# More Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Information



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 26, 2015)

```
<p>More information about the upcoming Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II has appeared over at DCI.</p>
<ul>
<li>Pricing is rumored to be about 275,000 yen, which translated to nearly $2300 USD, though these conversions are rarely accurate for a North American price.</li>
<li>The lens should start shipping in the middle of October 2015.</li>
<li>New techniques used for the aspherical lenses.</li>
<li>The BR Lens is Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics. Which will refract the light in the blue spectrum. This should help control chromatic aberrations.</li>
<li>There looks to be new techniques used for weather and dust sealing, as well as increased resistance to impacts. This may be the most durable lens Canon has made yet.</li>
</ul>
<p>You can read more over at DCI, as the above is Google translated.</p>
```


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 26, 2015)

$2300 USD?? Nah. Not gonna happen for this lens. $1700 max but hopefully more like $1500. Exchange rates still favor a much lower price than direct Yen to USD translation. Few to nobody is going to pay $2300 for this sucker.


----------



## da_guy2 (Aug 26, 2015)

If it's anywhere over $2000 it better be flipping amazing otherwise the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art will (continue to) eat it for lunch.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 26, 2015)

This lens is going to need to be pure magic to convince me to buy it since I have the 35mm f/2 IS and that lens has so much going for it.


----------



## bereninga (Aug 26, 2015)

Over $2k? Good luck on that one. Not happening.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 26, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> $2300 USD?? Nah. Not gonna happen for this lens. $1700 max but hopefully more like $1500. Exchange rates still favor a much lower price than direct Yen to USD translation. Few to nobody is going to pay $2300 for this sucker.



mindblowing insight


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 26, 2015)

Anything more than 1500, this leans has to amazing. considering the awesome 35 art at $800, I do not see it fetching more than double. Get the act right Canon! It's not like you are the only choice anymore for 35mm 1.4!


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Aug 26, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Exchange rates still favor a much lower price than direct Yen to USD translation.



The exchange rate *is* a direct yen to USD translation. That's what "exchange rate" means! 

I wonder whether a high price has been leaked so the real price looks good when we finally get it?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2015)

A clone of the Sigma 35 Art + the reliability/consistency of Canon first-party AF + weather sealing = a $1500 lens for me. No more.

Can't wait to see what this thing is capable of, but if the the asking price is north of $2k, it had better do my taxes for me.

- A


----------



## Memdroid (Aug 26, 2015)

A $2K prime lens is not very uncommon. 
But it is an unrealistic approach now seeing the competition has a killer alternative for less than $1K. Apart from the build, It better blow the Sigma to the sun in sheer performance for that price.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2015)

Memdroid said:


> A $2K prime lens is not very uncommon.
> But it is an unrealistic approach now seeing the competition has a killer alternative for less than $1K. Apart from the build, It better blow the Sigma to the sun in sheer performance for that price.



Canon would get that money if they showed terrifically consistent autofocus performance at f/1.4. I've shot the Sigma 35 Art and even with very careful technique my hit rate wide open with that lens was not good. (The Sigma lens is a fine tool but you can't adjust for _consistency_ with that dock.)

- A


----------



## roberthajdu (Aug 26, 2015)

This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2015)

roberthajdu said:


> This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.



I disagree a lot with that. Everything can be a lot better with the 35 L, but it's a great lens which was my favorite for many years and I've had 8 copies of it.

The new one will be MUCH better built, AF/MF-button falling off and squeaky exterior with the old one, plus weather sealing. Contrast and color are quite poor and pale compared to Canon's newer lenses like the 24-70 II and 16-35 for example. Way too much purple fringing. A lot could be done with distortion and vignetting also. The sharpness on a good copy is really good, and okey in the cornes, this can also be a lot better. AF is the best of any 1.4 lens and the new one will be unbeatable.


----------



## CanonGuy (Aug 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Canon would get that money if they showed terrifically consistent autofocus performance at f/1.4. I've shot the Sigma 35 Art and even with very careful technique my hit rate wide open with that lens was not good. (The Sigma lens is a fine tool but you can't adjust for _consistency_ with that dock.)
> 
> - A



I'm ready to pay double of 35 art for AF consistency, but that's it. I do not see it becoming big hit with rice tag more than 1500. Sure some people will still buy it, majority will go towards sigma. 

btw, i have the 35 art. My keeper rate with the 35 art is around 90%


----------



## dolina (Aug 26, 2015)

Really interested in how much more it can improve over the _perfect_ Series I lens. 

Looking forward to price drops happening by say April/May/June.

Those who have the 35 will have little reason to upgrade without application reasons.

While those without it are open to get one just like that. Should be good for at least the next 17 years or so.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2015)

roberthajdu said:


> This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.



Disagree. The 35L is 17 years old and is currently trounced IQ-wise by the non-L 35 f/2 IS, which -- though it's a stop slower -- costs about 1/3 the price.

No sir. I expect a new 35L II to mop the floor with the original.

- A


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2015)

It's good to know that Canon is putting out awesome lenses, and I assume that this will be an awesome lens. But I have the 35 f/2 IS which is great, if not awesome, and small and light, with IS, so it's not for me right now. 

However I am interested in what price it comes in at, because that will bode ill or well for a future 24 f/1.4 mark III, which I would probably really want if it, too, is awesome. The $1500 range would probably be a good sign.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 26, 2015)

A lot of people pooh-poohed the idea of $3K for the 11-24 yet lined up when it became available.

I think Canon is aware of its clients and is leaking a high-ish MSRP to see what chatter they get. 
The comment earlier about leaking high price so the actual looks good is correct IMO. If Canon leaks $2300 and comes in at $1900 a lot of people will squeak with delight as they place their orders.

One interesting aspect that so far has gone unmentioned is that Canon seems to be building to a new standard of robustness and sharpness that implies excellent performance over a long life. Thus giving substance to the phrase of "dating the body but marry the glass." 

At $2300 that amortizes quite well over 30 years.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 26, 2015)

If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2015)

Normalnorm said:


> A lot of people pooh-poohed the idea of $3K for the 11-24 yet lined up when it became available.



Apples and oranges. There is no Sigma 11-24 f/4 Art for sale for $899, and we all knew that people with ultra-ultra-ultra-wide sickness were going to sell their children for that 11-24.

But with the 35mm FL, there are two very, very good AF 35mm lenses in the Sigma 35 Art and Canon 35 f/2 IS, and as such, a new 35L is far less exotic and unique in comparison. I see a far weaker position for Canon to demand top dollar in this market segment.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2015)

the price doesn't surpise me that much. consider that the orginal 35L was 205,000 yen.

it's gone from 11 elements 9 groupings to 14 elements 11 groupings, and a dramatic increase in weight when canon is usually decreasing weight.


so..

sounds like they are trying to make this "near APO" on a fast 35mm - seems odd (and expensive) but looking at this and the description of the BR element - the first thing i think of is that canon is attempting to make "cheaper otus'es.."

which - if they make near APO primes that are close, then yes, they are going to be well over the price of your cheaper sigmas. suck it up. 

however lenses that sit in between the prosumer grade lenses and the upper tier Zeiss Otuses - sounds like a good plan to me.

this thing gained nearly 200g of weight - given the lighter construction materials usually used now by canon and the emphasis on weight - there's got to be a reason for nearly a 50% weight increase over what you would commonly expect now.

Really interested in seeing what canon did here. should be good and also curious for the rest of their L primes that are all needing an update (14,24, 50, 85, 135, 200)

Great glass from an original manufacturer is always expensive.. get over it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2015)

Eldar said:


> If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.



1500-1600 would be what the ORIGINAL 35L MSRP'ed at. not happening if they'd jacked up the technology.

not to mention the zeiss 35mm 1.4 is what 1900 USD MSRP? and is probably worse than the sigma wide open? heck worse than the 35mm 2.0 IS wide open.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Aug 26, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> $2300 USD?? Nah. Not gonna happen for this lens. $1700 max but hopefully more like $1500. Exchange rates still favor a much lower price than direct Yen to USD translation. Few to nobody is going to pay $2300 for this sucker.



Canon told us that they see impossible.

Edited to add: Honestly, I'm more interested in the quality. Prices drop. Quality doesn't.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.
> ...



1500-1600 is possible. The dollar is a lot stronger now than before. There is also a lot more competition than before. All these things put downward pressure on price. I got the 35L new over 3 years ago for 1250, and now you can get it for under 1200 from an authorized dealer. But as long as initial demand is strong, there won't be any "discounts" relative to MSRP.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 26, 2015)

Also, this lens announcement is big deal for another reason: no IS.

This is the first L prime that isn't a big white in... what... 6-7 years or so? (I think the 100L was the last one.) Many were wondering if Canon would tack IS on to these lenses like Canon has with recent f/4L zooms and the 24/28/35 non-L refreshes. Looks like the answer is no. Should we also expect the next 24L, 50L and 85L to not have it, either?

I know it's overkill on paper, but just this past weekend I was shooting an event in a museum -- no flashes or tripods were allowed and the lighting was quite dim. I knew this was going to happen, so I went with the 28 f/2.8 IS. I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.

And I'm sure videographers would have loved this to have IS.

- A


----------



## TeT (Aug 26, 2015)

It will be awesome. Could / Should easily outstrip the Sigma... But by $1200.00 ? Although the start price will be down a bit by Feb 2016...


----------



## Lucid (Aug 26, 2015)

Ruined said:


> This lens is going to need to be pure magic to convince me to buy it since I have the 35mm f/2 IS and that lens has so much going for it.



Hi Ruined,

I'm considering the 35mm f/2 IS USM. Do you have images online that I would be able to have a look at?

Thanks.

-T


----------



## bereninga (Aug 26, 2015)

I agree that the lens will probably be priced closer to $1,500-1,600. Sigma IMO really put a lot of pressure on this one, at least for non-pros. The 35mm IS is also a very good performer, so this lens will have to offer a lot.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Aug 26, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.



Then don't use Auto-ISO.

The 35 IS is capable of 1/4sek, the 28 IS should be the same.
So 35 IS need only 2000ISO (1/15 / 1/4) with same aperture, with f/2.0 ISO1000.. A 1.4 IS would be ISO500 - why?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.
> ...



1/4s is too slow for group shots. The odds of someone moving is too great. For still life, IS works well; for people... not so much when the shutter speed is that low.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Aug 26, 2015)

But a group of people with f/1.4 ... ?


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 26, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> Canon told us that they see impossible.
> 
> Edited to add: Honestly, I'm more interested in the quality. Prices drop. Quality doesn't.



This! 100000000x yes! 

If Canon do put out an Otus level performer here, money is irrelevant to a certain point. 

Very, very interested in seeing this lens's performance as Canon's recent zooms were giving prime IQ. Waiting for TDP's review on this baby


----------



## Eldar (Aug 26, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > If this is the price level, we should expect Zeiss quality with superb built and AF quality. I have my doubts though. I´d be surprised if it is above $1500-1600.
> ...


The Zeiss 35/1.4 is a fantastic lens.


----------



## andrewflo (Aug 26, 2015)

Yikes $2300... more expensive than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II that's crazy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2015)

While its bound to be a durable lens, I'd remark that it is unlikely to be more durable than the old Canon FD lenses. 

Most of them still work fine today. All metal bodies and no AF or IS or electronics to go bad. The single failure I've seen in having owned a large number of these was grease running into the aperture due to some previous owner leaving it in the trunk of his car in very hot weather. A little disassembly, and a Q-tip dipped in alcohol removed the gunk and it was fine.

Other vintage lenses have not always been so reliable. Here is my assessment of ones I've owned in no particular order. Minolta AF - awful, Manual lenses good, Nikon reasonably good, but grease hardens in the focus mechanism and aperture ring. Pentax -Excellent, Yashica - good, Sigma - beyond poor, Tamron - fair, Konica - Good, Mamiya - Very Good, Olympus - excellent, Zeiss - Excellent, I'm sure there are others that did not come to mind. I have collected and sold hundreds, almost all brands. Since third party lenses are usually made by one of the other manufacturers, I did not mention them. Most of them were low cost, and of poor quality as far as survival goes.


----------



## roberthajdu (Aug 26, 2015)

Viggo said:


> roberthajdu said:
> 
> 
> > This explains why Canon did not include the current 35mm L 1.4 on their lineup of recommended lenses for the Canon 5DsR. However, I believe if you have the current 35mm L, there will be little reason to upgrade to the new one.
> ...



I understand that everything can be improved upon, however I'm just skeptical that it will be that much better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 26, 2015)

roberthajdu said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > roberthajdu said:
> ...



At the top level, it costs a lot more to get a small improvement. Its always been this way. Prices will fall after a few months simply because demand drops off. Unless the economy improves worldwide, the drop will come sooner rather than later.


----------



## padam (Aug 26, 2015)

Not necessarily, it might drop like 10-15% but not more.

While there is a little bit added value on the "L" designation, it is also true that higher-end lenses are simply more expensive to produce as well as more costly to develop than before. Which is why they get delayed more and more.
Look at Sony with their QC with their FE lenses (centering defects), Canon is at least more consistent.


Btw look, there is a new picture







Next time we might see it turned another 15 degrees lol


On a more serious note, we need to see the performance on the 5DsR because this is clearly what's this lens has been developed for.


----------



## fish_shooter (Aug 26, 2015)

The breech lock mount was also the strongest, the lens was always tight with no play. Nikon lenses of the same vintage tend to have play in the mount.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While its bound to be a durable lens, I'd remark that it is unlikely to be more durable than the old Canon FD lenses.
> 
> Most of them still work fine today. All metal bodies and no AF or IS or electronics to go bad. The single failure I've seen in having owned a large number of these was grease running into the aperture due to some previous owner leaving it in the trunk of his car in very hot weather. A little disassembly, and a Q-tip dipped in alcohol removed the gunk and it was fine.
> 
> Other vintage lenses have not always been so reliable. Here is my assessment of ones I've owned in no particular order. Minolta AF - awful, Manual lenses good, Nikon reasonably good, but grease hardens in the focus mechanism and aperture ring. Pentax -Excellent, Yashica - good, Sigma - beyond poor, Tamron - fair, Konica - Good, Mamiya - Very Good, Olympus - excellent, Zeiss - Excellent, I'm sure there are others that did not come to mind. I have collected and sold hundreds, almost all brands. Since third party lenses are usually made by one of the other manufacturers, I did not mention them. Most of them were low cost, and of poor quality as far as survival goes.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

price is whoa!

but it sounds like they are going for a full APO design so zero longitudinal CA (purple in front/green in back) even wide open perhaps


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

davidcl0nel said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I did what I could to reposition folks near the limited lighting that was available, but auto-ISO for 1/15s exposures often put me in the in the ISO 8,000 neighborhood. An f/1.4 IS would lens would have been pretty damn handy to bring that ISO back down to earth.
> ...



1/4 isn't all that consistent and it's much rougher since people are in the shot too


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

padam said:


> On a more serious note, we need to see the performance on the 5DsR because this is clearly what's this lens has been developed for.



I don't it is just for the 5Ds or APS-C bodies at all. APO makes a difference even on an old 5D or 10D.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 27, 2015)

Interesting rumor price tag ???


----------



## LukasS (Aug 27, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> APO makes a difference even on an old 5D or 10D.


I still own those (and use 5D ).

Can't wait for this lens tests to show up. I got my 35/2.0 IS few days ago for 100D and movies, but have been holding on for this rumored one instead of buying mkI.


----------



## squarebox (Aug 27, 2015)

The Japanese retail price may not be the actual true price. When the 100-400mm MK2 was announced in Japan the price with the exchange rate made it $400USD more than the price in the States. But when it actually went on sale in Japan, everywhere was selling it well below the MSRP in line with USD price. Hopefully that is the case again with this lens.

I have the mk1 and it's the only L lens I have that isn't weather sealed and I would like to remedy that.


----------



## TM (Aug 27, 2015)

Looking forward to the quality coming out of this, but at a better price point. I just picked up a used, mint condition Canon 35mm f/1.4, as my new Siggy 35mm f/1.4 focus is unreliable. Sticking with Canon from now on.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> price is whoa!
> 
> but it sounds like they are going for a full APO design so zero longitudinal CA (purple in front/green in back) even wide open perhaps



yes, if they remove all the LoCA - and it's "near APO" for a 35mm 1.4 - we're talking very near Otus territory - and then, is the price that whoa - considering it's weathersealed, has AF and probably 1/2 the price of the Zeiss Otus would be?


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 27, 2015)

I like the IQ of my Sigma 35mm Art...But, it has slow AF (though accurate, luckily), it is heavy, and it has no weather sealing.

Make the IQ obviously better, the AF snappy, the body a bit lighter...Big hit. Price will work its way down in time.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> I like the IQ of my Sigma 35mm Art...But, it has slow AF (though accurate, luckily), it is heavy, and it has no weather sealing.



I was initially disappointed when I first popped the lens on and the focus did not seem all that fast. In fact it seemed similar to my Sigma 50 EX. However, this past week I was on back to back vacations from a local resort instate to flying out to the west coast and I really put the lens through it's paces. I am quite pleased how often things worked out at f/1.4, even in ISO 6400 type lighting. Either way, I am in agreement, a tad on the slower side, but very accurate on my 6D. Can always hope for faster AF, but as far as IQ, this lens leaves nothing to be desired. It produces great pictures.


----------



## wtlloyd (Aug 27, 2015)

ANNOUNCED $1800 and available in October.

Here's the link to the BR element http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480fefa0a

M3 available soon as well


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 27, 2015)

wtlloyd said:


> ANNOUNCED $1800 and available in October.
> 
> Here's the link to the BR element http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e02480fefa0a
> 
> M3 available soon as well



Price seems more as expected, but these days, who knows?

Good link.


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2015)

EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM







Art






EF 35mm f/1.4L USM






Can't wait for May/June/July to arrive so prices drop to around $1,440.

Thank you Sigma, Nikon, Yongnuo, Zeiss, Rokinon, Bower and Samyang for putting out 35/1.4 to keep competition alive.

The Series one currently sells on BH for $1,479


----------



## Ruined (Aug 27, 2015)

If they can use this technology on the next 85mm f/1.2l... Wow.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 27, 2015)

Its on the Canon UK web-site but none of the main dealers have it listed yet so no news I can find on our pricing.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 27, 2015)

That would be nice but they also need to figure out a better AF system for that lens. That thing focuses like it has lead in it's ass. But the MkII isn't that old, so I wouldn't expect to see Canon revise it anytime soon. You'll get a new 50mm and new 135mm before an 85 Mk III



Ruined said:


> If they can use this technology on the next 85mm f/1.2l... Wow.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

rrcphoto said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > price is whoa!
> ...



well anything that much is gonna be whoa!!! regardless of anything else ;D but as for a fair value yeah I'm sure it would be then.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

Boy, those MTF are radically better than for the current version.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 28, 2015)

Well rip-off Britain is alive & well price in the UK £ 1,799 at today exchange rate thats $ 2770. Even subtracting 20% VAT its $ 2216. 

Too expensive for my tastes.


----------



## reczey (Aug 28, 2015)

dolina said:


> EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, I still think that Sigma 35mm Art is a better value for money...


----------



## Eldar (Aug 28, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Well rip-off Britain is alive & well price in the UK £ 1,799 at today exchange rate thats $ 2770. Even subtracting 20% VAT its $ 2216.
> 
> Too expensive for my tastes.


All European Canon shooters should unite and let Canon know that we do not accept this over pricing in Europe. $1799 in the US and $2200-$2300 + VAT in Europe is simply unacceptable.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 30, 2015)

Eldar said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Well rip-off Britain is alive & well price in the UK £ 1,799 at today exchange rate thats $ 2770. Even subtracting 20% VAT its $ 2216.
> ...


South African prices seem to line up relatively closely with the US prices. Unfortunately our local currency is quite volatile so our Canon prices tend to fluctuate with the exchange rates. :'( 

Agree that the Europe pricing is unfair. It not like people live under a rock. Everyone who invests such huge amounts of money in high-end photographic equipment has internet access and knows what pricing is on offer in other regions. Huge disparities leave a bitter taste in the mouth.


----------



## Crosswind (Aug 31, 2015)

*Blue Spectrum Refractive*

What about this BR thing inside the new 35L? It seems to be an "organic optical material", but organic things get weaker and weaker (for example; older models of colorimeters that used organic filters inside for monitor calibration were useless or very inaccurate after several years). 

Is there something... that is preventing damage over time to this BR element? I don't understand a lot about lens design, but this is something that worries me.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



Crosswind said:


> What about this BR thing inside the new 35L? It seems to be an "organic optical material", but organic things get weaker and weaker (for example; older models of colorimeters that used organic filters inside for monitor calibration were useless or very inaccurate after several years).
> 
> Is there something... that is preventing damage over time to this BR element? I don't understand a lot about lens design, but this is something that worries me.



You have nothing to worry about. Fluorite is also organic. Ever heard of glass been worn out in a Canon lens? ;D
Even the very old designs with no weather sealing and is 40 years old still works but with a little dust. Fungus can grow on any glass, keep your lenses not outdoor in the winter and you'll be fine


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



Viggo said:


> Crosswind said:
> 
> 
> > What about this BR thing inside the new 35L? It seems to be an "organic optical material", but organic things get weaker and weaker (for example; older models of colorimeters that used organic filters inside for monitor calibration were useless or very inaccurate after several years).
> ...



Fluorite is Calcium Fluoride, CaF2, which is totally, completely and absolutely inorganic. Organic compounds contain, by definition, carbon - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound

(There is the mythical "flourite", which sounds organic!)


----------



## Viggo (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



AlanF said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Crosswind said:
> ...




"Unfortunately, fluorite in nature grows in very small crystals and is not suitable for use in photographic lenses, although even back in the 19th century, natural fluorite crystals were being used in microscope lenses.

To overcome these problems, Canon set about growing its own synthetic fluorite crystals in large enough quantities to create photographic lenses from them."

From Canon's website.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



Viggo said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Crystal growth is a physical (or chemical) process where solvatized ions (here Ca++ and F-) recombine to CaF2 which is solid. It is the same process which is used to produce salt from salt water where you get small crystals. Under controlled conditions you can grow very large crystals: High purity materials + avoiding shake.

Another process of crystal growth is the growing of large crystals from the molten material. Maybe Canons large CaF2 crystals are made with this process. A well established process for other applications is to grow large silicon crystals from molten silicon to produce electronic chips ...

But back to your first question: How stable are organic materials? It depends ... Lucite (plexi glas, PMMA) is good for 10 or 20 years stability under outdoor conditions. Dioxines are organic compounds which are cancerogen - a large problem is their stability which is better than that of plutonium: Only burning them at 1400 degree centigrade damages the molecular structure.

The Canon BR element encloses the organic material between two (glass?) lenses and I think it is sealed by a metal ring to avoid ageing. Perhaps it is fluid so it is a good thing to seal it very well!

Organic compounds have one large advantage: The variability of compound structure and its properties is nearly without limit. The carbon atoms have four binding possibilities so you can make networks, chains, add other atoms inside these complex structures. Look at diamond and graphite - both are made of carbon but have different internal structure which leads to totally different properties.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



mb66energy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Dioxins more stable than plutonium? The half-life of dioxin depends on its location. In human bodies the half-life is 11–15 years, though it can be as high as 20 years. In the environment, the half-life varies depending on the type of soil and the depth of penetration. Sun will break down dioxin, so on leaf and soil surfaces it will last 1–3 years, depending on conditions. Dioxin buried or leached under the surface or deep in the sediment of rivers and other bodies of water can have a half-life of more than 100 years. 

Different isotopes of plutonium have different half-lives. The longest-lived are plutonium-244, with a half-life of 80.8 million years, plutonium-242, with a half-life of 373,300 years, and plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,110 years. All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are less than 7,000 years.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 31, 2015)

*Re: Blue Spectrum Refractive*



AlanF said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Thanks for your clarification - for TCDD - "the" dioxin you are right. But I think half life in the human body is more related to the persistence of TCDD in the body while newer investigations show that the human body can decompose dioxins especially if the dose is very high.

My information is from 1995 and was related to the group of dioxins - several 100 compounds in that "class" of compounds. But maybe that information was wrong ...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2015)

Trust me - I'm emeritus professor of organic chemistry. Let's go over how the BR material could degrade. The first route is photobleaching because of the absorption of light. But, this material is highly translucent in the visible spectrum so it doesn't absorb its energy, and the surrounding glass would screen out the shorter wavelength high energy UV that excites double bonds etc. The next is oxidation, but if the organic material is sealed in glass, then oxygen would be excluded. Then, there is moisture, but again the glass would save it. So, the BR should see you through the lifetime of the lens.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 31, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Roger Machin of Canon SA championed pricing parity with the U.S. which came into effect last year so yes, our prices are in line with the USA's

Heard that's about to change though Skyrocketing US/RSA exchange rate and a 10% extra


----------



## Crosswind (Aug 31, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Let's go over how the BR material could degrade...*snip*



Thank you a lot for all the information and thanks for not inserting tons of quote text, it really helps readability.


----------



## midluk (Sep 2, 2015)

Eldar said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Well rip-off Britain is alive & well price in the UK £ 1,799 at today exchange rate thats $ 2770. Even subtracting 20% VAT its $ 2216.
> ...



In Germany it's about 2050€ including 19% VAT (all prices in Germany are including VAT, except for explicit B2B offers), that is about 2300$, so about 1930$ without tax. Still a little bit higher than the US price, but OK compared to the other european prices I have seen around here.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

midluk said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



The reason the German price is so high...so that Merkel can afford to re-house all the Syrian Migrants...$8.5 billion so far


----------

