# EF 35mm f/1.4L & EF 35mm f/1.4L II Compared



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 2, 2015)

```
It seems the new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II is being compared to the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art more often than any other lens, most likely due to the price difference between the two. There are a lot of Canon photographers that wouldn’t buy a Sigma lens over a comparable Canon for a host of reasons, we usually hear autofocus, build quality, totaly image quality and support as the main reasons photographers stick with Canon brand lenses.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.dcfever.com/news/readnews.php?id=14718&page=1" target="_blank">DC Fever</a> has posted a comparison between the EF 35mm f/1.4L and EF 35mm f/1.4L II to give you a good idea of the differences between the two lenses. You’ll immediately see the advantages of the new lens outside of the center of the frame, there’s really no comparison. Mix together the weather sealing, latest autofocus technology and the BR lens, the EF 35mm f/1.4L II is definitely a worthwhile upgrade if you’re in the market.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L $1099: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/162614-USA/Canon_2512A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA3514AFU.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1GN0ug2" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
<li>Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA35142.html?utm_term=UbK24x0al34oSlvW4eT8QxjoUkX3mDVXeWC-Ug0&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid64393&cvosrc=affiliate.64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1Uehm5w" target="_blank">Amazon</a></li>
</ul>
<p>You can view the comparison by following the link at the bottom right of this post.</p>
```


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 2, 2015)

No competition? Yeah, and in the center too. The old version is sharper in the center (look at the trees) from 1.4 to 2.8. 
When You take people in picture you put their head in the extreme corner?
Bravo Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> When You take people in picture you put their head in the extreme corner?



So the subject should always be smack in the center of the image? If that's your creative preference, bravo!, stick with the MkI. 

For the rest of us, the differences in the center are quite subtle, but very evident away from the center.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 2, 2015)

I assumed that everyone was comparing the ef mk2 to the ART because the ART redefined what could be be done at 35mm, but if you say it's cause it was cheaper, okay.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 2, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> No competition? Yeah, and in the center too. The old version is sharper in the center (look at the trees) from 1.4 to 2.8.
> When You take people in picture you put their head in the extreme corner?
> Bravo Canon.



Sharpness SEEMS a little better in the CENTER with the old Canon and contrast is better with the new version.
But ...

(1) It is definitly no good idea to make decisions on one photo.
(2) This isn't the extreme corner, think about group photos ...
(3) Look at the-digital-picture which helped me to decide for lenses with great success. There the mark ii wins in the center and truly wins in the corners:
35mm + 60D vs. 35mm ii + 7D ii: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=736&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
or
both with 1ds mk iii: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2015)

Seem reviews and "tests" are all over the place.

It would be a complete fail if the center were truly less sharp than MY version one, which was very soft--BUT in spec according to Canon. I ditched version one (also because of purple fringing even at f/5.6) and am happy with my Sigma 35mm Art. (Just to ward off the hysterical Canon defenders, I tried two Sigma 50 Arts and the AF was terrible. I have several Canon primes and zooms with no complaints!)

But I think once the dust settles, we have to see an improvement over version one's center sharpness.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > When You take people in picture you put their head in the extreme corner?
> ...



He/She did say "extreme corner"...

Why does it seem to be harder to reach a consensus about lens qualities that should be easy to test?

Is it because there are simply many more opinions and sloppy tests than ten years ago, or is there a lot of intentionally misleading info? (For example, the latest DxO review of the 35mm 1.4 II seems to be quite balanced, but people are still so upset about the 70-200mm 2.8 II fiasco that even if their tests are accurate now, they get denounced.)

Sigh...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> He/She did say "extreme corner"...



The implication was that the center was more important for portraits. Also, the example didn't show the extreme corners. 




YuengLinger said:


> (For example, the latest DxO review of the 35mm 1.4 II seems to be quite balanced, but people are still so upset about the 70-200mm 2.8 II fiasco that even if their tests are accurate now, they get denounced.)
> 
> Sigh...



Sigh, indeed. The issue with the 70-200 II was not the inaccuracy per se, it was that when challenged they first defended their results and conclusions, then a year later they changed their data silently, without ever acknowledging their mistake. DxO claim a scientific basis for their testing, and to the scientific community that sort of behavior is anathema. So yes, they get denounced – they've shown themselves unworthy of trust.


----------



## TeT (Nov 4, 2015)

[email protected] said:


> No competition? Yeah, and in the center too. The old version is sharper in the center (look at the trees) from 1.4 to 2.8.
> When You take people in picture you put their head in the extreme corner?
> Bravo Canon.



Sharpness is noticeably better in the center. Nothing subtle about it. More importantly IQ is improved ... The old version is fine in the center... but this lens trumps that and offers much more...

It is being compared to the Sigma because the Sigma is the only 35mm 1.4 Auto Focus lens that comes close to it in image quality...


----------



## cpsico (Nov 7, 2015)

I had a few cold sweats when i first ordered mine and 1799, but after using it once i knew it was a keeper. Everything is awesome about this lens


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 8, 2015)

IMO something is wrong with IInd version's center crops from DC Fever (the trees). I don't have original 35 f1.4 for direct comparison but I have 35 f2 IS. The sharpest aperture on my copy of 35 f2 IS is f4 and my direct comparison (test chart at 1,5m and landscape) show that my 35f1.4 II is sharper on f2.8 than my f2IS on f4.
Maybe photozone, lenstip or slrgear will make some light.


----------



## martti (Nov 8, 2015)

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 version I mint second hand at 800 euros or version II at 1800 dollars plus freight.
You must be American not to see the situation as I see it.


----------

