# Review: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II Via TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2015)

```
Bryan at The-Digital-Picture has completed his review of Canon’s brand new EF 35mm f/1.4L II lens. This lens is the first to feature Canon’s latest lens technology, the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-develops-new-camera-lens-optical-element/" target="_blank">Blue Spectrum Refractive (BR)</a> element.</p>
<p>From the review:</p>
<blockquote><p>I love it when my expectations are exceeded and when Canon formally announced this lens, the theoretical MTF chart did just that. My expectations, set in part by the 24 L II vs 24 L I differences, were for a modest bump in performance. But, in this case, my next step was to check the bank account for available funds. With the bank account gasping for breath (thanks to the 5Ds R bodies recently arriving), Tony’s suggestion in the comments of the announcement post appeared to be a really good one: hold a bake sale! With the lens in hand and meeting my elevated expectations, I have a more serious decision to make as the really impressive wide open image quality this lens is delivering is refuelling my love with 35mm f/1.4. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review…</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II $1799:</strong> <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> <strong>| <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA35142.html?utm_term=UbK24x0al34oSlvW4eT8QxjoUkX3mDVXeWC-Ug0&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid64393&cvosrc=affiliate.64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1Uehm5w" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2015)

I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan _didn't_ rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.

- A


----------



## meywd (Oct 7, 2015)

very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2015)

meywd said:


> very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?



I don't shoot astro, so coma's not a major concern for me. The 35L II is a tad sharper than the Sigma Art, but it's the reliable first party AF that has me excited. Even with supercareful technique, my f/1.4 hit rate with the 35 Art was poor -- it was not front or back focused, it was inconsistently focused. So I had to stop it down just to get more working DOF to overcome that inconsistency.

I'd love to see a simple head to head AF consistency test between the 35L II and 35 Art at f/1.4 with center and off-center points on the same Canon body. That single test could turn me from a $1,799 skeptic to a believer.

- A


----------



## ben805 (Oct 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > very little coma, we can consider it as no coma, and its sharper than the ART, do you smell G.A.S?
> ...



Bad Coma can also ruin City lights or Nightscape, not just astro.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 7, 2015)

Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...

Also, in Bryan's review, for such a long awaited lens, the sample photos, _especially the horse,_ were not all that helpful.

Looking forward to a review with a little more effort involved.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...



I caught that as well. I pinged Carnathan to tell me what the aperture was for that shot. I'd be surprised if that was taken wide open.

- A


----------



## TeT (Oct 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan _didn't_ rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.
> 
> - A



How often is Canons latest lens / body release not better than what it replaced or most of the category it sits in...

It is easy to appear biased with a good product... He very clearly names what other items are better in comparison in what areas throughout all his reviews. AND he covers every aspect of each product under review.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 7, 2015)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Sigme threw the gauntlet, Canon gladly accepted.
(Of course the Sigma still cost half as much, but at least now the performance of the 35LII comes much closer to justifying the price.)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=917&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Just for a perspective on overall sharpness you can even compare it with the 55mm Otus.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=917&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=994&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&CT=VAR
Looking at the variance chart I think it's safe to say Brian was using a "good copy", but the Canon 35LII is certainly a top performer in modern optics.

Now we wait for the 50.


----------



## chromophore (Oct 7, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...
> ...



It quite clearly does not depict the lens shot at f/1.4. The purpose of a stopped down photo like this is to test multiple aspects of the bokeh:
[list type=decimal]
[*]How does the blur circle look in terms of uniformity of brightness?
[*]What diffraction effects are visible?
[*]Can we see any "onion-ring" effects due to aspherical or diffractive optical elements?
[*]Are blur circles in the image periphery "clipped" by the mirror box?"
[*]How rounded is the aperture when stopped down?
[/list]

If stopped down, we can detect items 2 and 5. Of course, when not stopped down, we can detect 4 best.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 7, 2015)

At least Brian doesn't pretend to review Nikon gear.
He gives a thorough description on Canon stuff and apparently that is a full time job in itself. You can't be an expert at everything.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2015)

ONE sentence answered one of my big question and reason for buying or not:

"Essentially distortion free" oh my! ;D

I'm buying!


----------



## ben805 (Oct 7, 2015)

In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:

"Focus accuracy, especially with a very shallow depth of field at f/1.4, is paramount for sharp images. This lens has been performing very well for me in that regard. I will not say that every image I captured with this lens was perfectly focused, though I'll personally take the blame for most of the mis-focusing I encountered. It is very easy to move slightly after focusing when not using a tripod."

"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and *I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently*, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference. "


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2015)

ben805 said:


> In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:
> 
> "Focus accuracy, especially with a very shallow depth of field at f/1.4, is paramount for sharp images. This lens has been performing very well for me in that regard. I will not say that every image I captured with this lens was perfectly focused, though I'll personally take the blame for most of the mis-focusing I encountered. It is very easy to move slightly after focusing when not using a tripod."
> 
> "The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and *I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently*, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference. "



The Sigma I've owned twice and I want to say what I really feel about it, but then you couldn't have read this post on this forum  it was never considered an option to the Canon's, and I never doubted the AF on the 35 L II as I LOVED the old one and the II would simply be better.

People can shout in my face about the Sigma, but the 50 Art is the only one I would own again.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 7, 2015)

Viggo said:


> ben805 said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to Focusing, this is what Bryan said about the 35L II:
> ...



Yea. and as Bryan from TDP stated, some people find the Sigma to be a "better value", personally I was not looking for a value lens either, i wanted THE BEST 35mm lens and the 35L II delivered. ;D Speaking of value, due to focal length preference I get more use out of a 35mm lens than 85mm, therefore the 35L II is practically a better value to me, than the 85L II that I paid $1950 for a couple years ago. The worst 'value' lens is actually the one that sit on the shelf collecting dust, or the one hiding in camera bag that never get to use much. LOL


----------



## risc32 (Oct 8, 2015)

So the canon v2 is what we all assumed it would be, and the sigma is now optically bested,just. yesterday's "best" is today's value deal.? I guess so.
personally I'm good with my sigma, but if I had problems with it, I'd be down for the v2 canon without a hesitation.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 8, 2015)

I think its a wonderful lens, I posted some pictures on my own thread. I found the autofocus to be very accurate and consistent 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27937.0


----------



## cpsico (Oct 8, 2015)

These are two shots taken with this lens that show how awesome it is wide open for landscapes too! This is a lens you want in your camera bag!!


----------



## ben805 (Oct 8, 2015)

risc32 said:


> So the canon v2 is what we all assumed it would be, and the sigma is now optically bested,just. yesterday's "best" is today's value deal.? I guess so.
> personally I'm good with my sigma, but if I had problems with it, I'd be down for the v2 canon without a hesitation.



Usually that's what happened with something better came out, remember the old 35L was part of the "Holy Trinity"? it was used by a lot of wedding photogs and journalists. Then came the Sigma 35A, for awhile it was the sharpest 35mm prime money can buy, I guess Canon just had to take the crown back with the updated MK2....


----------



## caMARYnon (Oct 8, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Anybody else surprised by the octagonal specular highlights (rather than round)? I thought round apertures were standard in L lenses at this point...


It's nonagonal and that pic was shot on 5.6 "_Perhaps easiest is the look at out of focus specular highlights with the following example captured using a significantly stopped down f/5.6 aperture._"


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 8, 2015)

Samples here and on TDP unusually contrasty. Unpleasantly so.

Also, in the linked thread from cpisco, seeing some fringing on the hanging fan switch--fairly heavy on letters ''H'' and ''u.''

Thanks for these samples!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 8, 2015)

cpsico said:


> I think its a wonderful lens, I posted some pictures on my own thread. I found the autofocus to be very accurate and consistent
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27937.0



How's AF in servo?

I found the original 35L focuses poorly in servo wide open, so I usually end up using the 24-70 II for moving targets.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > I think its a wonderful lens, I posted some pictures on my own thread. I found the autofocus to be very accurate and consistent
> ...



Which body?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 8, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > cpsico said:
> ...



5D3


----------



## Viggo (Oct 8, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



Strange, I primarily shoot my kids on dim light and they are fast, the 35 L has been the one prime to trust, also on 1d4 and 5d3 before I bought the 1dx.


----------



## cpsico (Oct 9, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> cpsico said:
> 
> 
> > I think its a wonderful lens, I posted some pictures on my own thread. I found the autofocus to be very accurate and consistent
> ...


I didn't even think to test AI servo on this lens, perhaps this weekend!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



So you found the 35L at f/1.4 to focus as well as the 24-70 II in servo?


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan _didn't_ rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.
> 
> - A



That is the absolute truth! And that is why I haven't been to his site for years.

John


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 9, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I love TDP, don't get me wrong, but when's the last time Bryan Carnathan _didn't_ rave about a Canon product? His reviews are overwhelmingly Canon-positive.
> ...



I disagree with you on this one. He covers every aspect of a camera or lens in his reviews, and he points out weaknesses very precisely. He doesn't exaggerate the meaning of those weaknesses, like many other reviewers do, and I think that's fair and balanced. I don't think he covers other brands than Canon in another way either. In my opinion, he has the best written online reviews that I know.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 9, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Agreed, TDP is well balanced IMO, similar to photozone but with more in depth and detail info. They are no where near bias or radical like Ken Rockwell and the like.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 9, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



+1. The chart tests, OLAF LensRentals data and the review text and sample shots provide a very thorough review. Plus he's used all those lenses on multiple bodies. And what and when was the last Canon lemon? 50L? It's up to each individual to determine if each lens' features/weaknesses are worth the price.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



This isn't an attack on Bryan Carnathan, mind you -- his site is a spectacular resource and I'm there all the time. I'm not a smear-tactics sort of person (unless you are DXO ).

I'm simply stating that he _always_ has a positive read on a new product from Canon. I'm hard pressed to find anything critical other than a few ergonomic preferences not being met or the odd lens + body combination weird AF findings.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



The 24-70 is too slow in poor light and it doesn't do 1.4. Never shot the 35 L at 2.8. But if I was going to use it 2.8, I would use the 2470 for multiple reasons.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The 24-70 is too slow in poor light and it doesn't do 1.4. Never shot the 35 L at 2.8. But if I was going to use it 2.8, I would use the 2470 for multiple reasons.



What application needs servo AF with a wide / large aperture prime? That's an odd combination of lens + AF settings. Are you shooting an underground illegal boxing match that's only it by torchlight? Or are you trying to shoot burst on a rockstar doing some jump kicks at a concert in a dimly lit bar?

I don't mean to dismiss the need as irrelevant or poke fun -- I'm actually curious. I only use servo for tracking things like sports or wildlife, where a fast zoom usually has enough light to track things.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The 24-70 is too slow in poor light and it doesn't do 1.4. Never shot the 35 L at 2.8. But if I was going to use it 2.8, I would use the 2470 for multiple reasons.
> ...



I shoot everything wide open as I like shallow dof and fast shutter speeds. With the kids, it's no way around it. I may have used One Shot twice last year, as in two pictures  very rarely I go slower than 1/1000s, and try as much as possible to use 1/2000s to avoid motion blur.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2015)

Viggo said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Oh, so you _are_ shooting wildlife with it. Got it. 

- A


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Lol, yeah, but I shoot all kinds of stuff, and I usually have the same approach..


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 9, 2015)

ben805 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...



I do agree that his site is better than Rockwell's or DxO's, but not as objective or thorough as LensTip. One example is the flare comparison between the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the Samyang 24mm 1.4. Using a darkish or darkened sky for the Samyang and a light sky for the Canon is not a fair comparison. And when reviewing the Canon 24mm 1.4, he says 'expect some coma', which is a quite an understatement. I much more agree with LensTip's 'simply monstrous'.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 9, 2015)

chrysoberyl said:


> I do agree that his site is better than Rockwell's or DxO's, but not as objective or thorough as LensTip. One example is the flare comparison between the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the Samyang 24mm 1.4. Using a darkish or darkened sky for the Samyang and a light sky for the Canon is not a fair comparison. And when reviewing the Canon 24mm 1.4, he says 'expect some coma', which is a quite an understatement. I much more agree with LensTip's 'simply monstrous'.



My principal example is how hard he hunts for (example) a Sigma AF issue, and to his credit, he found a whopper on the 50 F/1.4 Art. But he really worked at generating content to back up the statement. I just don't know if he's kicking the tires / shaking the tree as hard for 1st party products. What's his comparable f/1.4 hit rate on the 35L II? I'd love to know that data.

Again, I'm not saying it's a bias so much as a strong Canon benefit of the doubt based on his experience, which is his prerogative.

But my beef with TDP -- if there even is one, I do love that site -- is that if you curve everything to an A letter grade, _the test doesn't mean as much_. Perhaps I'm just looking for him to be a bit more critical -- curve to a B to make the real A's really stand out.

- A


----------



## chromophore (Oct 9, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I do agree that his site is better than Rockwell's or DxO's, but not as objective or thorough as LensTip. One example is the flare comparison between the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the Samyang 24mm 1.4. Using a darkish or darkened sky for the Samyang and a light sky for the Canon is not a fair comparison. And when reviewing the Canon 24mm 1.4, he says 'expect some coma', which is a quite an understatement. I much more agree with LensTip's 'simply monstrous'.
> ...



I pretty much agree with this. For me, TDP is primarily a *learning resource*: if I want to learn about what a new product does, what makes it different from previous or similar models, I go there to find out. If I want to know how many AF points a new body has, Bryan's got it. If I want to know what the MFD of a lens is, I can find it there and compare it against others. What TDP has done is compile a fairly comprehensive and uniform repository of information about all kinds of Canon EOS/EF products.

Of the reviews, I don't read much into them.

If I want to really get a sense of how a lens performs, for example, I compare against a few reliable resources. LensTip is one of them; LensRentals is another. DxO is not. I put *ZERO* credibility on *EVERYTHING* they say because it is abundantly clear that they are biased, as well as ignorant of objective measurement methodologies, to the extent that they are deliberately fraudulent.

I used to look at other sites as well (Photozone?), but I too found these to be guilty of bias. What I trust the most are real-world sample images taken by many different people over a long period of time. Ultimately, these are the best indicators of what a lens really does and how much impact the design of the lens has on the produced image.

In regard to the EF 35/1.4L II, however, the evidence is clear enough to me at this point to say that the level of chromatic aberration correction of this lens is good enough to justify an upgrade from the previous model. It's just a question of following through with selling the old lens and looking for a deal on the new one at some point.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 10, 2015)

chromophore said:


> In regard to the EF 35/1.4L II, however, the evidence is clear enough to me at this point to say that the level of chromatic aberration correction of this lens is good enough to justify an upgrade from the previous model. It's just a question of following through with selling the old lens and looking for a deal on the new one at some point.




After playing with the new 35L II now I find the Lo CA of my 85L II unbearable....I have no idea how I tolerated the intense purple fringing from the 85L II for so many years! LOL


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 10, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > the test doesn't mean as much[/i]. Perhaps I'm just looking for him to be a bit more critical -- curve to a B to make the real A's really stand out.
> ...


----------

