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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 27, 2015)

```
<em>New L-Series Lens is First to Feature Canon’s Proprietary Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics – That Achieves a Higher Level of Chromatic Aberration Correction For Superb Image Quality</em></p>
<p><strong>MELVILLE, N.Y., August 27, 2015 –</strong> Canon U.S.A., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today introduced the new EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens for EOS system cameras – a wide-angle fixed-focal-length Canon EF lens that is the world’s first<span class="green">*</span> to utilize the Company’s newly-developed and exclusive Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics (BR Optics). This new optical technology utilizes organic material newly developed by Canon to achieve a higher level of chromatic aberration correction than other existing technologies resulting in outstanding high-quality imaging performance.</p>
<p>“As the world leader in production of interchangeable lenses, having produced over 110 million EF lenses since 1987, it is with great excitement that we now introduce a revolutionary new technology to add to Canon’s unequaled optical heritage when it comes to chromatic aberration correction,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO of Canon U.S.A., Inc. “We continually strive to achieve the ideal lens performance, which has driven the development of Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics, found in the new EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens. This technology is yet another ‘first’ in optical design introduced by Canon to enhance the performance of our lenses for our customers.”</p>
<p><strong>Preorder EF 35 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>
<p> </p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-22082 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2432257754.jpg'><img width="150" height="113" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2432257754-150x113.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="2432257754" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/9626679097.jpg'><img width="150" height="113" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/9626679097-150x113.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="9626679097" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/9528741167.jpg'><img width="150" height="112" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/9528741167-150x112.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="9528741167" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/8099486379.jpg'><img width="150" height="113" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/8099486379-150x113.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail" alt="8099486379" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<p> </p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>Canon’s proprietary Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics (BR Optics) incorporate a new organic optical material with unique anomalous dispersion characteristics for use in camera lenses. The molecular design of BR Optics refracts blue light (short wavelength spectrum) to a greater degree than other existing optical technologies including UD glass, Super UD glass and Fluorite, to control color fringing as effectively as possible. When placed between convex and concave lens elements made from conventional optical glass materials, BR Optics help to produce sharp images with outstanding contrast and color fidelity by thoroughly reducing axial chromatic aberration.</p>
<p>In addition to BR Optics, the new lens incorporates two aspherical elements and one UD glass element in a 14 element, 11 group optical formula. The EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens also features Canon’s proprietary Sub-Wavelength Structure Coating (SWC), applied to the rear surface of the first and second aspheric lens elements to help combat flare and ghosting caused by light rays entering the lens at a large angle of incidence. The lens also offers best in class minimum focusing distance at 0.28m (approximately 11 inches) resulting in an increased maximum magnification of 0.21x – ideal for capturing close-up subjects. Autofocusing is swift and virtually silent due to a rear-focus optical system and Canon’s original Ring USM focusing motor. Full-time mechanical manual focusing is also available even when the lens is set to AF mode.</p>
<p>The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens features improved durability over its predecessor. As with all L-series lenses, this new lens is highly resistant to dust and water ─ making it ideal for outdoor photography, even in harsh conditions. The high-grade design of the lens provides users with a substantial and luxurious feel, as well as optimal operability.  In addition, a fluorine coating on the front and rear lens surfaces helps to repel liquids and dust particles, and makes the lens easier to clean.</p>
<p><strong>Pricing and Availability

</strong>The new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens is compatible with 72mm filters and will be supplied with Lens Hood EW-77B and Lens Pouch LP1219. It is scheduled to be available in October 2015, for an estimated retail price of $1,799.00. For more information including specifications and an MTF chart, please visit <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro" target="_blank">http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/lenses/ef_lens_lineup/lens_wide_pro</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder EF 35 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>
```


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 27, 2015)

Looking forward to seeing sample pictures and a MTF chart. I would totally spring on it for $1800 if it has the quality and the bokeh that I'd want at f/1.4. Sounds promising and I'm super excited.

Not sure if I'd rather spend the $1800 on this or save that money up and preorder a 1DX II when it's announced, but I could definitely get some serious use out of this lens.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2015)

I have 35mm covered several times already: Canon 35 f2 IS, Zeiss 35mm 1.4, 16-35mm f4 IS, 24-70 II. BUT still this lens interests me a lot as none of the above lenses can deliver what this has the potential of delivering. I am sure the Zeiss and this will match but Zeiss lacks AF. 
I want this new lens but which one to sell from the ones I have? All these lenses have their unique functions!


----------



## pj1974 (Aug 27, 2015)

Hi Everyone...

Here are comparative MTF charts between:
1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
2) the 35mm f/1.4 L

Happy to help!

Paul 8)


----------



## Khalai (Aug 27, 2015)

pj1974 said:


> Hi Everyone...
> 
> Here are comparative MTF charts between:
> 1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
> ...



This is quite substantial update, no doubt challenging Sigma Art, maybe even outperforming it. Combine it with reliable AF, ruggedness and weather resistence and we have a 35mm winner. Price is high, but expected...


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 27, 2015)

Sanj-- I know that feeling! I have the excellent 24-70mm F/2.8 II and the awesome 16-35mm F/4 IS, both of which are absolutely stunningly sharp, but both of them are too dark in certain scenarios, and I'd so absolutely love to have 35mm F/1.4. It'd be kinda silly though to have three of my four main lenses include the same focal lengths, but they definitely have their own unique uses. I don't want to lose the width of 16-24mm, I don't want to lose the reach of 35-70, and I really would love the f/1.4 aperture.. Hard choices!



pj1974 said:


> Hi Everyone...
> 
> Here are comparative MTF charts between:
> 1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
> ...



Wow! Thank you. That looks seriously sharp wide open. Very promising.. Ahh, this is going to be a hard few months deciding what to invest in!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

pj1974 said:


> Hi Everyone...
> 
> Here are comparative MTF charts between:
> 1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
> ...



wow.. that takes the old lens out back to the woodshed for a beating.. 

here's the sigma ..


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:



> here's the sigma ..



If I'm not mistaken, is the Canon II now as sharp wide open as the Sigma is stopped down? Wow.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > here's the sigma ..
> ...



that's the sigma wide open, but it's certainly better wide open than the Sigma ART.

and if canon's claims about getting abberations under control and it's somewhat even near to APO? 1800 will look like a steal

this certainly looks like "the" WA prime to use on a 5DsR.


----------



## siegsAR (Aug 27, 2015)

I don't fully understand MTF charts, but that one looks easy! 

Now, is it safe to assume that the 50mm USM-whatever will come w/ this new Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

siegsAR said:


> I don't fully understand MTF charts, but that one looks easy!
> 
> Now, is it safe to assume that the 50mm USM-whatever will come w/ this new Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics?



you'd have to think 24,50,85 updates with BR and up to snuff optics are on the horizon and hopefully a 16-35 2.8L II which could use some love.


----------



## Diltiazem (Aug 27, 2015)

Droooooooooool L. 8)


----------



## Eldar (Aug 27, 2015)

I think I may have a Zeiss 35/1.4 for sale ...


----------



## Mac Duderson (Aug 27, 2015)

Am I blind or did the 50mm 1.2 just get yanked off of Canon's site? 
Ohh this could be a great year!

I LOVED my 35mm mki but sold it for the 50mm 1.2 becasue of the CA. Now with this lens announced I may go back to another 35mm Woo Hoo! I think the price is Very fair considering this looks like it may be one of the sharpest lenses made yet.


----------



## benperrin (Aug 27, 2015)

Wow. Looks like a great lens!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

sample images:

http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/

(before looking at them .. )

They are OOC JPG with sharpness at 0, however CA and vignetting enabled.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I think I may have a Zeiss 35/1.4 for sale ...



Me thinking same!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2015)

Mac Duderson said:


> Am I blind or did the 50mm 1.2 just get yanked off of Canon's site?
> Ohh this could be a great year!
> 
> I LOVED my 35mm mki but sold it for the 50mm 1.2 becasue of the CA. Now with this lens announced I may go back to another 35mm Woo Hoo! I think the price is Very fair considering this looks like it may be one of the sharpest lenses made yet.



I can confirm that the 50/1.2 is not listed on Canon USA as far as I can see.

Probably just a mistake when adding the new 35.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

THIS is the best day here on CR for me ever. I think even the reason I joined this site was to see if there ever was going to be anopther 35 L. 

Placed an add for both the 16-35 and 50+ today, oh joy! ;D


----------



## Eldar (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> sample images:
> 
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> 
> ...


That was not a turn-off ...


----------



## padam (Aug 27, 2015)

A bit more information:
http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/info/ef35/index.html


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > sample images:
> ...



Canon usually have some horrible editing with their sample shots, and this is no different, BUT, I can see that this lens is just something else... I'm getting one!


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I could be wrong, but I'm seeing very little if any bokeh fringing... 
which makes this near-APO .. at 35mm.


----------



## joejohnbear (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Yay, I called it (to myself): Canon would release Zeiss APO glass with autofocus at a lower price. C'mon 50mm now.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 27, 2015)

So there it is 
Luckily the price is south 2k. Otherwise I would have declared Canon mad.
Though 1.8k is still a lot :-\

Now let's wait for the reviews


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

joejohnbear said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



24,85,125 and 14 too please.

but I may have to sell a kidney.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 27, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Mac Duderson said:
> 
> 
> > Am I blind or did the 50mm 1.2 just get yanked off of Canon's site?
> ...


Dito.
But it is still on the German page, so I'd go for the "mistake" theory.
http://www.canon.de/for_home/product_finder/cameras/ef_lenses/fixed_focal_length/
(German)


----------



## msatter (Aug 27, 2015)

So this the outdoor version of the previous version. Takes away the blue color around tree branches and is fully bad weather resistant.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> So there it is
> Luckily the price is south 2k. Otherwise I would have declared Canon mad.
> Though 1.8k is still a lot :-\
> 
> Now let's wait for the reviews



No need I say. They all will be nice. No questions.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2015)

What does APO stand for please?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> What does APO stand for please?



Apochromat


----------



## fish_shooter (Aug 27, 2015)

apochromatic

The Japanese language link from earlier post shows examples of with and without axial color error (trumpet) and with and without huge coma (night shot). I hope the 'without' shots were done with the new lens!




sanj said:


> What does APO stand for please?


----------



## Memdroid (Aug 27, 2015)

The MTF chart is insane! This may be the best 1.4 prime ever!
Pre-ordering it now.


----------



## photogaz (Aug 27, 2015)

What sort of price should we be looking at for the UK. For me that's extremely expensive but want to upgrade my 35L as it's my most used lens.


----------



## sanj (Aug 27, 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Any images of the hood yet?


----------



## meywd (Aug 27, 2015)

fish_shooter said:


> apochromatic
> 
> The Japanese language link from earlier post shows examples of with and without axial color error (trumpet) and with and without huge coma (night shot). I hope the 'without' shots were done with the new lens!
> 
> ...



It would be the perfect lens if the no coma is confirmed but I think the night shot was taken with a small aperture.


----------



## George D. (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> sample images:
> 
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> 
> ...



Fantastic images! 5D3 and 5DS there.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Any images of the hood yet?



http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lens-hood-ew-77b


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Any images of the hood yet?
> ...



Thanks! I would've bought this for the look of it alone, lol! 10 years wait finally over.


----------



## padam (Aug 27, 2015)




----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Yeah, that was that... The price here is 2800 usd, same as a mint used 200 f2 L, so I will not be buying after all... that sucks.....


----------



## HighLowISO (Aug 27, 2015)

Put this on a 5Ds and many may not need a 50mm if they tend towards the wider 35mm as their should be enough resolution to crop for most uses.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > Mac Duderson said:
> ...



It's back.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-50mm-f-12l-usm


----------



## rs (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, that was that... The price here is 2800 usd, same as a mint used 200 f2 L, so I will not be buying after all... that sucks.....



Wait until the early adopter tax has been dropped. It still looks like an awesome lens to buy, and ~$2000 could be realistic after 6 months?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

rs said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that was that... The price here is 2800 usd, same as a mint used 200 f2 L, so I will not be buying after all... that sucks.....
> ...



Even at 50% off, it's still more than a new mk1, lol.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Yeah, that was that... The price here is 2800 usd, same as a mint used 200 f2 L, so I will not be buying after all... that sucks.....



Where are you situated to have such insane prices like that?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Khalai said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that was that... The price here is 2800 usd, same as a mint used 200 f2 L, so I will not be buying after all... that sucks.....
> ...



Norway... 23.000 NOK


----------



## janmaxim (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Can confirm. Photography equipment prices in Norway are in general batshit-crazy. So I always wait for special offers or a good rebate (but they are only coming during Christmas or summer) before I buy anything.


----------



## midluk (Aug 27, 2015)

I really wonder how long the organic BR element will last without losing transmittance or changing its refractive index. I guess it will be relatively sensitive to heat and bright light (at least compared to normal glass). This new lens might really be subscription based with canon billing 500-1000$ every 5 years to replace the BR element.

I would wait for some relatively long high temperature and high light storage tests (to simulate even longer storage/usage at moderate light and temperature levels) before buying.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 27, 2015)

janmaxim said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



At Japan foto I find the price to be 18.999NOK, about 2250$. Still expensive, but 25 percent VAT is included, and that should bring the price down to 1800$ without tax.

However, I think the weight is bothering me more than the price on this one. I was happy with the Sigma 35 ART, but changed to Canon 35 f/2 IS mainly due to the lighter weight. 760 grams is quite close to the 24-70 f/2.8 L II, which I already find to be a bit heavier than I appreciate.

Edit: Too bad Viggo, the price at Japan foto is now raised to 23000 NOK.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> janmaxim said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Couldn't find it at japanphoto?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 27, 2015)

Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=481&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG

If the Canon theoretical MTF 30 curves are reasonably close to being true then the new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM is truly on another level. It is sharper wide open in centre of frame than both the 85 and 55 Otus lenses. It is slightly sharper than the 85 and 55 Otus in midframe and significantly sharper than the 85 towards the corners. (And lets not forget that it autofocuses toooooo.)

It also appears to be at about 10% sharper than the Sigma anywhere in the frame. So while it is more expensive that the current lens and the Sigma option, I'm quite confident it is on another level of performance.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Aug 27, 2015)

Sweet to see canon has done there home work. from here on out with newer glass like the new 1.2 lenses 50mm 85mm BR will be great for them, thumbs up canon.


----------



## padam (Aug 27, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=481&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG
> 
> ...




Lens properties consist of more than just (theoretical) charts. It is a big step up from the old lens but I don't see the same contrast or 3D look that the Otus lenses can provide(they are extremely good against bright light, too). There is not much point in comparing different focal lengths anyway.


----------



## chromophore (Aug 27, 2015)

I hate to rain on the parade, but let's dial back the excitement several notches and look at things more objectively. There have been a number of questions asked and speculations made that I think need to be carefully addressed.

*First, the comparison of MTF curves.* The published curves are not comparable to any other curves (especially those actually produced from measurements of production lenses of other manufacturers) except for Canon's other published curves. That is to say, you can compare the 35/1.4L against the 35/1.4L II curves when they come from Canon, but you should not compare the Sigma curves against the Canon.

The curves that Canon produces are theoretical (as we should all know by now) in the sense that they are based on ray tracing simulated lenses and calculating the resulting spot diagrams. The most important thing to keep in mind is that these are a (reasonably good) guideline but not what you will necessarily achieve with a production lens.

*Second, the BR element/technology.* This is very promising. I do not think there will be longevity issues--that it is made of organic material doesn't necessarily mean it will degrade over time, but here we can only trust that Canon has tested the technology and decided it is stable enough for use in a camera system over the lifetime of the lens.

*Third, your best indicator of performance at this time is the sample images.* Don't look at the MTF curves for now: wait until measured MTF curves are made. Right now, sample images are the proof of performance that we should look for. The ones I've seen look very impressive. Chromatic aberration is much better controlled than in the previous design, without a doubt. It is *not* entirely absent, however. We are still lacking in the following types of samples: (1) shots taken at f/1.4 with low subject magnification: this is to reveal the bokeh at intermediate, non-macro scales; (2) shots taken at f/1.4 at infinity focus, of stars: this is to reveal the existence of coma wide open; (3) series of shots taken at f/1.4 to f/2 in high contrast situations: this is to reveal any spherical aberration, residual chromatic aberration, and focus shift. I can only assume that with the level of excitement over this lens, these samples will be coming VERY soon.

I'm excited but I'm not dropping $1800 on a lens that I can't yet quantify how much improvement exists.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 27, 2015)

padam said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
> ...



I agree that although the MTF charts are just charts, they do allow us to see that this lens may for the very least, be optically approaching the Otus lenses. Certainly the comparisons between the two charts shows a vastly improved performer here.

Throw in weather sealing, through in its 1st party Canon AF and we're looking at wow here, aren't we?

Canon have been putting out some rather incredible lenses the last few years and as much as we bitch and moan about their bodies, we cannot complain about the quality of lenses.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I hate to rain on the parade, but let's dial back the excitement several notches and look at things more objectively. There have been a number of questions asked and speculations made that I think need to be carefully addressed.
> 
> *First, the comparison of MTF curves.* The published curves are not comparable to any other curves (especially those actually produced from measurements of production lenses of other manufacturers) except for Canon's other published curves. That is to say, you can compare the 35/1.4L against the 35/1.4L II curves when they come from Canon, but you should not compare the Sigma curves against the Canon.
> 
> ...



Just to add to that, I wouldn't use the sample shots as a guideline to image quality. I would wait for raw-samples. Canon isn't exactly known for their sample shots to show anything good.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Any takers on what its DxO lens score will be? Do I hear a 17 in the audience? Maybe 18?


I do not care.

DXO score represented by a single number, only serves to deceive the ignorant about optics.

You would choose a new camera just because of the megapixel number? :


----------



## roberthajdu (Aug 27, 2015)

Mac Duderson said:


> Am I blind or did the 50mm 1.2 just get yanked off of Canon's site?
> Ohh this could be a great year!
> 
> I LOVED my 35mm mki but sold it for the 50mm 1.2 becasue of the CA. Now with this lens announced I may go back to another 35mm Woo Hoo! I think the price is Very fair considering this looks like it may be one of the sharpest lenses made yet.



You gave up the 35mm mk I for the 50mm 1.2 becuase of CA. That's strange, cause the 50mm 1.2 has a much worse CA, at least according to a number of accredited websites, such as dxomark and photozone.de


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 27, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I hate to rain on the parade, but let's dial back the excitement several notches and look at things more objectively. There have been a number of questions asked and speculations made that I think need to be carefully addressed.
> 
> *First, the comparison of MTF curves.* The published curves are not comparable to any other curves (especially those actually produced from measurements of production lenses of other manufacturers) except for Canon's other published curves. That is to say, you can compare the 35/1.4L against the 35/1.4L II curves when they come from Canon, but you should not compare the Sigma curves against the Canon.
> 
> ...



This guy. ^^ Smart stuff there, thanks for that


----------



## Etienne (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> sample images:
> 
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> 
> ...



Creamy bokeh too. Looks like they have a home run here ...

.... I'm not a huge fan of 35 mm focal length, I already have the 35 f/2 IS and would prefer a 24mm f/1.4 mrk III, ... but this lens may make a believer out of me. Waiting for full reviews, but have a feeling that I'm soon to lose $1800.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 27, 2015)

$1799 is great. Bit more than I figured but still in line. The subsequent post from CR with the comparison MTF charts between the Mark I and Mark II is just jaw dropping. Looks like Canon really knocked this one out the park. I won't be a 35mm buyer because I already have the Sig Art and rarely use it now, but I DO the heck outta my Sig 50 ART. This news bodes extremely well for the new Canon 50mm L Mk II on the horizon, and I will sell both ART lenses in a heartbeat to buy the new 50mm when it shows up if it looks like this new 35.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2015)

msatter said:


> So this the outdoor version of the previous version. Takes away the blue color around tree branches and is fully bad weather resistant.



+1

Looks wonderful, except that the 24-70/2.8L II has pretty much relegated my 35L to indoor ambient light shooting, and even for that I often use the 24-70. Most likely I'll sell my 35L and put the proceeds toward the 11-24L.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msatter said:
> 
> 
> > So this the outdoor version of the previous version. Takes away the blue color around tree branches and is fully bad weather resistant.
> ...



I have been convincing myself that I don't want/need the 11-24L, but my resistance is weakening by the day. Canon has been knocking off amazing lenses these past few years. If they hit a home run with the 5D4 I will have to take a second mortgage for more lenses and camera


----------



## memoriaphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

*Here we go again...*

2x5DS, 35L Mark 2, 50L Mark 2, 85L Mark 3

Dear oh dear...I know I've said this a zillion times, but that is ALL I need EVEEERRR (until something better shows up)


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2015)

*Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM*




EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM ship's by October 2015 @ $1,799 ( Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G Lens $1,796.95)

https://www.flickr.com/groups/ef_35mm_f14l_ii_usm/


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=481&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG
> 
> ...



The actual curves are always lower than the theoritical curves, so they will likely be the same or very close. The CA reduction and edge sharpness may be the difference.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> msatter said:
> 
> 
> > So this the outdoor version of the previous version. Takes away the blue color around tree branches and is fully bad weather resistant.
> ...



I actually sold my 35mm L after it fell into disuse. I want the lens, of course, but It will not get enough use to justify it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

Good. First it was the White Unicorn 100-400 II and now it's this. Two of the longest rumored lenses in this forum's illustrious history are real and up for sale.

Now, moving on to the NEXT topic... 8)

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Good. First it was the White Unicorn 100-400 II and now it's this. Two of the longest rumored lenses in this forum's illustrious history are real and up for sale.



I could be wrong, but even the rumors over the last few years have stated this lens was going to come out in conjunction with a high resolution body .. which if that was the case, looks like it was pretty accurate.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 27, 2015)

True. And I expect to see a bounce in line with what Canon produced on the 16-35 f4 vs the f2.8. In this case however, having that same bounce while retaining f1.4. That being said, I also expect that after 20 years we get a new prime that also has a notably sharper center, particularly wide open. I'd suspect by f4- f8 the two generations would be mostly indistinguishable save perhaps for the CA and edge sharpness as you mentioned.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
> ...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Good. First it was the White Unicorn 100-400 II and now it's this. Two of the longest rumored lenses in this forum's illustrious history are real and up for sale.
> ...



I am not knocking the _validity_ of the rumors so much as the _lifespan_ of them. The 35L II has to be one of the top 2-3 most rumored / longest rumored lenses on this site.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



yes. however consider that the last time that I saw any mention of this was from Nikon - and they claimed it took 7 years to fully develop a lens from conception.

I think at times we forget that these things may be whispered that yes, they are working on it- however it's a fairly long process to get it out the door.

what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 27, 2015)

Yeah. We can go ahead and start the rumor mill for the 35L Mk III right now to be consistent. I mean, it WILL happen at some point.... in the next 20 years... :



ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 27, 2015)

roberthajdu said:


> Mac Duderson said:
> 
> 
> > Am I blind or did the 50mm 1.2 just get yanked off of Canon's site?
> ...



I think you're confusing LOCA and LACA. DxO doesn't even measure LOCA as far as I know.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.



I know this will sound biased, a replacement for the 50 f/1.4 USM has to be high on the list. Sure, we can conjure up obscure low-runners like the 100mm f/2 USM, 20mm f/2.8 USM, 180mm f/3.5L Macro, 200mm f/2.8L, etc. but I believe the workhorse non-L 50mm is a pretty wanted item from the forum traffic each of those threads generates.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
> ...



yeah there's the second tier of "prosumer" primes that need some love for sure. 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2 while all "good" they are really starting to show their age.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

Poll time, people:

Poll #1: MTF Chart response

Poll #2: Price

Poll #3: What's next

Please vote, thanks. I'm curious to where everyone's heads are on this announcement today.

- A


----------



## meywd (Aug 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Poll time, people:
> 
> Poll #1: MTF Chart response
> 
> ...



Pollaholic? ;D


----------



## midluk (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.



24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

meywd said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Poll time, people:
> ...



No, most market research / polling needs to slice the question a few (dozen) ways to see where people stand. Some peeple only care about IQ, others can't get past discussions of price, etc. so it made sense to break it down.

Poll #3 is just me being a brat.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Aug 27, 2015)

midluk said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > what's next on the unicorn list though? I'm trying to remember another lens that was rumored for a while and hasn't appeared yet.
> ...


New 50 1.2/1.4L and 85 1.2/1.4 are both long overdue.


----------



## midluk (Aug 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


Or perhaps EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM with a more current IS, less flares and less dust sucking?


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 27, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah. We can go ahead and start the rumor mill for the 35L Mk III right now to be consistent. I mean, it WILL happen at some point.... in the next 20 years... :




Whoa there! My favorite lens is 25 years old, and then we have the poor 50mm f2.5 at 28. The 35f2 took 22 years, and the list goes on.

20 years is not long enough to guarantee a replacement.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 27, 2015)

midluk said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...


+1
Canon 17-55mm F2.8 needs updating to compete with the quality of the Sigma 18-35mm Art.

Which the wide-angle F2.8 zoom high quality, Canon offers to go with 7D Mark II?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Or perhaps EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS II USM with a more current IS, less flares and less dust sucking?
> ...



Canon may never update that lens -- they (a) want to sell you L lenses instead and (b) want you to migrate to FF anyway.

Consider: 7D2 users often slap on a 16-35L or 17-40L for a walkaround. Why would Canon want to discourage that with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM II? I think they lost their shirt on the first one and will leave the limited financial opportunity of an APS-C f/2.8 standard zoom to Tamron and Sigma.

- A


----------



## midluk (Aug 27, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Canon may never update that lens -- they (a) want to sell you L lenses instead and (b) want you to migrate to FF anyway.
> 
> Consider: 7D2 users often slap on a 16-35L or 17-40L for a walkaround. Why would Canon want to discourage that with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM II? I think they lost their shirt on the first one and will leave the limited financial opportunity of an APS-C f/2.8 standard zoom to Tamron and Sigma.



a) then they should make it L!
b) they can sell you even more lenses on the migration because you can not continue to use your EF-S

All those L zooms on an APS-C camera are just compromises. Either too long on the short end, or too short on the long end, and/or no IS, or not f/2.8


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 27, 2015)

midluk said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may never update that lens -- they (a) want to sell you L lenses instead and (b) want you to migrate to FF anyway.
> ...


I fully agree.

It's stupid, fail to provide a lens desired by many people, and deliver this market for Sigma, Tamron, Tokina.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2015)

How about the 135 L? Isn't that from 1996?


----------



## LOALTD (Aug 27, 2015)

padam said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Just to put things in context, for people questioning the price of this lens here are the Lensrental MTF curves for the Otus 85/1.4 and 55/1.4:
> ...




Ah yes, weasel words! When a camera body or lens is shown to be objectively beaten/challenged by a newer model, resort to purchase defending using the following terms:


3D look
microcontrast
dreamy
filmic


It's important to offer exactly zero real-life comparison photographs to demonstrate what you're talking about. I mean, the characteristics are undefinable anyway. You just have to shoot with one and you'll just..."know".


If none of these work, talk about how you just like the "feel" of the lens/body.


Fervor for "intangible" characteristics is directly-proportional to price delta.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 27, 2015)

Holy MTF Chart Batman! It indeed takes the old 35mm into the backwoods for a beating.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> Ah yes, weasel words! When a camera body or lens is shown to be objectively beaten/challenged by a newer model, resort to purchase defending using the following terms:
> 
> 
> 3D look
> ...



Uh oh. I smell a person who prefers the Sigma 50 Art over the Canon 50 f/1.2L. 

You also forgot 'magic' and 'the way it renders' on your hatelist. 

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

pj1974 said:


> Hi Everyone...
> 
> Here are comparative MTF charts between:
> 1) the 35mm f/1.4 L II and
> ...



Rather substantially better and the original wasn't even considered to be a bad lens!

And it doesn't even take into account the apparent full on APO design for perhaps all but total lack of longitudinal CA (P/G front/back fringing) maybe right from f/1.4! If it really pulls off full APO like Otus it might be one remarkable lens and with full AF at a better price.

(a shame that only half of Canon still bothers and has pride, the lens division tries to be a leader and charges ahead while the body and even more the sensor division has become a bunch of timid, follower, let's milk them for all we can kinda bunch for rather long now)

But man some cool new tech in this lens!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...





> this certainly looks like "the" WA prime to use on a 5DsR.



disagree, its the one to use on ANY Canon as the APO stuff will make a big difference even on a low MP APS-C, you hardly need a 5Ds to notice a difference is my bet; oh also I bet the bokeh will be much better since the lines mostly track more nicely together now and that would show up on any body

it would be awesome on A7RII as well ;D, although potentially a drag if the AF performance doesnt work out well on that


----------



## Etienne (Aug 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> How about the 135 L? Isn't that from 1996?



While we're dreaming, why not a built-in 2x extender on a fast prime?

An 85mm f/1.4 IS, that turns into a 170mm f/2.8 IS with the flip of a switch.
Or a 135mm f/2 IS - 270 f/4 IS


----------



## chmteacher (Aug 27, 2015)

I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this but where is the image stabilization? This is nearly a $2,000 lens in such a technologically advanced society and we can't even incorporate IS?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> sample images:
> 
> http://www.cameraegg.org/ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-lens-sample-images/
> 
> ...



Wow, the bokeh looks stunning!!!! Almost like super-tele smooth, pretty remarkable for a 35mm.

And wow, not a peep of PF even on the worst specular highlight at f/1.4!!!

Contrast and micro-contrast look tepid, but it's probably hard to judge from OOC jpgs. DIGIC is a very waxy, low detail image processor. And the first one even looks like motion blur.

Corners on the landscape look decent, but not as great as MTF suggest, but again I wouldn't worry much from a quick sample.

But man the bokeh looks phenomenal and it looks like a 100% APO like OTUS!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I'd say it's full on APO. Not a peep of PF even at f/1.4 on any highlights under intense sun. Yeah not ever single conditions was tested, but I'd already be willing to bet some money that it's out and out APO.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > How about the 135 L? Isn't that from 1996?
> ...



Refreshing the 135L isn't dreaming. Not at all. 

(But I like your idea as well.) 

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> but I may have to sell a kidney.



I'd be careful about that! I already have one of yours for sale on ebay and I'm pretty sure people need at least one to survive.

Thanks BTW for allowing me to afford this lens right away.

;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Any takers on what its DxO lens score will be? Do I hear a 17 in the audience? Maybe 18?



no clue, don't care

their overall lens scores have no meaning


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

chmteacher said:


> I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this but where is the image stabilization? This is nearly a $2,000 lens in such a technologically advanced society and we can't even incorporate IS?



You won't get blasted at all. This has been discussed. It would appear that the old adage of "fast glass doesn't need IS", "wide FLs don't need IS", etc. has won out in the end. 

It would appear that videographers and concert photographers got hosed with this call. As a guy who gets stuck in lot of poorly lit places that are flash/tripod averse, I also am a bit miffed at this not being included. It also would have been a clear differentiator to the Sigma 35 Art, possibly helping protect its price in the longer term.

*The bigger deal is what this means for the entire lineup of wide/standard L primes that we will see refreshed in the coming years.* Based upon the 35L II -- the first new non-big-white L prime in 7 years -- one might assume that the 24L III, 50L II, and 85L III will all be without IS.

- A


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


Canon still has the upper hand over SoNikon of f/1.2 with those lenses so perhaps it will be a lengthy wait for them eventually to come to market. Of the two, which do you think the needs the update more urgently? The 50?


----------



## LOALTD (Aug 28, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> chmteacher said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this but where is the image stabilization? This is nearly a $2,000 lens in such a technologically advanced society and we can't even incorporate IS?
> ...




+1000

I'm with you guys. I want a big aperture AND IS. A big aperture isn't going to stabilize hand-held video. And there are times when I am shooting in very low-light, where a tripod is just impossible (alpine climbing). 


I currently use the 28mm f/2.8 IS for these tasks...I would love to have an f/1.4 with IS...


If only there were a body that had IS in it that I could mount Canon glass too... 8)


----------



## nvsravank (Aug 28, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...


I hope they do something different with the 50. Do something like the 100 softfocus stuff where you can dial in the spherical aberration so that it can be used to still the soft focus effect of the current lens but have that tack sharp detail if you want it.
I think most folks like the 50L because of the uncorrected SA of that design. Not sure a tack sharp one will have the same following.

I went to B+H earlier this week to test the 50L and a soft pro filter on my new 24-70 Mark II. I decided to go with the filter assuming that my dreams of a newer 50 L with controlled SA will come sooner than later.

Wishes


----------



## Eldar (Aug 28, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...


From a volume persepctive, I'm sure a new 50 would bring in more money. Personally I'm hoping for both, but if I had to chose, I think I'd vote for a new 85mm f1.2L IS.


----------



## midluk (Aug 28, 2015)

chmteacher said:


> I'm sure I'll get blasted for saying this but where is the image stabilization? This is nearly a $2,000 lens in such a technologically advanced society and we can't even incorporate IS?


That lenses become pretty big at f/1.4. Likely too big to move them fast and precisely enough to get a good IS performance. Even f/2.0 IS lenses are very rare. They should do IS with a moving sensor to get around this.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 28, 2015)

For my personal reference, I got a better indication of how the new 35 L II will perform, when I compared the MTF charts to the 35 f/2 IS, which I am very happy with. 

I have compared the 35 f/2 IS, to the Sigma 35 ART, and I found them to be very close when both shot at f/2, and they are both pretty excellent at f/2.

Comparing Canon's MTF charts of the 35 f/2 IS to the new 35 L II, indicates that the new L will be significantly sharper at f/1.4, than the 35 f/2 IS at f/2:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm

Even though I would like it to be lighter, I may start to save up for it...


----------



## wockawocka (Aug 28, 2015)

It's surprising just how old the original design was and explains a lot of the issues people had with it. I 'was' hoping for an updated 85L but noticed my version (the mkii) was released in 1996 so it's going to be a while yet before we lose that slow focusing bokeh monster.

Or maybe not, but the 50L will be next I guess considering there is no competing Art 85mm as yet.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 28, 2015)

Quite an expensive lens for a prime even if its charts are comparable to other more expensive lens.
We'll really have to see some real life shooting to see is it worth it.
As for the BR element/technology. It will be interesting if this really has longevity. It's an expensive risk you'd take if you are an early adopter. There will be alot of sunlight passing through it, under hot conditions would it degrade.
Hopefully they have it fully worked out.
It's big and heavy by the look of it.
I hope it is a great lens and I look forward to peoples photos with it.
If the price drops considerably then I'd consider. I use the Fuji X100s to cover this focal length and it does it quite nicely.


----------



## sanj (Aug 28, 2015)

Big question to me is how different this lens would look in real life photos compared to 35mm f2 IS? I do not think it is will so radically different to negate the value of IS.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 28, 2015)

Prize in Germany will be more than 2000€. 
http://www.gmfoto.de/aufnahme/slr-system/canon/objektive/ef-objektive/canon-ef-35mm-f-1-4-l-ii-usm.html 

This is realy expensive, but Zeiss- and Leica-Lenses cost more than twice and it is to be expected, that prize will drop within half an year or so. 
Greetings Andy


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 28, 2015)

sanj said:


> Big question to me is how different this lens would look in real life photos compared to 35mm f2 IS? I do not think it is will so radically different to negate the value of IS.



Probably not much difference at f/2. The 35 f/2 IS would vignette more and have softer corners, but who shoots brick walls at f/2? Those that favor a smaller, less expensive lens with IS will opt for the 35 f/2. Those that want or need f/1.4 and superior build/weather resistance will opt for the f/1.4.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 28, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> As for the BR element/technology. It will be interesting if this really has longevity. It's an expensive risk you'd take if you are an early adopter. There will be alot of sunlight passing through it, under hot conditions would it degrade.



I would imagine they have it worked out, but it would stink a bit if it turned out that it was designed to last only slightly longer than the service life-time for the lens.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 28, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > As for the BR element/technology. It will be interesting if this really has longevity. It's an expensive risk you'd take if you are an early adopter. There will be alot of sunlight passing through it, under hot conditions would it degrade.
> ...



Canon have made more and more consistent lenses that are much better put together, ref Roger LensRentals. I believe the 35 L II is probably THE most durable well built lens they have ever made.


----------



## gjones5252 (Aug 29, 2015)

Went ahead and bit the bullet and ordered it. Got it for 1619.99 usd. I am excited. I have no L series primes. So this will be my first. I have been waiting for canon to update their lenses. 
I did break down and buy the 50A Sigma and while i love it, i would sell it to fund a 50L from canon. 
I was almost tempted to wait and save money for a 5ds or 5dIV but i think this will serve me very well. 
I am excited! set to be here on thursday the 15th October. Sweet.


----------



## sanj (Aug 29, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> Quite an expensive lens for a prime even if its charts are comparable to other more expensive lens.
> We'll really have to see some real life shooting to see is it worth it.
> As for the BR element/technology. It will be interesting if this really has longevity. It's an expensive risk you'd take if you are an early adopter. There will be alot of sunlight passing through it, under hot conditions would it degrade.
> Hopefully they have it fully worked out.
> ...



Paranoia.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 29, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Big question to me is how different this lens would look in real life photos compared to 35mm f2 IS? I do not think it is will so radically different to negate the value of IS.
> ...



The new L seems significantly better at f/1.4 than the 35mm f/2 ISat f/2. 

The mtf of the 35 f/2 IS:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_35mm_f_2_is_usm


----------



## chmteacher (Aug 29, 2015)

Congratulations gjones. Show us some pix when it arrives



gjones5252 said:


> Went ahead and bit the bullet and ordered it. Got it for 1619.99 usd. I am excited. I have no L series primes. So this will be my first. I have been waiting for canon to update their lenses.
> I did break down and buy the 50A Sigma and while i love it, i would sell it to fund a 50L from canon.
> I was almost tempted to wait and save money for a 5ds or 5dIV but i think this will serve me very well.
> I am excited! set to be here on thursday the 15th October. Sweet.


----------



## Cheekysascha (Aug 30, 2015)

Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now


----------



## George D. (Aug 30, 2015)

"BR optics ... can produce sharp images by thoroughly reducing CA when combined with convex and concave lenses". As far as I can see the optical formula of 50/1.4 does not have such (convex/concave) construction, the 85/1.2L II does. I'm willing to see a 50/1.4 replacement but if BR is employed it would have to be an entirely different design, if at all.


----------



## George D. (Aug 30, 2015)

50/1.4: 






85/1.2L II:


----------



## chromophore (Aug 30, 2015)

George D. said:


> "BR optics ... can produce sharp images by thoroughly reducing CA when combined with convex and concave lenses". As far as I can see the optical formula of 50/1.4 does not have such (convex/concave) construction, the 85/1.2L II does. I'm willing to see a 50/1.4 replacement but if BR is employed it would have to be an entirely different design, if at all.



Virtually all lenses have this positive/negative combination of elements. It's not curvature (as in convexity or concavity of optical surfaces) per se that Canon is intending (this is what happens when marketing people oversimplify technical terms). What Canon really means is the combination of a low-dispersion positive element made of crown glass cemented to a high-dispersion negative element made of flint glass--this is what is termed an *achromatic doublet*. This is a common technique of correcting chromatic aberrations and is typically present in all properly corrected designs. Were it not for dispersion, lenses would be much, much simpler.

Here, when I refer to "positive" or "negative" it is in reference to refractive power. Loosely speaking, a positive element will cause parallel rays to converge; a negative element will cause them to diverge. A positive element need not be convex on both of its surfaces, nor a negative be concave on both surfaces. This is why Canon's use of curvature is technically imprecise. The net effect of such a doublet can be positive or negative depending on the relative magnitude of the powers of the constituent elements.

Sometimes, this arrangement is not cemented--an air gap is allowed in between to achieve other corrections.

You are correct that if this BR technology is used, it would require a redesign of existing lenses. This is actually a necessary condition for both the 50/1.4 and 85/1.2L designs regardless of whether there is an achromatic doublet already in the design. There is one cemented doublet (elements #4 and 5) and one uncemented (gapped) doublet (elements #2 and 3) in the 50/1.4. In the 85/1.2L II, the doublets are actually in the exact same position (with an additional front element): positive aspherical #3 and negative #4; then an aperture stop, then a negative #5 and positive #6. These two lenses belong to essentially the same design class (double Gauss).

Use of a BR layer would change the necessary corrections to other elements in the optical path. It's not something that one would just tack on in an existing design, unfortunately.


----------



## LovePhotography (Aug 31, 2015)

Canon 35 f/1.4 ii MTF compared with Canon TS-E 24 f/3.5 ii MTF


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 31, 2015)

Viggo said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I would wager that the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens would be like a toy in comparison too. Built and AF mechanics will be light years apart.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 31, 2015)

Cheekysascha said:


> Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now



Both are good lenses, it really depends on what you will use it for and the focal length you will need the most. I wouldn't choose a 35 or 24 over each other based on their mft's or cache alone. Your need and usage should be your deciding factor. If you don't know..then hire them both and try them both out and see which one floats your boat.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 31, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Cheekysascha said:
> 
> 
> > Man this Lens is drool worthy, I'm really tempted to pick this up over the Canon 24mm 1.4 ii now
> ...



I never liked the 24 L II, but I like the 24mm angle. I had three copies that were useless in terms of Af, and it's pretty soft for an L-prime. And the lens hood that is SO loose it always gets knocked and in the sun is quite hard to notice all your shots have a black band in the corners from the lens hood.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2015)

Viggo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Cheekysascha said:
> ...



While that may have been true of your copies. My copy and my 2nd photographer's copy of the 24IIL is certainly a bit sharper (wide open) than both of our 35L's. It's certainly better built and I've had more trouble with my 35L's hood than my my 24IIL's hood. In fact my 2nd photographer's 24IIL's hood is too tight. I suspect that there is a lot of manufacturing tolerance with the plastic hoods. Before I bought my 35L, I hired one for a week...and that hood was perfect. The AF on the 24IIL is a lot more accurate as faster in low light, which is the 35L's Achilles heel...in low light it's very intermittent. But this is no surprise...the 35L is a very old design and a lot has changed in terms of expectation and camera AF accuracy. 
Optically, the 24IIL is slightly superior to the 35L mk1 but I prefer the look of the images I get from my 35L...for wedding work it nice to have a wide which doesn't look too wide and makes a great "head and shoulders for a small group" portrait lens. If you like a 24mm look...then the 24IIL is a really good lens. but if you prefer the 35L's look...then the 24IIL will never satisfy.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



It's a good thing Canon are making lenses now with less and less copy to copy variation I think is the conclusion here.

I've had at least 8 35 L's and some are quite a bit softer than others, but the AF has been stellar on all of them. I often use them in low light for tracking my kids playing, and it's the only short fast prime that works for this, for me.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2015)

Viggo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I suspect that it is the AF accuracy which is causing the softness. My current 35mm f1.4L, I can't seem to calibrate it's AF properly. If I calibrate it at MFD, then it miss-focusses at MFD and vice versa. It's been back to Canon twice and they can't seem to correct it either. With a slim DOF f1.4 lens, focus accuracy is critical and nearly impossible to visual correct with an f2.8 DOF limited view screen on a 5DIII.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Not mine, it's copy to copy variation, I have had 4 copies at the same time comparing them with liveview and MF, and it's very obivous.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 3, 2015)

Viggo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Yes, I hear you. I do think that different countries get whole produciton batches and as a result different countries sometimes gets different results due to batch to batch variations.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 3, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



That makes sense.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 6, 2015)

chromophore said:


> I hate to rain on the parade, but let's dial back the excitement several notches and look at things more objectively. There have been a number of questions asked and speculations made that I think need to be carefully addressed.
> 
> *First, the comparison of MTF curves.* The published curves are not comparable to any other curves (especially those actually produced from measurements of production lenses of other manufacturers) except for Canon's other published curves. That is to say, you can compare the 35/1.4L against the 35/1.4L II curves when they come from Canon, but you should not compare the Sigma curves against the Canon.
> 
> ...


So do these measurements show that the 35L-II is comparable to the Zeiss 55 Otus:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=AVG

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=994&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=917&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=VAR


----------



## chromophore (Oct 6, 2015)

The MTF curves that LensRentals does is valid for comparing between brands because these curves are empirically derived from actual lenses, all on the same measuring device(s).

That said, the MTF tells you only so much: it is not, for example, going to directly tell you about chromatic aberration or the look of the bokeh.

So far, what we have seen is that the EF 35/1.4L II is indeed an impressive lens. I may have to get one for myself: I think if I could sell my EF 35/1.4L at a good price, I would go for the upgrade. Anybody want to buy mine? It's in excellent condition. ;D


----------



## ben805 (Oct 6, 2015)

chromophore said:


> The MTF curves that LensRentals does is valid for comparing between brands because these curves are empirically derived from actual lenses, all on the same measuring device(s).
> 
> That said, the MTF tells you only so much: it is not, for example, going to directly tell you about chromatic aberration or the look of the bokeh.
> 
> So far, what we have seen is that the EF 35/1.4L II is indeed an impressive lens. I may have to get one for myself: I think if I could sell my EF 35/1.4L at a good price, I would go for the upgrade. Anybody want to buy mine? It's in excellent condition. ;D



I had a hard time selling my 35L, even though it was in like-new condition and physically indistinguishable from a brand new one, took almost 3 weeks to get rid of it at $950. :-\


----------

