# Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Image Appears



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 25, 2015)

```
<p>The long rumored Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II has finally made an appearance and should be announced this week. We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/06/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-is-done-cr2/" target="_blank">reported a few months ago</a> that this lens was complete and ready for production. Most of the specs seem to line up with the summary we were given at the same time about the lens.</p>
<p>Specifications: (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>Lens construction: 11 group 14 elements</li>
<li>2 aspherical lenses (1 ground aspherical and 1 large diameter glass molded aspherical)</li>
<li>UD Lens</li>
<li>BR Lens</li>
<li>SWC Coating</li>
<li>Fluorine Coating</li>
<li>9 Aperture Blades</li>
<li>Minimum focusing distance of 0.28m</li>
<li>Maximum magnification is 0.21X</li>
<li>Dust & weather sealed</li>
<li>Filter Diameter: 72 mm</li>
<li>Total Length: 105.5mm</li>
<li>Maximum Diameter: 80.4mm</li>
<li>Weight: 760 g</li>
<li>Hood: EW-77B</li>
</ul>
<p>Pricing is unknown at this time, although <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/07/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-pricing-information-cr2/" target="_blank">we were told it would be $1699 USD</a> at launch. That could change due to the value of of the US dollar.</p>
```


----------



## chromophore (Aug 25, 2015)

This is one lens that I will need to see MTF charts and full-on lens tests before I can decide whether to upgrade to or not. The weight increase may not be worth it for me. It's gonna have to be a lot better in the image periphery to justify the size, weight, and price increase.


----------



## rs (Aug 25, 2015)

looks like a photoshop creation:

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=812ea967be519f5481e4ba3beefc750db0c1ff65.38256


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 25, 2015)

I am still waiting for a EF 60mm f/2.8 USM macro with internal focus.


----------



## DRR (Aug 25, 2015)

Yup, it looks like a lens.

It also has gotten significantly heavier it appears.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 25, 2015)

Pricing of this will be interesting. In the UK the EF 24 f1.4L II is approx. £ 1225 whereas the EF 35 f1.4L is £ 935. Will imagine at launch it will be more expensive than the 24mm lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2015)

I'm happy with my Sigma 35mm Art, all aspects, but I really hope Canon hits this one out of the park.

Just want to see them back at the top of the prime lens heap!


----------



## rsandor (Aug 25, 2015)

I noticed that the 'other' Canon rumor watch site shows the lens as having "_2 aspherical lenses, one ground aspherical and one large diameter glass molded aspherical_" but here you are showing "_Non-aspherical lens 2 elements_". either way I am excited about the new lens, Canon is on a roll and has produces many superior lenses in the last few years so i expect this (the first Prime L in a long time) to be an awesome addition to the L series. I hope


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 25, 2015)

rsandor said:


> I noticed that the 'other' Canon rumor watch site shows the lens as having "_2 aspherical lenses, one ground aspherical and one large diameter glass molded aspherical_" but here you are showing "_Non-aspherical lens 2 elements_". either way I am excited about the new lens, Canon is on a roll and has produces many superior lenses in the last few years so i expect this (the first Prime L in a long time) to be an awesome addition to the L series. I hope



Google translator is never accurate with technical terms.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 25, 2015)

the big question is .. what's a Brazilian element??!
;D


----------



## lichtmalen (Aug 25, 2015)

rs said:


> looks like a photoshop creation:
> 
> http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=812ea967be519f5481e4ba3beefc750db0c1ff65.38256



I don't know in the least what that is supposed to tell me.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 25, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm happy with my Sigma 35mm Art, all aspects, but I really hope Canon hits this one out of the park.
> 
> Just want to see them back at the top of the prime lens heap!



+1

I recently picked up the Sigma 35 for just under $800 brand new and am very happy. No matter how great this lens is, I don't think I could justify the jump to the rumored $1699 price tag. Also, if the rumored specs are to be true, the Sigma is a tad lighter and shorter. But either way, I hope it is an excellent lens.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2015)

rs said:


> looks like a photoshop creation:
> 
> http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=812ea967be519f5481e4ba3beefc750db0c1ff65.38256



I come to the opposite conclusion?


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 25, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> we were told it would be $1699 USD at launch.



Would be nice as its only a little more than the current 35L price. Actually I do not remember the 35L as that expensive but maybe the price went up at some point of time?


----------



## rs (Aug 25, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > looks like a photoshop creation:
> ...



I'm probably wrong, but it appears to have different levels of compression around the text, and the gripped part of the lens (top right) appears to fade out to nothing rather than end definitely. Going against my theory is it doesn't appear to have a barrel which could have been easily cut/adapted from other canon lenses.


----------



## slclick (Aug 25, 2015)

I was told it would be $1699 with lunch


----------



## zicklurky (Aug 25, 2015)

What's a BR lens?


----------



## Khalai (Aug 25, 2015)

zicklurky said:


> What's a BR lens?



Bloody Refractive?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2015)

Omg! I have never hoped a rumor to be true more, been waiting 10 years...

Consider the 16-35 and 50 Art gone and this preordered asap.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 25, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> the big question is .. what's a Brazilian element??!
> ;D


I am a Brazilian citizen, ??? and do not know what would be a "BR element." Outside of Brazil, people know the Brazilian waxing, Brazilian bikini, Brazilian football, Brazilian music. :
Oh, of course I could not forget:
The Brazilian butt.


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 25, 2015)

Another brand new L lens without IS.
Very disappointing.


----------



## Click (Aug 26, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the big question is .. what's a Brazilian element??!
> ...



LOL ;D

Don't forget; Brazilian coffee


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 26, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> Another brand new L lens without IS.
> Very disappointing.


Image Stabiliser in a wide angle lens, I do not think something so important. However, there is a great Canon 35mm F2 IS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 26, 2015)

Click said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


Forgive me.
I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2015)

You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.


----------



## Click (Aug 26, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Forgive me.
> I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.




You are forgiven


----------



## H. Jones (Aug 26, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.



I think I'd count in the camp of people who really want this.

As a photojournalist who works almost exclusively with natural light and needs fast shutterspeeds, I've always tried to make due with the 24-70mm F/2.8 II and 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II, but I've struggled in some really dismal lighting situations at night where I've had to use 51,200 ISO just to get a non-blurry shot of the action. Now while I'd never complain about the 24-70mm, it's sometimes just too dark for the job. F/2 isn't much better, it's an improvement, but it's not really enough to warrant putting away my 24-70mm. I've tested out the 35mm F/1.4, and I loved the way that aperture lights up the dark. It's also a good focal length, since I'd rather have a wide lens and walk closer. 

The 35mm f/1.4 has always attracted me, but it's not weathersealed. That's a problem for me, because I can't stop shooting just because of the weather. I was out at the scene of a large house fire in heavy rain and heavy smoke for about four hours last week, and I had left my weathercover at home thinking it wasn't going to rain. Though my 5D3 and 24-70mm took an absolute beating by the rainstorm, not a drop of water ended up inside my camera or lens, even after a very close inspection. I'd also like to mention the smoke, which coated my camera bag, throat, and the inside of my nose with dust! That would've been nasty inside my lenses.

Had I been using a 35mm F/1.4 or a 35mm F/2 IS, it would've likely been ruined in the heavy rain. I like having the peace of mind that weather sealing gives me, even though I understand it's never 100%, it's at least enough to keep my gear safe if I'm vigilant enough about the strength of the rain.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.
> ...



As a generalist I thought so too, and I had eagerly awaited this MkII for a long time as I was also never happy with the lack of weather sealing on the MkI and the CA is atrocious, so I picked up a used f2 IS in the mean time. Turns out the 35 f2 IS is doing the job very well and is going the course much better than my average L lenses. And I love the look of the thing with no lens corrections at f2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 26, 2015)

slclick said:


> I was told it would be $1699 with lunch



I'd prefer a sturdy lens case to the ''lunch.''


----------



## Solar Eagle (Aug 26, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> Another brand new L lens without IS.
> Very disappointing.



Chromophore explains why:

"Why is it that there are no optically image-stabilized lens designs at f/1.4?"

This has to do with a number of difficulties related to the way lenses focus light at small f-numbers.

Lenses that gather more light do so by increasing the cross-sectional area through which light rays are refracted. When we look through the rear of a lens, we are seeing the exit pupil, the diameter of which is inversely proportional to the f-number. The exit pupil diameter must be sufficiently large to achieve a particular light-gathering ability, regardless of what is going on anywhere else in the lens design.

The way optical image stabilization works is to use a group of corrective lens elements that are free to react to movement of the system to compensate for vibrations in real-time. This correction works in large part because these movements are small and the degree of displacement required is also small; however, another factor contributing to resultant image quality is that, because these IS elements are always present in the optical path, they must also permit an acceptably uniform degree of correction across the image plane.

Consequently, the problem with adapting IS technology to very fast apertures is that, say, at f/1.4, the correction is much more difficult to achieve than at f/2 or f/2.8, where in the latter case (1) the image-forming marginal rays are not so oblique; (2) the aberrations dependent on image height are not as severe; (3) the size of the IS group does not need to be as large (and therefore have less inertia). Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2, and the required IS group must therefore be at least twice as large in area and at least 2.8 times as massive (conservatively).

It doesn't make a lot of sense optically to try to implement IS in a very fast lens, because the challenge of correcting marginal ray aberrations adequately even without such a group is difficult enough; requiring that a hypothetical IS group operating at f/1.4, at least 3x as heavy, to maintain image quality, is not economical. Does that mean it isn't possible? No. But is such a design going to deliver excellent results, or do it at a reasonable cost? I doubt it.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 26, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > I'm happy with my Sigma 35mm Art, all aspects, but I really hope Canon hits this one out of the park.
> ...


+1
It has to be a stellar lens to recover part of the market that has migrated to the Sigma 35mm Art and add about US$ 1K on top. Is it worth it?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2015)

I bought a Zeiss 50 f2 when there was no great 50, but 2.0 just is so not the same as 1.4, it lacks the pop I want.

And IS is really not needed. I hardly ever use it on the 16-35, and wouldn't miss it for more than 1% of the shots.

I would rather have a really great and solid 35 L II, and people that need is and don't care about 1.4 buy the already available 35 f2 IS.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Yes, because it will be the best AF performer of all available 1.4 lenses. A focused shot is always sharper than a missed one, and I happen to like the "impossible" moments a lot more than a One Shot focused set up shot.


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2015)

slclick said:


> I was told it would be $1699 with lunch



I just hope it has the Sigma for lunch.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 26, 2015)

Bennymiata said:


> Another brand new L lens without IS.
> Very disappointing.



really... ???


----------



## Eldar (Aug 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I was told it would be $1699 with lunch
> ...


If it matches the Sigma optically, has proper weather sealing and top of the line AF, it will be worth it.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 26, 2015)

Let's see how this performs against the Sigma Art. 
I am still afraid that it won't meet people's expectations.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 26, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I am a Brazilian bad, because I do not like coffee.



Used to import coffee when I lived in Brazil (no kidding...)


----------



## vscd (Aug 26, 2015)

> Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2



No, it's just 1,41 times that big. 

Even if the Canon is not superiour ot the Sigma, the weathersealing is the reason for me to get it... 35mm is the best lenght for streetphotography and the best pictures come with the rain


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's still twice the light in, twice as fast shutter, half the iso etc.


----------



## Maiaibing (Aug 26, 2015)

vscd said:


> > Remember, at f/1.4, the exit pupil diameter is twice as large as at f/2
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just 1,41 times that big.



You both need to read up on what determines f-stop's.

Let me suggest:
http://pleasemakeanote.blogspot.com/2010/10/mathematics-of-fstop-aperture-numbers.html
and more straight forward
http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/how-tos/digital-camera-operation/how-is-an-f-stop-calculated.html


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2015)

Click said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Forgive me.
> ...



Say you at least like cachaça!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 26, 2015)

Ok....wading back into the whole Sigma vs Canon discussion.
The old ef 35mm f1.4 L is a far better investment than the current Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens in my professional opinion.
As a professional wedding photographer, there are other considerations to a lens beyond the usual lens test charts. Firstly, the Autofocus' speed, accuracy and reliability are more important than mft chart scores. I've had countless sharp Sigma lenses which had dubious Autofocus systems when compared to Canon. Then there's the repair and warranty considerations. Canon has THE biggest dealer / repair network than all of the other brands put together...that's an important factor if your main lens goes down in the middle of a peak season flurry. It's not uncommon for me to shoot three or four weddings back to back in as many days. Gear fear should be the least of my worries. I've yet to use a Sigma lens which fills me with the same confidence as Canon's L gear. Canon's gear, I can use, abuse and forget about it ever failing. With Sigma...I have a very different story, sorry but their gear is more fragile...end of story. Then there's residual value. My ef 35mm f1.4L is 6 years old and has had a hard life. But a simple clean and it looks like new. I spent £850 buying it 6 years ago and it's paid for itself many times over. Currently it's worth around £750-800 on the second hand market...so it's hardly cost me anything to own. Every Sigma which I've bought over the years has deteriorated significantly after just one year and by the time I've come to sell it...it's looked like a wreck. I've been lucky to get half of what I paid for it and in some cases it's been only a third. So is the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art a bargain? In my opinion...no, not if you intend to use it in a professional context and intend to sell it after 5 years. 
Do I care that the Sigma is optically better shooting walls and lens charts? No...I've got countess beautiful images and happy customers using the Canon ef 35mm f1.4L....shooting stopped down or wide open. I've never had any issues with the current Canon lens' image quality. Of some one thinks that the Canon version is lacking in some way...you need your head examined and your shooting priorities looked at. I meet a lot of semi pro / amateur club photographers who seem to enjoy a cache of new gear than a cache of new and great photos. 

The new lens is going to be expensive at launch. I remember the 24mm f14 II L coming in at £1599 at launch, but soon settled down to realistic levels after a year or so. I'm sure the new lens will do the same. I'm sure the new weather proofing and optical coatings will be very useful and I hope the new hood is a better design. But until I have a compelling reason to upgrade...I'm happy with my current lens (except that it's AF isn't reliable in really low light). 

So that's my statement from my professional point of view. Naturally, you are entitled to your own opinion.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 26, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You have got to really really want this to ignore the 35 f2 IS at one third the price.
> ...



I've used my ef 35mm f1.4 L in heavy rain and gotten mine properly soaked. It's been fine every time. In fact I'm more likely to get camera issues than lens issues in heavy rain. I'm a UK wedding photographer and sometimes I take soaking. That's life as a wedding photographer in a wet country. My main lenses of choice are 16-35IIL (weather sealed), 35 f1.4L, 85 f1.2 II L, 100 USM LIS macro (weather sealed), 135 f2L. My most used lenses are the 35 and 85 and neither are weather sealed...and i've never has any issues with rain water.

Here's a photo from a few year's back...5D2's:


----------



## sanj (Aug 26, 2015)

Man! I would be wiping it rather than photographing it...!!


----------



## eninja (Aug 26, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



You shoot with prime lens for wedding events??

I bet you image crop a lot? Yes? No?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 26, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


Caçacha is great when I'm wet from rain, but I left this habit in my teenage years. It is a great drink to warm the body in the cold. Just do not drink while taking photos since its framework would be seriously impaired.

The Brazilian does not make sand castles on the beach. You know, we do not have castles in our country.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Aug 26, 2015)

An updated 35 1.4 L would be nice, but over 2000$ sounds a bit heavy for my Needs an Bank Account  .

If it will be aviable with an realistic Price Point - it could be mine.

Awaiting the real Numbers when it is aviable.

Greetings Bernd


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> Man! I would be wiping it rather than photographing it...!!



Haha, exactly how I felt. I don't feel I'm terribly OCD but all I wanted to do was reach into the photo with a towel and wipe that baby down!


----------



## roberthajdu (Aug 26, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ok....wading back into the whole Sigma vs Canon discussion.
> The old ef 35mm f1.4 L is a far better investment than the current Sigma 35mm f1.4 art lens in my professional opinion.
> As a professional wedding photographer, there are other considerations to a lens beyond the usual lens test charts. Firstly, the Autofocus' speed, accuracy and reliability are more important than mft chart scores. I've had countless sharp Sigma lenses which had dubious Autofocus systems when compared to Canon. Then there's the repair and warranty considerations. Canon has THE biggest dealer / repair network than all of the other brands put together...that's an important factor if your main lens goes down in the middle of a peak season flurry. It's not uncommon for me to shoot three or four weddings back to back in as many days. Gear fear should be the least of my worries. I've yet to use a Sigma lens which fills me with the same confidence as Canon's L gear. Canon's gear, I can use, abuse and forget about it ever failing. With Sigma...I have a very different story, sorry but their gear is more fragile...end of story. Then there's residual value. My ef 35mm f1.4L is 6 years old and has had a hard life. But a simple clean and it looks like new. I spent £850 buying it 6 years ago and it's paid for itself many times over. Currently it's worth around £750-800 on the second hand market...so it's hardly cost me anything to own. Every Sigma which I've bought over the years has deteriorated significantly after just one year and by the time I've come to sell it...it's looked like a wreck. I've been lucky to get half of what I paid for it and in some cases it's been only a third. So is the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art a bargain? In my opinion...no, not if you intend to use it in a professional context and intend to sell it after 5 years.
> Do I care that the Sigma is optically better shooting walls and lens charts? No...I've got countess beautiful images and happy customers using the Canon ef 35mm f1.4L....shooting stopped down or wide open. I've never had any issues with the current Canon lens' image quality. Of some one thinks that the Canon version is lacking in some way...you need your head examined and your shooting priorities looked at. I meet a lot of semi pro / amateur club photographers who seem to enjoy a cache of new gear than a cache of new and great photos.
> ...



Very much agree with you on the current Canon 35L, which I believe it's an excellent lense and it outperforms most recently released lenses. I'll find very little reason to upgrade to the new lense.


----------



## vscd (Sep 1, 2015)

It's a little bit tricky with the weathersealing... I always thought my EOS1n is quite a good rain-keeper until last week where it failed in a normal summerrain. The 100L was ok but the cam was wet under the top-plate which kept the whole thing from working. There was even some water nearby the filmentry but it didn't came full to the inside. The batteries got destroyed, too. 

After baking it in the oven @50°C (for ca. 20 hours) the body worked again but hey I don't trust it anymore. The thing with the weathersealing on lenses is not to full destroy them, they work for 99.99% of the time. But they will get fog or fungus after a few years... that's the problem fo sealing. If I hear the advertisement for the 5D Mark III Bodies which Canon claimed to be "as weathersealed as the old EOS1n" I don't have any good feelings with it 

Damn, If I only could effort the 1DX ;D


----------



## Viggo (Sep 2, 2015)

vscd said:


> It's a little bit tricky with the weathersealing... I always thought my EOS1n is quite a good rain-keeper until last week where it failed in a normal summerrain. The 100L was ok but the cam was wet under the top-plate which kept the whole thing from working. There was even some water nearby the filmentry but it didn't came full to the inside. The batteries got destroyed, too.
> 
> After baking it in the oven @50°C (for ca. 20 hours) the body worked again but hey I don't trust it anymore. The thing with the weathersealing on lenses is not to full destroy them, they work for 99.99% of the time. But they will get fog or fungus after a few years... that's the problem fo sealing. If I hear the advertisement for the 5D Mark III Bodies which Canon claimed to be "as weathersealed as the old EOS1n" I don't have any good feelings with it
> 
> Damn, If I only could effort the 1DX ;D



When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?


----------



## vscd (Sep 2, 2015)

> When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?



I never maintained the seals (I don't know I have to)... the cam is from around 1995/1996. Does Canon still support the EOS1n with new seals?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 2, 2015)

vscd said:


> > When did you last maintain the seals, and how old is your camera?
> 
> 
> 
> I never maintained the seals (I don't know I have to)... the cam is from around 1995/1996. Does Canon still support the EOS1n with new seals?



The rubber will wear out over time, so a new 5d3 will endure much more than a 20 year old 1d. Not sure if Canon re-seals cameras. 

I clean all seals from dust and other once every 4 months, and lubricate with silicone to keep them tight and flexible.


----------

