering, bokeh, etc? I get what I need out of the Sigma and don't see much to choose between the lenses besides the better sharpness of the Sigma. 

The only thing I can't really speak to yet, and I'm hoping Roger at Lensrentals can enlighten us on at some point, is the internal build. The Sigma seems really robust from the outside...on a level with the 35L. But are the internals really good enough? Will the focus internals stand up to decades of hard use? I'm not taking my Sigma apart to make a comparison. My 35L has never given a hiccup. I am certain the Sigma will stand up to hobbyist/serious amateur usage levels. Will it withstand the beating from even part-time event/wedding professional use where it is a main lens during the day? I don't know. 

This is the first and only Sigma lens that I feel is really on par with the OEM top-shelf offerings. I tried the 70-200 OS against the Canon 80-200 and 70-200 IS II and it fell woefully short in several areas for me, including focus, and most importantly, image rendering. Roger's breakdown of the new version of the 120-300 steered me away from that since the internals are pretty much the same mechanically, and it happens to be one of his most-repaired lenses. 

I'm taking the Sigma 35 on and will use it in the primary slot, but will keep my 35L at least until the new version comes out. It's been through a lot with me. If a new 35L hits the street and the image rendering is at least on par with the Sigma, I'll probably drop both and pick up the new Canon. 

I'm pretty picky and love my red ring lenses. But if you have a 5D Mark III, 1DX, or 7D, I wouldn't hesitate to get the Sigma right now over waiting for a potential Canon update whenever that comes. It's that good, and exhibits none of the focusing issues that have given Sigma a bad rep. If you've got a 5D Mark II or one of the other 9-pt AF Canon bodies, especially without AFMA capability...probably stick with a 35L until Canon does it better. Edit: (Not sure about the 6D, although I can try it on my brother-in-law's 6D the next time he comes to the house and see how it plays there).


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2013)

So I guess Sigma made at least 3 good copies and us CR members bought all of them!


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2013)

BLFPhoto said:


> Perhaps I can help with those on the 35L vs Sigma vs wait for 35LII fence. I have both the 35L and the Sigma.
> 
> In practice, both are very similar in focus reliability on my 5D Mark III and 7D. On my 5D Mark II, the 35L is more consistent in the focusing. I have verified these results also through Focal testing. The Sigma routinely tests more consistent than my 35 L to focus on all focus points of my 5D Mark III. On the 7D the focus consistency results are about the same. On the 5D Mark II, the 35L will achieve 96-98% on Focal's test every time. The Sigma seems to be around 93-95% every time. It has never tested better consistency than the 35L on my 5D mark II. The takeaway for me is to use the Sigma on only my 5D Mark III and 7D. As I noted first, real world usage validates the tested consistency for the Sigma on my 5D Mark III. I simply don't miss focus with it in any meaningful amount. That includes both bright, open light and low-light concert shooting. It's been performing as well as any of my Canon lenses, across the available focus points. This is a wholly different experience than the Sigma 70-200 OS I used for a while, which tested in the very low 90s for consistency using Focal. I probably dropped at least 2-3 shots of every 10 for lack of acceptable focus in practice with that lens. More about that lens, later.
> 
> ...



Focal tells you nothing about tracking though. And the 35 L seemed to be focusing even faster on the 1d X than on the 5d3, although nothing like the difference in speed with the 85 L between those two cameras, it all helps.

Anyway, if people love their Sigma they love their Sigma, I applaud Sigma for the steps they have taken lately and keeps producing high IQ for cheaper money. But it's not the holy grail either. People use gear differently, for instance, I don't think I have EVER used One Shot focus. And I have used the 35 L on 1d3, 1d4 (btw, no such thing as a 1ds4), 1dX, 5d1,2,3 and it's by far the best 1.4 AF lens. It works where the 50 L won't, and the 24 L II is, well, I don't what's up with that, but after three copies I gave up.

YOu buy what you buy for your needs, I know that the Siggy doesn't fit my needs at all. And I'm preetty sure the 35 L II will have faster and even better AF for tracking erratic movment wide open, and combined with the weather sealing and all the other things that make for a great lens, this is on top of MY list.

Btw, I have nothing against third party lenses at all, I use a Zeiss 50 f2 because Canon have no 50 that I like. And the Zeiss is superb.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 12, 2013)

Invertalon said:


> On the other side, "What If..." Canon surprised us with a 35mm f/1.2L.. If they could sell it at that $2000-2100 price range, I think people would have less of a problem for the increase in aperture. It would at least help justify it a bit more... As long as it performed very well, I think people would be a bit more happy with it at that cost.



I would much rather have a lens that is outstanding wide open at f/1.4 than one that can open up to f/1.2 but has severe vignetting and corner softness. 

Weather sealing is a must for such a workhorse lens. 35mm is a useful FL for general video so IS would definitely be a helpful inclusion.

IMO, weather-sealed, IS and outstanding optically at f/1.4 will differentiate it from the current 35L and will justify a price tag of $2000-2100.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Dec 12, 2013)

I don't think I would call the Sigma a holy grail either. But it seems more than adequate for the way I shoot, and better than my 35 L in many, if not most situations. I also use AI servo quite a bit but haven't used the Sigma much in that mode yet. I'll give it a whirl and see what shakes out. In the few times I've used AI servo with it at events I hadn't noticed any issue. 

Frankly, I'm shocked at the improvements Sigma has made with the 35 and their new direction. I did not expect the performance to challenge the 35l which is easily my favorite lens ever. I certainly expected to see focus accuracy issues, any that hasn't been the case so far. Not like the copies of the Sigma 50 and 85 I've tried. Those immediately showed worse focusing than their Canon counterparts that I own and I was glad to hand them back to their owners. 

Give me rock solid Canon L build and focus with the Sigma's image rendering or better and I'll be a happy camper with a 35L II. I don't get the fetish with IS on fast glass, though I wouldn't turn it down if they pull the first two parts off as well.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 14, 2013)

So this thread stopped after 5 pages, no wonder why Canon didn't bother to put the 35 out sooner. It's me and a hundred guys more that gives a [email protected] about it. What's shame... Well, it will be updated sooner or later and I'll be first on line..


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 15, 2013)

Well, there's three groups at play here.
A group who have their 35L and generally very pleased with it and have been for a long time. My copy has paid for itself many times over the last 7 years of use.
Then there's a group of users who have just bought the new Siggi version. A great lens, but they like to make a big fuss over this new lens because they feel that they have a bargain...a better lens for less money. While it's true it's a fine lens, it's not up to the Canon L build standards and they are comparing a new design to one that's substantially older. The Sigma will always be a sigma and they have a reputation for mechanical failure and sloppy AF (a generalization and not pointed at this lens in particular).
Then there's a third group of guys who want a 35L but secretly want a new Canon version so that it's slightly better than the Siggi....which is totally silly when comparing the final images...
Either way, it's fun to see the drive and motivations in this thread. I'm in cat 1....but could easily tip into cat 3 once it's finally released and I get a big dose of lens envy


----------



## Viggo (Dec 15, 2013)

I'm in the forth group who sold my second or third copy of the 35 to finance other fun lenses , but want weather sealing and even better overall performance and would never buy the Siggy and don't want to spend 35 L II savings on another mk1...


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 15, 2013)

Just used mine


----------



## bobby samat (Dec 16, 2013)

that last picture is a cool shot.

however, the young man's face is soft. the snow behind him is sharp. in my opinion at least.

which lens were you using and were you using servo?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 16, 2013)

bobby samat said:


> that last picture is a cool shot.
> 
> however, the young man's face is soft. the snow behind him is sharp. in my opinion at least.
> 
> which lens were you using and were you using servo?



Critical focus is the name of the game. 

35/2 IS


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 16, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Well, there's three groups at play here.
> A group who have their 35L and generally very pleased with it and have been for a long time. My copy has paid for itself many times over the last 7 years of use.
> Then there's a group of users who have just bought the new Siggi version. A great lens, but they like to make a big fuss over this new lens because they feel that they have a bargain...a better lens for less money. While it's true it's a fine lens, it's not up to the Canon L build standards and they are comparing a new design to one that's substantially older. The Sigma will always be a sigma and they have a reputation for mechanical failure and sloppy AF (a generalization and not pointed at this lens in particular).
> Then there's a third group of guys who want a 35L but secretly want a new Canon version so that it's slightly better than the Siggi....which is totally silly when comparing the final images...
> Either way, it's fun to see the drive and motivations in this thread. I'm in cat 1....but could easily tip into cat 3 once it's finally released and I get a big dose of lens envy


That puts me in group 1, I've had mine about two years now and it's a beautiful love story.

Those who have the Sigma seems to have the need to constantly point out that it's better than the 35L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2013)

Arctic Photo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there's three groups at play here.
> ...



Er, as per my prior post that puts me in group 4.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


That'a good group to be in :

I'm not very accomplished and only an amateur so the 35L will be more than enough for several years to come.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 16, 2013)

S35 on amazon lightning for 699 right now. will have to get on the waitlist though if you want one since I believe it is 100% claimed at the moment.


----------



## jasonsim (Jan 9, 2014)

I am late to this posting, but must say that I am very happy with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. I used to have the Canon 35mm f/1.4L and thought it was great too. There was about a year gap when I did not have any 35mm prime. 

The Sigma I think produces a superior image in sharpness, color saturation and tone; not to mention the bokeh is very unique and surreal. 

Just check out this photo from an outdoor shoot:


----------

