# Canon 35 f1.4L MkII vs Sigma 35 f1.4 Art



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

Interesting first comparison I have seen.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/


----------



## Viggo (Sep 23, 2015)

Thanks for posting! Been waiting for some reviews/comparison.

I voted for "Canon is better, but not worth the price" and that is to say, even with the best AF in the world, even me that waited ten years for this lens wouldn't buy at the current 2800 USD price. I'll just have to live with my mk1.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

Many others have been waiting too!

I voted 'Canon is better and worth the price', for me I can't be bothered with Sigma AF and inconsistency issues, also it is less than $1,799 here so not quite the crippling cost. But it took Canon too long, I got an f2 IS a while ago and am happy with that at this point.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Many others have been waiting too!
> 
> I voted 'Canon is better and worth the price', for me I can't be bothered with Sigma AF and inconsistency issues, also it is less than $1,799 here so not quite the crippling cost. But it took Canon too long, I got an f2 IS a while ago and am happy with that at this point.



Yeah, agree in comparison with the Sigma any price would be worth it, because missed focus that is simply the lens' fault is probably the worst part of photography.

But the AF I have in the mk1, so for me to swap the 35 I have for the new the price needs to come down a lot.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting first comparison I have seen.
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/


Thanks for sharing.

I am quite surprised to see how well the BR element seems to work at CA.
Especially in the street picture with the white transformer CA looks great.

Personally, to me that lens is too expensive to buy but worth the price. 


_Edit: I cannot read from the comparison if they turned any in camera correction off. I refer my CA comments to the asumption that LuLa did turn it off. If they didn't that test is useless._


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 23, 2015)

Viggo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Many others have been waiting too!
> ...



I was expecting more from the New 35LII. I went from the Sigma to the 35mm f/2 IS and, apart from the coma-issues on the 35 f/2IS, I never missed the Sigma, and I didn't have any focus issues with the Sigma on my 6D. I like the 35 f/2 IS for beeing smaller and more light weight, and with almost on par performance compared to the Sigma at f/2, and to my eyes as good from f/2.8. Now, the 35 LII, is heavier than the Sigma, way more expensive, and seems only slightly better. The price has to drop a whole lot in Norway (and Europe), before I will consider it. 

When it comes to the CA, it seems very good indeed, but the Sigma isn't too bad either.

I will save my money for a new 50 L instead.


----------



## JoFT (Sep 23, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting first comparison I have seen.
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/




Thanks for sharing. I judged that the Canon is the better lens and worth the money.


But I will not buy it because I am happy with the results of my EF 35mm f2.0 IS which is still "faster" in low light situations due to IS.... I guess you can understand: http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2015)

JoFT said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting first comparison I have seen.
> ...



From an optical point of view, yes the Canon is slightly better. But that's splitting hairs and not enough to warrant the vast price difference. The Canon lens price will drop 40-50% after the first year anyhow. So it's an unfair assumption that the Canon will remain that expensive. In fact i suspect that the lens review will stay the same while the Canon retail price will drop substantially. 
The real separator between the Canon and Sigma is the reliability, the accuracy of the AF (seriously...don't under estimate how important this is on an f1.4 lens) and the build quality. Plus there's the re-sale value...sigma's don't survive as well as Canon lenses over the long term, both in re-sale terms and in general looks


----------



## Viggo (Sep 23, 2015)

Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 23, 2015)

I look at lenses from two points of view: 1. For it's image quality including performance and 2. It's investment factor

Often these review pics are done in very controlled environs, as in this case, the reviewer wants to show case the IQ of both lenses. Yet, do I want to lose once in a lifetime images due to poor AF performance or the absence of weather sealing? Do I want a great image to be slightly tarnished by aberrations which post processing could not remove? Well no, no I don't.

Then there's the cash outlay. We all know that Canon is an investment that holds value really well. I in fact have sold 2 of my lenses for more than what I paid! Sigma on the other hand, will not offer similar returns. 

But that's my value propositions I consider when I buy kit, yours may differ.

To my eye, both lenses deliver superb images. Much like the 100mm Macro Vs 100mm Macro L IS discussion of performance versus cost, I've never felt disappointed in paying more for the L


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 23, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.



When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 23, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
> ...



Are you taking used gear ? Here a 10% decrease in the first year and it never goes below that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 24, 2015)

Viggo said:


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



In the UK the new prices are wildly inflated. The UK RRP is a work of fiction and most of the retailers heavily discount. But on release...everyone charges RRP. So in the UK a 30/40/50% drop in price over the 1st year is quite typical. If your local retail market doesn't do this then it means that Canon are setting a more realistic RRP in the first place. Here in the UK, it's a rip off for brand new released lenses. Only someone with a serious need or a serious ego would be mad enough to buy something fresh on the shelves. The 5DIII didn't start shifting in any quantities on launch here in the Uk until the price stabilized to a more realistic price. I saw some retailers trying to sell a body only for £3000 UKP!!! Now I can pickup a new body, inc vat for less than £1500.


----------



## rs (Sep 24, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



I presume you're talking eBay or HK specials?


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 24, 2015)

hard to know all the conditions 
in the compare..

I THOUGHT I saw a slight bit of better clarity in canon shots...
so slight... and copy variation from both mfgrs will swamp that diff....

I did think sigma bokeh a little smoother/creamier...subjective...

.........I had original 35L, sold it got sigma 35 'A'....
never had focus issue on 5D3......either lens..
I remember when Canon was JUST about to release their 35L II...then sigma sent out the 35 f1.4 'A'....
they backed away..
and I got the sigma..
but swore I would replace with 'L' if it was better than sigma....

for me I have to see a few tests before I can even ponder what to do...

* Lens tip especially coma tests...and I would get a compare to sigma

* Roger - lens rentals...testing a handful at a time would be useful too....
Canon seems to have tighter groups lately for new lens releases...

auto focus is very improtant....I skipped sig 50 for comments about autofocus...
not a '50' guy anyway...35 is natural for me..

the coma on sig 35 is not perfect....but lets see the Canon 35 f1.4 II.....

again I thought 35L mkI had very slight better bokeh...than sig 'A'
but higher chromatics..

now the sig bokeh seems slightly better than 35 L mkII...


just glancing at it all...

lets see coma and also test a handful of each....

the price will drop a little..
and yes...I have sold 'L's for more than I paid...yrs later.....

////////////
just my first take.....
good grief how long have we waited....

and where is the Canon and the Sigma ...135 f2 I.S. ......hurry up

//////////
by the way...as good as lenses are coming out from Canon lately,
if 5D4.... does not have the spotmeter tracking focus point... and manual controls STILL with no exp comp
and worst of all........ unlighted/black focus points in servo mode... this is unusable for me...
if this set is missing.... .....
I wont get the 5D4.....and that may just push out the Canon brand for me..
they need to get hip.... or not...

IMO


----------



## Viggo (Sep 24, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



hmmmm... I bought the 1dx when first released for £4200 UKP, I checked just now, this instance, £4104 UKP.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 24, 2015)

Holy smokes

Art vs L II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

L I vs L II

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

35 L II vs 200 f2 both wide open. ;D

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Holy smokes
> 
> Art vs L II
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Just WOW!
This is really impressing! Thank you for sharing.

People may think different now about the price gap...


----------



## Efka76 (Sep 25, 2015)

I think that if you compare lenses you have to calibrate both of them with specific camera and then perform comparison. With Sigma docket it is possible to calibrate Sigma Art series lenses (4 calibration points for fixed focal lenses and 16 calibration points for zoom lenses). Accordingly, after calibration you will have the most sharpest lens. For example I bought Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art and performed calibration by using Reikan Focal Plus for different distances. Calibration values were +9 ; +4 + 4; +2. Canon allows only camera calibration (1 microadjustment value for fixed lens and 2 values for zooms).

After calibration I never missed AF in any shot and was amazed how sharp images are when photographing with F1.4. I really doubt that we would see difference in Sigma 35 Art and Canon 35 L II. Maybe Canon would be slightly better than Sigma in CA area. Sharpness and other factors would be equal. Even now, when I compare both images I can not see substantial differences. 

Regarding weather sealing: Yes, Canon has weather sealing and Sigma does not have it. I do not know how you photograph during rain but I am always trying to cover my camera and lenses if there is a rain. Also, few small drops of water will not do any harm to Sigma lenses. 

Price: is Canon 35L II worth such huge premium over Sigma. My answer is - definitely not. For such price i can buy Sigma 24 mm Art, Sigma 50 Art and Sigma 35 Art )) Of course, there will be people who will buy Canon 35 L II despite anything but that will be minority. If Canon price would be higher by 10-15% comparing to Sigma, then it would be quite hard to make decision regarding purchase. However, now many photographers will buy Sigma's and not Canon's lenses.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Holy smokes
> 
> Art vs L II
> 
> ...



Careful, the Canon mk2 lens is shot on the 5Dsr, the others are on 1DsIII


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Careful, the Canon mk2 lens is shot on the 5Dsr, the others are on 1DsIII


Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't notice that.
That makes the comparison almost useless.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Careful, the Canon mk2 lens is shot on the 5Dsr, the others are on 1DsIII
> ...



The higher res the more demanding for lens perfection, and that's why I included the 200 f2 also, because that is shot on the 5ds. To see just how much better the mk2 is is staggering... Look at the contrast and lack of CA wide open, mental.


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 25, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I have to agree on that. The test pictures with the 5DSR at TDP are very convincing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

Efka76 said:


> I think that if you compare lenses you have to calibrate both of them with specific camera and then perform comparison. With Sigma docket it is possible to calibrate Sigma Art series lenses (4 calibration points for fixed focal lenses and 16 calibration points for zoom lenses). Accordingly, after calibration you will have the most sharpest lens. For example I bought Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art and performed calibration by using Reikan Focal Plus for different distances. Calibration values were +9 ; +4 + 4; +2. Canon allows only camera calibration (1 microadjustment value for fixed lens and 2 values for zooms).
> 
> After calibration I never missed AF in any shot and was amazed how sharp images are when photographing with F1.4. I really doubt that we would see difference in Sigma 35 Art and Canon 35 L II. Maybe Canon would be slightly better than Sigma in CA area. Sharpness and other factors would be equal. Even now, when I compare both images I can not see substantial differences.
> 
> ...



None of the lenses need AF adjust because the tests are all done with Live View manual focus, and are focus bracketed to make sure only the very sharpest images are used.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 25, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Careful, the Canon mk2 lens is shot on the 5Dsr, the others are on 1DsIII
> ...



Far from it, the test shows that even when images from the new lens are enlarged much more than the old lens they are still much higher quality. 

Canon have knocked this one out of the park (as they have with all lens releases for quite a while now), it was going to take a huge improvement for me to get one instead of my f2 IS, but these are looking like they might do it.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2015)

Larsskv said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...


The pictures of the 35L II are really looking great. But to make a comparison you need to have the same setup. 
We don't know if or how much better the Sigma could/would perform with 5DSR so all speculations how much the high res camera is challenging the lens more and what this would mean to a real comparison are simply that - speculations. In other words: The *comparison* is almost useless because it is no real comparison. 

Of course i see that the Canon is looking better in the edges compared to the center and of course this seems not to come from the sensor. But with that test setup you cannot really compare. And this is also not critique to Bryan Carnathan because I like his work very much and see him as a profound source for good test results.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 25, 2015)

I guess we see what we want to see. I see whatever the "my sigma is perfect"-crowd says, this 35 will get you loads of images no other 35 can at faster than 2.8 will, at unprecedented IQ.

Not to mention the AF algorithm will match the newest from upcoming eos bodies and track like bloodhound. And how I missed using a fast short lens in the rain.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I was referring to the fact that this is one of the first crops on TDP taken on a camera without an AA filter, or at least cancelled. Brian states that he used equivalent of sharpening '1' from DPP, but I find that doesn't overcome the AA. So just calling caution on the clarity, that's all.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 26, 2015)

So I guess I sold my 35 L and the 135 L, wonder what I will buy ;D


----------



## jd7 (Sep 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> I guess we see what we want to see. I see whatever the "my sigma is perfect"-crowd says, this 35 will get you loads of images no other 35 can at faster than 2.8 will, at unprecedented IQ.



Hhhmmm, what I see looking at the TDP comparisons is:

The 35L II and the 24-70L II are pretty similar at f/2.8, with a slight edge to the 35L II. However, what is impressive about the 35L II is that it seems pretty similar at f/1.4 to f/2.8, apart from some vignetting.

However good the 35L II may be at f/1.4, it is not as good as the 200/2L at f/2.

It is hard to say much about the 35L II v 35L I or the 35L II v Sigma 35 Art since only the 35L II has been tested on the 5DsR. As PBD points out, the fact the 35L II does so well despite the relative enlargement is a good sign. On the other hand, as Sporgon points out, the 5DsR has (effectively) no AA filter, which could be influencing results. Further, given the results are showing the result of the body/lens system, and increasing the resolution of either part of the system will increase system resolution - but to what extent being the big question - it seems to me it's impossible to say much with confidence until we see the 35L I and the Sigma 35 Art tested on the 5DsR. It will be very interesting to see those results though!

For what it's worth, my guess is those results will show the 35L II is a significant step up from the 35L I. I am not so sure there will be that much difference in comparison to the 35 Art though.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 27, 2015)

The main reasons for me are AF, contrast, color, lack of CA, off center performance, weather sealing and distortion above sharpness. It took too much hassle to find a good 50 Art and the two 35 Art I had couldn't be used for anything other than MF and very very heavy vignetting, no matter how sharp, when the AF just can't produce anything consistent it's useless.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 27, 2015)

Don't know what anybody else is seeing here, but here are the 5DSR files downsampled to the 1Ds MkIII.

What I see is the pretty crappy former lens, which I never got on with on digital cameras, absolutely blown away by the new lens. How much is attributable to the 5DSR vs 1Ds MkIII? Probably very little after all contrast and CA are not going to change much, but it is kind of moot, because when all is said and done I know if I get a 5DSR and a 35 f1.4 MkII I get a considerably better IQ package.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting first comparison I have seen.
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/



Thanks for sharing! New 35L II will be only for those that need the Canon AF accuracy and stoping action in low light and big pockets. Others, like me are good with the Sigma 35A and the Canon f2 IS


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Holy smokes
> ...



Wait a minute. I have asked many times and been told that 5ds/r advantage is ONLY resolution. They will NOT increase IQ or sharpness. So now what? We changing our opinion on this?


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting first comparison I have seen.
> ...



I compared the lens with f2 IS version. I think I will continue with the f2 IS as the IS is more important to me than other advantages the lens offers. Correct me please if I am wrong in thinking that the advantages of the new lens are visible only in crops and the flaws of the f2 version can be corrected easily in PS. Yes of course the background blur is a compromise I make - but that too only if I am focusing at less then 10/15 feet.


----------



## sanj (Sep 27, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Holy smokes
> ...



Really? I must need glasses as I don't find the difference in IQ so much. Hmmmm. These are 100% crops. Wonder if any difference will be noticeable under normal viewing scenarios.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 27, 2015)

As soon as the price drops 10% in buying, and I'll tell you all first what it can do, i dont think I'll regret ;D


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 27, 2015)

I tried mine out yesterday (Mkii) and I can't say I'm that impressed (at this stage).

Still has focusing inconsistencies of the old model but is much better at focusing (and acquiring) in low light.

I suspect though that the weight of the lens holds it back. It is appreciably heavier than the mk1 and makes the 24-35 Sigma more appealing. But until I've used them all in heavy use it's more about how I feel with the lens than actual practical results.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> Wait a minute. I have asked many times and been told that 5ds/r advantage is ONLY resolution. They will NOT increase IQ or sharpness. So now what? We changing our opinion on this?



I might be quite wrong about this, but I would have thought that at the same output size, higher resolution = increase perceived sharpness (assuming good focus) = perceived increased IQ (albeit perhaps not by much). No?


----------



## Viggo (Sep 27, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I tried mine out yesterday (Mkii) and I can't say I'm that impressed (at this stage).
> 
> Still has focusing inconsistencies of the old model but is much better at focusing (and acquiring) in low light.
> 
> I suspect though that the weight of the lens holds it back. It is appreciably heavier than the mk1 and makes the 24-35 Sigma more appealing. But until I've used them all in heavy use it's more about how I feel with the lens than actual practical results.



Focusing inconsistencies ? I have never experienced that even with the old. What body are you using?


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



The 5Dsr has the AA cancelled. Previously on cameras with AA (all the Canon) Brian used level '1' sharpening, a la DPP. I find that level 1 doesn't overcome the softening of the AA. I was referring to careful on the clarity, not the CAs.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 27, 2015)

Viggo said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > I tried mine out yesterday (Mkii) and I can't say I'm that impressed (at this stage).
> ...



On the 5DSr - Wayyyy above minimum shutter speed too. 1.8 and 1.6 can miss focus several times in a row, then absolutely nail it. 

Focusing on the couple, point was on their faces, confirmed AF but it focused elsewhere. Same issue I had with the 35 mk1

Either it's me or there's something about 35mm and Canon af points, or something else. It's really fristrating because if I'd used any other Canon lens to get this shot I wouldn't of had the issue. I can say this because I only get this specific issue with 35mm Canon lenses.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 27, 2015)

Then in low light it's REALLY good to focus. ( These are 1.8 )

So WTF is going on I've no idea. I call it the Vampire lens.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 27, 2015)

1.8 again.

The issue is it just says F*** you whenever it feels the need to. No reason behind it.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 27, 2015)

Thanks for the examples! 

It looks weird with AF misses. Is it Ai Servo or One Shot? Well, either way it's weird. I often swap Cases with the AF and have One Shot ready with a custom button, but only the Sigma's give those misses.


----------



## ben805 (Sep 27, 2015)

AF:
Consistency and Accuracy have been 100% on my 5D3, it feels quicker than the old 35L and no issue with low light focusing.

Sharpness:
Center to Border sharpness of my new 35L II is sharper than my old 35L, 100L IS Macro, 85L II, and 70-200 2.8 IS II, it is fantastic wide open @f/1.4 and I see very little improvement stopping down.

Bokeh:
It's as good if not better than my old 35L

Colors and Contrast:
Looks similar to my 85L II

CA and Colors fringing:
Undetectable in high contrast subject or background

Lens flare:
Well controlled, no complaint here.

Vignetting:
Similar to 35L

Price:
Given the optical quality I think it's worth it, would have been a bargain if Canon drop the price down to $1500


Test samples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


Summary: Honestly I was underwhelm with the result I saw from petapixel before I received the new 35L II, fortunately it has exceeded my expectation so far.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 28, 2015)

Ben805, Welcome to CR!

And many thanks for your examples. I think it looks fantastic! I see the difference in color and contrast even on my phone, compared to the old which I know to great extent. I'm definitely buying one! And a cat!


----------



## caMARYnon (Sep 28, 2015)

Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach
In the second attach is a crop from petapixel with more visible cromatic issues canon vs. sigma.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 28, 2015)

Strang behaviour or miscalibrated lens/camera combo?


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 28, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Strang behaviour or miscalibrated lens/camera combo?



TBH the price they're asking I expect it to focus correctly out of the box.

I should be able to buy a lens, fit it to the body, select my focus area, shoot and have an in focus image. Not take several hoping one will nail it. The differences are too inconsistent to be a fault with the body / lens combo but more a design issue of the lens itself.

It's too early to tell that this is the case with the 35L mkii but we'll see what other users report over time. I will say that I'll be majorly pissed if I spent all that money for a lens with the same af issues as the Mk1


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 28, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Strang behaviour or miscalibrated lens/camera combo?
> ...



What focus screen were you using? If it's stock, you would have no way to know through the view finder if it's nailed it's focus or not. Spot focus is essential too. 

Welcome to the "world of hurts" AF issues with shallow depth of field fast primes. The best result I get is with a 5DII with a fine focus screen and "looking" too see if it's nailed it or not (one shot...no AI servo). Or with a 5DIII with the spot focus AF choice. This seems very reliable...but it's easy to hit an eye lash and miss the eye. It happens...get over it. Most AF systems are calibrated for f2.8 accuracy and I'm using f1.2 and f1.4 glass...so it's going to be hard work regardless. 

If you think you can pick up a camera and f1.4 lens with no learning curve time investment and expect it to AF perfectly every time...then welcome to the real world. Af systems aren't magic...they rely on technology and this is the current state of the art. This is as good as it gets bud.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 28, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Strang behaviour or miscalibrated lens/camera combo?
> ...



Any lens on any body needs to be properly calibrated. If it's a consistency issue remains to be seen. But I must admit I find it hard to believe this isn't the best 1.4 AF lens ever made.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 28, 2015)

The issue isn't calibration though. A lot of the time it hits focus as it should. Then it misses focus completely.

Ruling out user error this is an inconsistent issue with varying degrees or inaccuracy. Calibration won't address that.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 28, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> The issue isn't calibration though. A lot of the time it hits focus as it should. Then it misses focus completely.
> 
> Ruling out user error this is an inconsistent issue with varying degrees or inaccuracy. Calibration won't address that.



is it with any focusing point? 

I haven't experienced it with mk1 like you have and I owned 6-7 of them, some are sharper than others, but the AF has been fantastic. Can't remember if I had 35 L mk1 on the 5d3, but used it on 5d1, 5d2, 1d3 (which was innacurate itself, lol) 1d4 and now the 1dx. But you're right calibration is out of the question if it's inconsistent. I had a MAJOR issue with that and the Art lenses.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Sep 28, 2015)

This lens is very exciting and though I never have thought I needed a 35mm (between my 24 1.4 and 50 1.2) -- this is a whole new league! ...I just wanted them to update my holy trinity (Ls 24, 50, 135)!!

Regarding focusing a 1.4 (and stopped down to 1.8 even) takes technique people! Even if the AF hits and even in servo: your breathing, your stance, how you depress the shutter button, and all other factors including subject movement massively impact focus (esp. at the distance in the "mock-up" portrait above). Practice practice practice -- AF won't solve these challenges.

Happy shooting!
-John


----------



## JoFT (Sep 28, 2015)

What might be even more interesting is a comparison with the new Zeiss MILVUS 2.0 35mm...


----------



## ben805 (Sep 28, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> The issue isn't calibration though. A lot of the time it hits focus as it should. Then it misses focus completely.
> 
> Ruling out user error this is an inconsistent issue with varying degrees or inaccuracy. Calibration won't address that.




AF accuracy and consistency have not been an issue with the 35L II, I haven not done any microadjustment to the new 35L II because the margin of error is way too small to cause any concern, especially if it's only 1 out of 100 shot get missed. I had more misses from 70-20 2.8 IS II or 100L IS Macro than the 35L II, most of the time it could be due to either the camera itself or could be user error. When I looked at the overall AF consistency the 85L II is far worst in comparison.


----------



## ben805 (Sep 28, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach
> In the second attach is a crop from petapixel with more visible cromatic issues canon vs. sigma.



As you can see from this shot, it is clearly due to user error on my part, you would get the exact same miss if you're focusing on a wall with very little to no contrast, had i aim the AF point higher onto the eye/pupil the miss would have been avoided, this is most definitely not a strange focus behavior, rest assure.


----------



## ben805 (Sep 28, 2015)

wockawocka said:


> I tried mine out yesterday (Mkii) and I can't say I'm that impressed (at this stage).
> 
> Still has focusing inconsistencies of the old model but is much better at focusing (and acquiring) in low light.
> 
> I suspect though that the weight of the lens holds it back. It is appreciably heavier than the mk1 and makes the 24-35 Sigma more appealing. But until I've used them all in heavy use it's more about how I feel with the lens than actual practical results.



it is possible that the inconsistency is due to your camera as well, if possible mount your lens on your friend's 5D3 or 7D2 and give it a spin to see if the issue is persistent. All my lens got a big bump in AF consistency when i upgraded from 5D2 to 5D3.


----------



## TeT (Sep 28, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach...



That first picture is a product of F 1.4 and a focus point beyond the closest eye... The lead eye is not the focus point.


----------



## caMARYnon (Sep 28, 2015)

ben805 said:


> caMARYnon said:
> 
> 
> > Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach
> ...



Thank you, encouraging remarks. BTW: I really want this lens!


----------



## ben805 (Sep 28, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> ben805 said:
> 
> 
> > caMARYnon said:
> ...



CA and color/bokeh fringing is exceptionally well controlled too, almost as good as the Samyang 14mm that I use for astrophotography. The only thing I have not been able to test is the coma correction, hopefully we'll get a clear sky sometime this week.


----------



## caMARYnon (Oct 1, 2015)

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


----------



## Viggo (Oct 1, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


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



You beat me to it. And I stand by my previous statement. The midframe and corners looks epic on the 35 L II!


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 1, 2015)

Viggo said:


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


+1 and even in the center you see a lot more details. GREAT lens. 8)


----------



## caMARYnon (Oct 2, 2015)

Very quick test for coma with city lights. First crop is f2.0 with 35f2IS, second is f1.4 with 35f1.4II. 
I don't have 35f1.4clasic.
EDIT: third one with the tower placed in center.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 2, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> Very quick test for coma with city lights. First crop is f2.0 with 35f2IS, second is f1.4 with 35f1.4II.
> I don't have 35f1.4clasic.



Thank you for these samples. I was curious about the coma, and it seems pretty good. I think I see some vertical issues to the right, but it is way, way better than the 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## caMARYnon (Oct 2, 2015)

Sorry, my mistake. You have now the tower placed in center because the magenta lights are vertical from the architecture not because of aberration. 
Look at white or red ligts for compare.
IMO the coma is not a problem with this lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 2, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> Sorry, my mistake. You have now the tower placed in center because the magenta lights are vertical from the architecture not because of aberration.
> Look at white or red ligts for compare.
> IMO the coma is not a problem with this lens.



Thank you for the update! The 35LII keeps growing on me. I think I will have to start saving for it.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 7, 2015)

Finally have a clear sky tonight and conducted some Coma test at f/1.4, f/1.6, f/2.0, and f/2.8. Coma control is as good if not better than my astro lens Samyang 14mm f/2.8, which i think is absolutely fantastic! I have not seen any other Canon prime or zoom lens with such high quality coma control, definitely wouldn't hesitate to use this 35L II lens for astrophotography @f/1.4 for sure.

Test results: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


Extreme upper corner @f/1.4: 100% Crop


----------



## caMARYnon (Oct 7, 2015)

Thank you for this much better test.


----------



## ben805 (Oct 7, 2015)

Here's a comparison to the 35L Mk1 @f/1.8 with sharpness cranked to maximum at 10 in DPP. The purple fringing, coma, and corner sharpness even after stopping down to f/1.8 is complete garbage in comparison to the 35L II @f/1.4. The old MK1 is terrible at Astrophotography.







35L MK1 @f/1.8 full size at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 7, 2015)

Great comparison! Thank you!


----------



## Viggo (Oct 7, 2015)

Wow! That is seriously impressive. Can't wait for it to drop 10%. My money is burning!


----------



## caMARYnon (Nov 21, 2015)

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 22, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Wow! That is seriously impressive. Can't wait for it to drop 10%. My money is burning!


I'm lusting for the 35L II, but the exchange rate is a killer at the moment. If this lens was released last year I could have picked it up for almost 30% less :'(

Anyway, I've now sold off my 35L and have been pleasantly surprised by the Tamron 35mm VC. Want to get hands on a 35L II loaner from CPS to see how much of a benefit the new lens offers over the Tamron 35-VC. I'll probably rent a Sigma as well to do a three-way-shootout.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2015)

caMARYnon said:


> SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816



I read a lot of different reviews of things I would like to have, but is slrgear any more serious than Ken Rockwell? They for example state that the 35 L II has an "all metal barrel" and they say vignette is 1.25 stops in the corners while TDP says 3,5 stops. And I remember reading similar mistakes in other reviews also.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 22, 2015)

Viggo said:


> caMARYnon said:
> 
> 
> > SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816
> ...


Boggles the mind... Surely 2 stops is a huge deviation from what is expected.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 23, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > caMARYnon said:
> ...



Indeed, I must correct myself, it's 3 stops at TDP. If it is 1.25 stops that would be pretty superb, and I think 3 is actually pretty poor. I don't get how a lens could be 1.4 if it's only in the inner center circle that might be a t-stop of 1.7. 

It's correct in the same an amplifier for a car costs 100 usd and claims 1000W rms.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 23, 2015)

Viggo said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



I had a look at the TDP vignette tool and it appears that the vignette on APS-C is 1.25 stops. Which is very different from full frame obviously. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=994&Camera=453&LensComp=1003

My guess is that SLRG reported the the APS-C figure for full frame and probably interpolated the APS-C from the "incorrectly assigned full-frame".


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 25, 2016)

Viggo said:


> caMARYnon said:
> 
> 
> > SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816
> ...



I'm pretty sure that the vignetting on the Canon is deliberate. It's really flattering in portraits...and it saves on adding it in post prod. Optical vignetting looks more natural than Lightroom's too. It's very easy to fix in Light room or just stop down a few clicks. This was designed and intended as a portrait lens...not a lens for looking at the stars / coma. Use it in that particular context and it excels in the right pair of hands.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 25, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > caMARYnon said:
> ...



No way vignetting is deliberate, it's a cost issue. It's not always wanted and this
Is not a dedicated portrait lens, and even then vignette is a problem when using off center composition. "Just stop down"? Why buy a lens that's 1.4 and made really sharp wide open then?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 25, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> I look at lenses from two points of view: 1. For it's image quality including performance and 2. It's investment factor



Me too; that's why I've got the 40 mm pancake


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 30, 2016)

Viggo said:


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



Viggo, the 35mm f1.4 IIL was passed to many pros on Canon's list of top users while in beta stage. There was some kick back over one or two of their designs being too perfect. I believe it was the "look" of the lens for portraiture when shot wide open. Canon went back to the drawing board several times to get this lens looking the same (although sharper ect) to the mkI. It is primarily intended as an available light portrait lens, sure it's versatile...but that's the genre of photographer that was handed too during it's extensive development phase. The 85 and 35 are considered by Canon as a portrait pair. Through my wedding forum contacts, I knew of this lens development a long time ago and I also knew the photographers who criticized early design prototypes and why. 
One of the general problems (and i'm not singling anybody out specifically) with camera forums is that it's populated with self confessed lens or sensor design experts who assume every lens or camera is designed for their specific and often quite bizarre needs. Which is why I don't come on here that often and I certainly avoid DPR as much as possible. I know very few knowledgeable or well skilled professionals that frequent that particular forum. Many on those forums feel that their limited use of a lens makes then an expert. Canon have a long list of real world experts who they go to for advice on any new lens. Canon selects advice from photographers who they know that really know what they need, like and want in a specific lens. This is true of all the current mkII lenses. I'm not fortunate enough to be on that list, but I'm good friends with a number of photographers who are...and believe me, they know their stuff.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 30, 2016)

Oh I'm sure you're right about everything you said, and I hope you weren't talking about me. But I also share that some people seem to think everything should be made
For them. I'm not one of those.

But to say the vignette was much less and that they designed it to have more makes NO sense.

And to limit a 35 to only portrait-shooter makes no sense either. 

Those two is not logical at all. I have NEVER heard any reviewer or owner of a lens complain about too little corner shading.


----------



## TommyLee (May 29, 2016)

just fo the record....
sold sigma...got 35L ii ......


stunning.. i saw diff from sig 'a' lens....right away...on the camera..sceen

this lens and 100-400 ii ..are so good and great quality value....
not reachable ....easily by 3rd party...

i sooo wish for a 135 f2.. and maybe with i.s. .....at this level...
just...'swell and stretch' the 100L macro....


----------

