# Teardown: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 9, 2015)

```
<p>Roger and Aaron at LensRentals.com finally had the opportunity to tear apart the brand new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II. Most of us want to know if Canon actually did make the new lens the gold standard for build quality like the marketing department would like us to believe.</p>
<p>It looks like there’s truth in the marketing:</p>
<blockquote><p>…This lens is massively over-engineered compared to any other prime we’ve ever disassembled. It’s built like a tank where it counts; on the inside. Moving parts are huge and robust. Six big screws are used in locations where 3 smalls screws are common in other lenses. Heavy roller bearings move the focusing group, it doesn’t slide on little nylon collars.</p>
<p>…If I had to summarize the mechanical design of this lens, I would say simply that no expense was spared, no corner was cut.</p>
<p>Sometimes things are expensive because they’re worth it. Sometimes they’re heavy because they’re so solidly constructed. This is one of those times. <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown" target="_blank">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA35142.html?utm_term=UbK24x0al34oSlvW4eT8QxjoUkX3mDVXeWC-Ug0&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid64393&cvosrc=affiliate.64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1Uehm5w" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 10, 2015)

Those roller bearings are crazy.

- A


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 10, 2015)

> This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.



Terrific to read stuff like this, and I bet an article like that does more for Canon sales than the company realises.

I bet the 11-24L is exactly the same. Certainly feels like it.

Makes you proud to be a Canon user. Thanks for sharing.



> I keep repeating myself, but by this point I was really rather awestruck by the amount of careful over-engineering that went into making this lens. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, else is engineering lens mechanics like the newer Canon lenses.


----------



## jhpeterson (Dec 10, 2015)

A big "YAY" to Canon for doing this right. It's always great to see a product where the engineers called the shots.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 10, 2015)

I always appreciate Roger's reviews because his approach and perspective are so totally different. 

No other reviewers (nor many sane people  ) disassemble an expensive lens for commentary on its viscera. But then most reviewers would have no idea how to do it. And the manufacturer lending a normal reviewer the one single review copy would no doubt take a dim view of it. Roger has lots of copies of each lens, and routinely opens them up for maintenance. 

And his testing bench is more informative than the other guys' image of playing cards and crayons.


----------



## candc (Dec 10, 2015)

Kudos to canon, that's the way to do it.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 10, 2015)

That was amazing and terrifying at the same time.


----------



## infared (Dec 10, 2015)

Roger sees it all...so to me, high praise from Roger carries weight because he also knows what less-than is, too. I still think that Sigma's recent successes may have helped fuel some the quality of this lens or maybe it just had to be made this well to deliver to the new round of sensors that I think is headed our way in 2016, (maybe a little of both).I am happy for the people who can afford to own one and it's great to know that it is out there. COOL stuff!


----------



## sanj (Dec 10, 2015)

Great. It is always nice to know that the company we choose takes care of us on parts that are not visible - the internals.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 10, 2015)

sanj said:


> Great. It is always nice to know that the company we choose takes care of us on parts that are not visible - the internals.



+1

Great tear down. Thank you!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 10, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Great. It is always nice to know that the company we choose takes care of us on parts that are not visible - the internals.
> ...


+1

Thanks, Roger and Aaron!


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 10, 2015)

If Canon keeps this up I may have to get their (sure to be in the works) 50mm lens instead of the 50A, even if it does cost twice as much.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 10, 2015)

This lens is popular with many news and event 'togs so knowing it is so well made it should take years of abuse.

I bet the other lens makers are reading this too, and probably scratching their heads. 

Thanks very much Roger and Aaron.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 10, 2015)

Interesting. Especially since some people have criticized that "so much plastic" was used to make the lens housing. Still a very expensive choice compared to the mark I.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2015)

I suddenly feel a lot better having paid the premium for getting this lens. 

I had focusing issues to begin with, as some of you may have seen examples of, but CPS refused to accept that anything was wrong. I have therefore been quite determined to prove them wrong. But the funny thing is that with more use it has improved and now it is very stable and focus is dead on every time. Strange, but pleasing. Few things are more annoying than having lenses you can´t trust.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I suddenly feel a lot better having paid the premium for getting this lens.
> 
> I had focusing issues to begin with, as some of you may have seen examples of, but CPS refused to accept that anything was wrong. I have therefore been quite determined to prove them wrong. But the funny thing is that with more use it has improved and now it is very stable and focus is dead on every time. Strange, but pleasing. Few things are more annoying than having lenses you can´t trust.



Maybe it took a while for it to learn Norwegian ?


----------



## Eldar (Dec 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I suddenly feel a lot better having paid the premium for getting this lens.
> ...


He he, with an IQ of 35 ... :


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 10, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> > This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wanted this lens from the beginning. If it weren't for CPW, after reading this article, I would have paid full price. The optics and quality are lasting. Just consider the bodies it could go through.


----------



## N2itiv (Dec 10, 2015)

Thanks, Roger and Aaron!
[/quote]

They are a great benefit and I'm glad they're around. When I need a rental, Roger is the one I will go to.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 10, 2015)

If there is a Photographers Hall of Fame, Roger and Aaron should be in it!


----------



## mrzero (Dec 10, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> > This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think Canon does understand the role that these teardowns play in driving sales over the long term. It used to be that they could dismiss individual complaints on the internet as whining, misuse, or isolated problems. Now they know that a guy like Roger is going to tear the whole thing down and publish it on the internet within a few months of release, so they can't do that if the internal build is clearly not robust.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 10, 2015)

mrzero said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > > This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That's a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we've ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I've seen. This is an engineer's lens.
> ...



I think you are right here. Roger's 'teardown' of the Tamron 24-70/2.8 really put me off that lens: second element held in place with three spots of glue and they have a habit of failing. Now I'm not known for being that kind to my gear, lenses do get dropped and bumped. Also dramatic changes in temperature probably don't do this adhesive any good, and again, I'm a culprit. 

The engineering that has gone into this new lens is impressive without a doubt. Interesting that Canon is confident enough people are prepared to pay for it.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 10, 2015)

These tear-downs raise my confidence level in paying for Canon's new lenses. It's reassuring to know that your equipment is built to last.


----------



## ben805 (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?


----------



## Viggo (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm also happy to see they really put effort and money where it matters, it feels fantastic. However, does anyone else's focusing ring feel a bit too stiff and make a whistle sound when turned right?

I have huge issues with my 1dx and the 35 II now, hopelessly inconsistent, and the main problem is with the body, but my 200mm is dead on and the 35 misses A LOT, so I will hold off a bit in my enthusiasm. 

It works much better on the 6d, but some subjects it simply won't focus on at all, and they are bright and contrasty. They gave up in Norway, so now they both go to Sweden, and hopefully starts to function.

If you're on the fence, get one, the IQ is eeeepic. And now the build proves to be equally epic, good stuff.


----------



## davidmurray (Dec 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> The engineering that has gone into this new lens is impressive without a doubt. Interesting that Canon is confident enough people are prepared to pay for it.



Absolutely prepared to pay for that sort of quality! 

For me that review has turned this lens into an absolutely "must have" lens.


----------



## davidmurray (Dec 10, 2015)

Etienne said:


> These tear-downs raise my confidence level in paying for Canon's new lenses. It's reassuring to know that your equipment is built to last.



+1


----------



## infared (Dec 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I suddenly feel a lot better having paid the premium for getting this lens.
> 
> I had focusing issues to begin with, as some of you may have seen examples of, but CPS refused to accept that anything was wrong. I have therefore been quite determined to prove them wrong. But the funny thing is that with more use it has improved and now it is very stable and focus is dead on every time. Strange, but pleasing. Few things are more annoying than having lenses you can´t trust.



Maybe you can attach it to the Sigma Dock to fine-tune it!!!


----------



## risc32 (Dec 10, 2015)

ben805 said:


> I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?



I think Roger plainly put it that nobody is building things like canon is currently, so i think that goes for zeiss as well.
so, roger is the man, and this lens is the current limit of what's possible,inside and out. if i wasn't all set with my sigma i'd be thinking long and hard about this canon.


----------



## Bdube (Dec 10, 2015)

risc32 said:


> ben805 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?
> ...



This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.


----------



## HighLowISO (Dec 11, 2015)

risc32 said:


> ben805 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confident that the performance of this massively over-engineered lens would remain consistent, accurate, and reliable for many years to come. Most definitely have no regret spending the premium for lens built like these, but I wonder how does the Zeiss Otus compare as far as material and construction goes?
> ...


I don't think he did anything of the sort. In fact stated in the comments that he would do an Otus tear down, but has another one up next. After that we'll have a real comparison with the Zeiss.

I'm happy to see Canon doing such fine engineering. It does help make some of the recent prices more acceptable, but also clearly shows that their professional lenses are designed for pros and professional use.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2015)

Bdube said:


> This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.



"almost inch thick steel barrels" ... I have to call B.S. on that.


----------



## scottgoh (Dec 11, 2015)

seems a lot better than my old rusty 35L mark 1.


----------



## Berowne (Dec 11, 2015)

Yes nice lens. 

But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes nice lens.
> 
> But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.



I disagree with that, there is no lenses prior to 1995 around that still works? I have had plenty of at least 15 year old lenses, most recently a 2000-model 35 L, it looked and felt and worked like new, and it worked perfect so not the reason I upgraded.

I think something that would hurts sales more of the L-lenses only had a lifespan of 8-10 years.

In fact I have huge issues with my 1dx and have considered other brands just because it fails so much after only three years of family pictures.


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes nice lens.
> 
> But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.



Why don't you re examine your statement? It makes no sense. Tch tch.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 11, 2015)

I had a chance to try the 35 out in properly horrible light today in kindergarten. 1/60s, 25600 iso @ 1.4. And I could even use Servo and it just hit! Amazing. This was of course with the 6d, the 1dx wouldn't work, I tried last year.


----------



## expatinasia (Dec 11, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes nice lens.
> 
> But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.



There's a clue in the name of this lens. It's a Mark II. 

What this lens shows us, and all photographers, is just how well manufactured it is. Canon has not skimped, it doesn't just look good on the outside it really is built internally and externally as they promised. Maybe even more so.

For those that have this lens, they are not buying it to keep for 20 years, but they could if they wanted. Canon will keep working on the optics and within the next 20 years there may well be a Mark III.

When you know a company is taking so much care with their products it makes you want to spend more, and it attracts more customers from other brands etc.


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes nice lens.
> 
> But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.


Now, there is some Volkswagen mentality.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 11, 2015)

Sophia Scott said:


> Hello, I'm new here...My best friend loves cameras...i want to buy her a great Christmas gift...and I thought to http://www.macroringflash.com/mf18-macro-flash/ but i'm not good at these...can someone help me?


Be welcome to Canon Rumors. To keep the site organized, should post your questions in the section to the subject you wish to treat:

canon rumors FORUM » Gear Talk » Lighting

The flash from the link you posted, it seems a good product. This type of flash is only for MACRO photos, and is not suitable for shooting objects to more than 1 meter away. Carefully to make sure that her friend has a Canon camera, and the flash model is specifically fit for Canon cameras.


----------



## RogerCicala (Dec 11, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.
> ...



Don't -- BDube works where they test them. Seriously. But you're talking specific purpose hand assembled and tested lenses.


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2015)

RogerCicala said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Bdube said:
> ...



I'd like to see an example of a cinema lens that uses a one-inch-thick steel barrel. Doesn't sound real or necessary to me. That's like armor platting on a tank.


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2015)

Etienne said:


> RogerCicala said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



no..no...Roger is talking about the diameter of the housing, (steel barrel) that holds the ball bearings. Not the actual bearings or the lens housing. Maybe I have it wrong...but I "think" this is what he is talking about:


----------



## Etienne (Dec 11, 2015)

infared said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > RogerCicala said:
> ...



ok ... that sounds more believable


----------



## Bdube (Dec 11, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't quite the limit of what is possible. The cinema lenses are, in my opinion, a bit better. That being said, none of these are as robustly built as low-volume high precision optics made by some of the US companies. Some of them have almost inch thick steel barrels just as a shield for the internals.
> ...



Here's some lenses from SPIE Optifab

http://i.imgur.com/76MINqM.jpg

The corning advanced optics is a relatively high speed telecentric lens for machine vision. It is a bit bigger than a 400/2.8, for size reference. The square portion near the end is where it mounts to the camera interface, its dimensions are about 4"x4" and the rear element is only 2" in diameter. This gives about an inch of padding all around.

Here are some big projection optics from Narvitar

http://i.imgur.com/SdzOM7H.jpg

Again you can see the leftmost lens, the barrel is much thicker than the front element. No element inside is larger than the front element. The barrel here is also solid steel. 

It is cheaper to mill out less, and they are not concerned with weight.


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 13, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Yes nice lens.
> 
> But the simple problem is, that everbody who owns such a lens will not buy another 35mm for the next 20 years or so. This will simply result in a decrease of sales for Canon in this segment. A company who will survive oeconomically should never produce products who are lasting for eternity. If the market is saturated your days are over.



I know everyone else has basically disagreed already.. but if I may I'd like to provide an example:

Miele

In a market place where everyone else offers cheap machines that last no time, miele are doing very nicely. It's called word of mouth... I love our miele products, they just work and work and work and work. With a "heavy duty" family (special needs kids) all our miele stuff is going strong after years of over use.

Miele though do not do business the "corporate way" (next quarter is all) They are a family business and the people running it want it to last at least another generation.

If canon want to charge more for "tank proof" stuff rather than more for features that I'll never use then I'll most likely step up and buy more gear... and then give it light but relatively constant use over many many years.. telling people how great my canon gear is.


----------

