# Waiting for the 35 1.4L II



## folex123 (May 10, 2014)

Hi!
I'm looking for* 35 1.4L*, i will going to a interesting photographic travel on this summer, and the 35 will be perfect for lenght, weight and people street photography.. _(on 5D2)_

Here's the problem: _buy now the 35L 1.4_, or *waiting for the 35L1.4 II*? ?
I think that 35II will be announced maybe this year but sell in 2015-16.

Alternatives are my 50 1.4, 40 2.8 or 28 2.8.

What do you think? 



_
sorry for my english_


----------



## candyman (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*

If you need it this summer, consider the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART


----------



## terminatahx (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*

What's your current lens inventory? If you are dead set on a 35, the mk1 gets excellent reviews, but it does have some minor issues (flare, CA). I've never used it, but did consider buying it. But because I have the 16-35mkII and the 24-70mkII, the wider aperture of the 35 wasn't worth it for me. 

Sigma has too bad a reputation for inconsistent copies, so I would avoid them altogether. At least until their reputation improves.


----------



## folex123 (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*

@candyman
I've tried the sigma, but i prefer to have Canon lens (red line lovers). Also Canon have best support and much possibility to sell used.

@terminatahx
I have 5d2 with 28 2.8, 24-70 2.8 I, 40 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4. And at the moment, i think that i will take the 40mm pancake, 'cause the 50 is too long. 
16-35 it will be perfect (i'm going to alternate mountain view to people reportage), but is too heavy and it's 2.8.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*

Or consider the 35 f/2 IS. It smaller and lighter than the 35L and IQ compares well with 35L and S35. If you can get a refurb or a new one at a good price, you won't lose much when you decide to jump the the 35L II, whenever that comes out.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*



terminatahx said:


> Sigma has too bad a reputation for inconsistent copies, so I would avoid them altogether. At least until their reputation improves.



I don't think that is a fair comment on the 35A. It has almost unanimously got good reviews about AF accuracy. I had purchased one briefly, and it was spot on without any AFMA. See picture below (focus on 6).


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 10, 2014)

folex123 said:


> Hi!
> I'm looking for* 35 1.4L*, i will going to a interesting photographic travel on this summer, and the 35 will be perfect for lenght, weight and people street photography.. _(on 5D2)_
> 
> Here's the problem: _buy now the 35L 1.4_, or *waiting for the 35L1.4 II*? ?
> ...



I have just purchased the 35L and I am waiting to receive it. Pretty excited about it.
I had the Sigma and decided to replace it with the 35L. I have my reasons, but if you care more about IQ, I think the Sigma is a better choice.

Should you wait for the 35L II? Here are some thoughts:
1. Canon's latest lenses have all been massive improvements over the earlier versions- not just incremental. So I am pretty sure they are not going to bring out a 35L II that just improves slightly on the IQ, flare resistance and CA to make it at par with the 35Art. If a 35L II comes out, it will be a HUGE improvement, and it will come with a commensurate increase in cost. 
2. Since it hasn't even been announced, don't even expect it before the beginning of the next year. Mind you 35L is still selling quite well.

There are people who would claim that Canon will bring out something cheaper and better just to win back the segment from Sigma. I shall point them to the 24-70 segment where Canon brought out the much improved 24-70II for an extremely high price, in spite of the 24-70VC Tamron and the 24-70 Sigma being available. 
So, if a 35L II comes out, it will be 2015 till you get your hands on it, and it will cost at least $ 2000. If you want to hold out for that, then do it. Or else, the 35L is your best bet if you want an f/1.4 lens from Canon. 

Of course, there is always the 35 f/2 IS as Random Orbits suggested. No chance of that being updated for a long, long time and I think it has finally settled in its lowest price for a while.


----------



## distant.star (May 10, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*



sagittariansrock said:


> terminatahx said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma has too bad a reputation for inconsistent copies, so I would avoid them altogether. At least until their reputation improves.
> ...



I agree completely. It's hard not to get tired of these uninformed offhand remarks about the Sigma 35. I shoot with one nearly everyday on a 5D3 (and have for over a year now). For everyday taking of actual pictures (not shooting 10,000 pictures to measure the microns of difference in AF performance), it's flawless. I can't remember a single shot that was an AF problem. I can't say the same thing about the lens on a crop body -- I tried and had an awful time with it.

Anyway, if the OP wants to spend $580 more dollars for a Canon lens, that's his business. The best suggestion I've seen so far is the Canon 35mm f/2.0. Price is now in the $500 range, and in terms of real photography, it can compete with either the Sigma A or Canon L.


----------



## Ruined (May 11, 2014)

I would either get the 35mm f/2 IS USM or wait for the L II.


----------



## jrista (May 11, 2014)

*Re: Waiting for 35 1.4L II*



candyman said:


> If you need it this summer, consider the Sigma 35 f/1.4 ART



I second this option. Sigma Art lenses are pretty nice these days. Definitely viable options to Canon branded lenses, especially of the Mark II version you really want hasn't been created yet.


----------



## mwh1964 (May 11, 2014)

I have the 35IS and it is a beauty. Highly recommend it.


----------



## Menace (May 11, 2014)

I like my Canon lenses ( bit of an understatement) but in 35 mm range, I'd definitely consider the Sigma Art! 

To the OP, if you want the 35 now then do get it - whenever mark II is released you can evaluate selling the original and upgrading to the new one.


----------



## candyman (May 11, 2014)

mwh1964 said:


> I have the 35IS and it is a beauty. Highly recommend it.



+1
I choose the 35/f2 IS above the Sigma (_knowing it has slightly less IQ than Sigma 35_) because of smaller fit to my 6D. It makes a very good walk about /street package (6D+35f/2IS) Balance is really great! I am sure also great on your 5D MKII.
Also - for me - the IS i.c.w. 6D low light works great for indoors - like in a cafe _etc._ 
It also has a very nice bokeh: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

_EDIT:_ Also what is nice is the MFD en MM of the 35 f/2IS : 9.4"(240mm) - MFD and 0.24x MM.
I use a Raynox DCR 250 Super Macrolens to go along with it - small and easy to carry as well while doing streetphotography.


----------



## TommyLee (May 11, 2014)

just my thought and experience....

have 14L II, 35 sig, 85L II ....
making kit small...in lens count... pounds are still high...ha!


I had 35L ...it was a great lens.... sold it ...got most of what I paid...

bought sigma 35 1.4 Art... sharper ...about same or VERY SLIGHTLY lower quality bokeh...
depends on background for each...
love it.....a better lens than the 35L I ... IMO

HOWEVER
I swore i would get 35L II .... if it measured up...well up and over the sig 35..
so I await Canon's move... 
they have a big fence to climb...but...we will see

I really want an 85 OS f1.4.... and/or 135 OS f2...from Canon or sigma.....

sup to them........

Tom


----------



## Viggo (May 11, 2014)

I had a poor copy of the 35 Art, but I know now they are not all like that, and calibrated with the docking they are very good. 

I bought the 50 Art and I had also dismissed Sigma, but the 50 Art is a staggering good lens, and is now my all time favorite lens. And I have owned 90% of the lenses Canon has ever made in EF mount.

Get the 35 Art with the docking, you'll be much happier with money left over for the 50 Art as well. The 35 L II will NOT be cheap.


----------



## eml58 (May 12, 2014)

I have & use both the Canon 35f/1.4 L & The Sigma 35f/1.4 Art, both are very good Lenses, albeit I find for different reasons.

AF on the 35L is faster than the 35 Art, Bokeh on the 35L is creamier than the 35 Art, but, the 35 Art is sharper than the 35L, 35 Art is cheaper than the 35L and you can place a very large bet to win on the 35L II, when it finally arrives, will be a Looooot more expensive than either the 35L or the 35 Art.

The 35 L & 35 Art are both available now, the 35f/1.4 L II, well, going on Canon's release of new and innovative products over the last couple years, you may well be waiting some time yet.

Suggestions here to perhaps try & buy the 35f/2 IS seem good advice as well, cheaper, almost as fast, possibly almost as sharp as either the 35L or the 35Art, but that's a guess as I've never used the 35f/2 IS.


----------



## JLRoyal42 (May 19, 2014)

I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..


----------



## Viggo (May 19, 2014)

JLRoyal42 said:


> I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..



The reason it's not mentioned along with the 35, is because 24 is MUCH wider and therefore have a complete different area of use, or at least, gives a completely different look to the picture.

I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless. The 35 L on the other hand probably has the best AF if any 1.4 lens and great bokeh and pop.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (May 30, 2014)

@folex123 You got good glass there i really dont see a need for the 35 1.4 L unless you will be shooting allot in low light or doing some really artsy images with dof, I use the 40mm 2.8 most of the time since i use a 17-40 they say its not sharp but my copy is sharp as a razor, but i shoot more on the 40mm side in the evenings for lower lights my 50mm 1.2 does it for me. 
Dont wait for thr 35 1.4 mk 2 your trip will not wait for it so why should you, I dont like sigma at all, I use to use them just a bad reputation on my part so i stick with canon red line or silver line. 
my best answer is carry the lenses for the shots that you love most. Happy travels.


----------



## zlatko (May 30, 2014)

mwh1964 said:


> I have the 35IS and it is a beauty. Highly recommend it.



Same here. A really nice lens. High quality + light weight + reasonable price + IS = happy photographer.


----------



## beckstoy (May 30, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I had a poor copy of the 35 Art, but I know now they are not all like that, and calibrated with the docking they are very good.
> 
> I bought the 50 Art and I had also dismissed Sigma, but the 50 Art is a staggering good lens, and is now my all time favorite lens. And I have owned 90% of the lenses Canon has ever made in EF mount.
> 
> Get the 35 Art with the docking, you'll be much happier with money left over for the 50 Art as well. The 35 L II will NOT be cheap.



+1

The Siggy 35 1.4 Art is amazing, and I've used everything.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 30, 2014)

mwh1964 said:


> I have the 35IS and it is a beauty. Highly recommend it.



+1, I have had the. 35mm f2is with my 5D3 and can't be happier. I offers better border sharpness, less CA at lower cost, the only disadvantage in real terms is that isn't wheater sealed. And have a very efficient IS


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jun 1, 2014)

I picked the 35 IS over the 35L and 35A due to the combination of size, image quality, and bokeh.


----------



## panicboy (Jun 1, 2014)

Viggo said:


> I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless.



May I ask what you did not like about the IQ of the 24 L II?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 1, 2014)

panicboy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I have had 3 copies of the 24 L II and I was very impressed with the feel of the lens and except the lens hood, very nice build quality. But that's it. I didn't like it at all IQ wise and AF was absolutely useless.
> ...



Yes you may! Mine wasn't very sharp, both because of AF issues and I didn't have a great copy, it had annoying CA. The things I liked about it was the 1.4 of course, superb color and good contrast. But I always liked the 35 L better for AF and focal length. If I had one with the AF as good as the 35 and sharpness to match I might like better.


----------



## panicboy (Jun 1, 2014)

Viggo said:


> panicboy said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



OK, thank you. I also own a 24 L II and I find the image quality amazing. Admittedly, the AF could be a bit faster, but it focuses very reliably on my 5d, even at f/1.4 without AFMA (which the 5d does not have). I guess I had luck with my copy.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 1, 2014)

panicboy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > panicboy said:
> ...



Wow...my copy is amazing. The AF is far better than my 35L, which hunts in low light. It's CA is pretty good and it's sharper than my 35L too. I tend to use my 35L more because I prefer the focal length....but the 24IIL is a better lens optically


----------



## dolina (Jun 1, 2014)

Didnt bother waiting and got a 40/2,8


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 1, 2014)

dolina said:


> Didnt bother waiting and got a 40/2,8



Wow....a completely different lens, even a 24-70L would have been a more versatile alternative


----------



## eyeland (Jun 1, 2014)

+1 for the 35mm f2 IS - only downside for me is that the focus ring isn't as nice for video as on my L glas


----------



## zim (Jun 1, 2014)

+1 for the 40 it's a brilliant daytime street lens, no one gets pissed when you point it at them in tight spaces it doesn't get bumped and has little if no theft value


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Jun 1, 2014)

35mm F2 IS all the way , i own it and it beats my 24-70 2.8L all the way and also betters my previous 50mm 1.2L in that in can actually focus accurately wide open AND be sharp. I also had the 40 pancake and it comes nowhere near the 35 f2 IS for quality and bokeh.

 Wedding Photographer Northumberland and Newcastle


----------



## dolina (Jun 24, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Didnt bother waiting and got a 40/2,8
> ...


5mm narrower
2-stops slower
95% cheaper
Available, yesterday.
L-like optics

You buy the pancake because you want the following
- prime
- modern design
- tiniest prime
- lightest prime
- under $150
- Available, yesterday

In contrast the 24-70 is a bulky, heavy, unwieldy & pricey mess that's uses a 82mm filter.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Jun 24, 2014)

Well, it's another one of those impossible questions. But as it involves my favourite lens I will reply. Just get it, there's no way you will be disappointed. It's a 16 year old construction but still performs amazingly well for me on my 5DIII. When the Mk2 comes out you won't have lost much anyway. It has a quality to it, something charts won't show, you'll notice the first time you put it on, feel the balance, snap your first shot and look at it. I love mine and will never sell it. My next purchase is the 50L, no matter how good the Sigma is. I understand the 50L has a similar feel to it as the 35L. But that's only me, that's what photography is to me - feel.


----------



## Viggo (Jun 24, 2014)

Arctic Photo said:


> Well, it's another one of those impossible questions. But as it involves my favourite lens I will reply. Just get it, there's no way you will be disappointed. It's a 16 year old construction but still performs amazingly well for me on my 5DIII. When the Mk2 comes out you won't have lost much anyway. It has a quality to it, something charts won't show, you'll notice the first time you put it on, feel the balance, snap your first shot and look at it. I love mine and will never sell it. My next purchase is the 50L, no matter how good the Sigma is. I understand the 50L has a similar feel to it as the 35L. But that's only me, that's what photography is to me - feel.



The 50 Art has much more of the same feel of the 35 L than the 50 L, because the 35 and 50 Art has way better sharpness and the shots pop more. You can use corners wide open, not so much with the 50 L.

Beyond that, I have owned six or seven 35 L's and I have shot at least 100k images with them, but IQ wise, the 50 Art destroys it. Much sharper all over, veryvery little ca, no distortion, color and contrast are much better than the 35 L. I know what the feel of a lens is, and I absolutely agree that the 35 L has the x-factor, but for a 50, I would never buy another 50 L when the sigma is out and that much cheaper.

Why I want the 35 L II is because it will be weather sealed, it will be sharper in the corners, less distortion, and color and contrast like the 24-70 mk2 or better and it will absolutely 100% sure be the best AF performance of any 1.4 lens.

Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!


----------



## Arctic Photo (Jun 25, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Arctic Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, it's another one of those impossible questions. But as it involves my favourite lens I will reply. Just get it, there's no way you will be disappointed. It's a 16 year old construction but still performs amazingly well for me on my 5DIII. When the Mk2 comes out you won't have lost much anyway. It has a quality to it, something charts won't show, you'll notice the first time you put it on, feel the balance, snap your first shot and look at it. I love mine and will never sell it. My next purchase is the 50L, no matter how good the Sigma is. I understand the 50L has a similar feel to it as the 35L. But that's only me, that's what photography is to me - feel.
> ...



Tack Viggo,

that's good information, I might just have to take a look at the Sigma 50 then anyway. I definitely haven't shot 100k pictures with the 35L, maybe 10k. I am also only a hobbyist, I am often not sure of what to look at to determine the quality of a picture, but I like what I get from the 35L, it's like you say an x-factor.

That's a very cute daughter you have, I remember those days with my daughters, food everywhere, now we have a dog to mess up the house instead ;D

Thanks for the inside.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 25, 2014)

Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L. 
Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement. 
Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement. 
I've got my 35L very wet from rain water a number of times...no issues. So the weather sealing is a bit of gimmick, it's already very good, although it doesn't have that little rubber gasket on the rear mount. Hey, I've even got my 85IIL soaked with no issues either. I'm a UK wedding photographer...although it's been fairly dry this year and last year. But the year before was astonishingly wet. I've had more problem with the weather sealing on my 5DII / 5DIII than I ever did with my 35L or 85IIL. 

it's a few years old, but here's an example of how wet my cams sometimes get:


----------



## DynaMo (Jun 25, 2014)

I love the 35L on my 5D3. Pretty sharp and enough creamy bokeh if used correctly. Here a shot straight out of cam on f 1.6, not the best shot but still ok to see what bokeh it offers. The version 2 will be priced much higher so i would not wait as the version 1 offers you probably all you need!


----------



## memoriaphoto (Jun 25, 2014)

*Color balance, matching Sigma with Canon*

Older Sigmas used to have a slight warm rendering compared to others... which of course can be pleasing but might get you in trouble if you are shooting with different lenses and bodies and want consistent results with as little tweaking as possible in post.

How are the new Sigmas? More netural/canon like or is there still a warm tint that potentially could make images different? And if so, do they respond well with a custom camera profile?

Also, when talking about 50L vs 35L - I am thinking about trading my 50L for the 35L. I know the 35L is sharper but what about AF consistency? The 50L is sometimes nothing but a lottery, especially in low light conditions. And ofcourse the infamous focus shift. Are all these issues gone with the 35L?


----------



## Ruined (Jun 25, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
> Yes, from a weather sealing and build quality, there is also room for improvement.
> Flare control, colour, contrast...ability to render beautiful and stunning photos in the right hands...not much room for improvement.



The thing that kills me on the 35L is the straight aperture blades... If only they'd update it!


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2014)

*Re: Color balance, matching Sigma with Canon*



memoriaphoto said:


> Older Sigmas used to have a slight warm rendering compared to others... which of course can be pleasing but might get you in trouble if you are shooting with different lenses and bodies and want consistent results with as little tweaking as possible in post.
> 
> How are the new Sigmas?
> Are all these issues gone with the 35L?



I use ColorChecker with everything and I get the same color I want with every combo I have, the 200 being superbly best. I haven't noticed a warm tint, but I did with Zeiss, and it corrected with a CC-profile.

I haven't seen any focus shift with the 35 L and it is still, without doubt, THE best AF performance of any 1.4 lens for Canon, and it's not like the 50 L at all.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 26, 2014)

Ruined said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, yes there is a little bit of room for improvement on the 35L.
> ...



It's only an issue if you stop down. If you don't then the inside of the lens is circular and bokeh takes on that charector. To be fair, it's not an issue I've experianced with this lens but I have seen it with the 135mm f2 L when shot at f2.8. I think it's becuase the Bokeh circles are quite small with a 35mm lens, so their slight irregularlity is quite small and not so obtrusive. The out of focus rendering of the Canon 35mm f1.4 L is really quite flattering and a joy to behold....but that never replaces the need fro a great photo in the first place. Creamy out of focus renderings don't make a great picture on their own. But the ability to diferentiate focus and isolate a subject at tools in a skilled photographers repertoir. This is why I love the 35L and 85IIL as a specific combo on two camera bodies.


----------



## Jamesy (Jun 26, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!



Awesome shot Viggo - demonstrates the capabilities of the 50A!


----------



## Viggo (Jun 26, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a recent 50 art 1.4 shot of my daughter. How sharp is that at 1.4 and how lovely bokeh? LOVE this lens!
> ...



Thanks! )


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jun 28, 2014)

No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.

Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 2, 2014)

aleshaloginov said:


> No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.
> 
> Check some reviews, many people compared the two lenses. Though I'm not quite sure about the build quality that Sigma provides — at first sight yes, it's very good, but will it last as canon 35mm does?



I'm not sure I'd call it a Canon killer....it's a little bit sharper but that's about it. Also bare in mind that I've been using my 35L for the last 8 years (and it's paid for itself time and time with great professional images) where as this Sigma is new to the market. I'm happy with my 35L and see very little reason to swap to the Sigma. My Canon 35L has provided great images and will continue to do so. 
If you rate a lens by optics alone then sure the Sigma looks great. But I would wager in a comparison that few could tell from an A3 print which lens was which. The Canon is far better built, has a far more reliable AF system and will hold it's value on the second hand market over the long term. Sigma AF issues are well documented, even their 120-300 has af issues.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 2, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> aleshaloginov said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt, sigma 35mm 1.4 art is canon killer.
> ...



You're wrong about build quality, the Sigma is much better, all of my 35 L's has been squeaky when squeezing the sides of the barrel, and two of them had the small plastic pins that holds the af/mf switch in place broken, leaving an open hole right into the lens. AF issues are a copy related issue, when you get a working one, AF is really good with the new Sigma's, in fact I JUST 20 minutes ago tried to activate all of the 61 points on the 1dx, instead of only cross type, as they didn't work well with any of my lenses, but the 50 Art they work great, so finally leaving them activated. As for the issue of the 120-300, they updated it a few days ago to work way better with the 1ds3 and 1d4.

Color and contrast as well as sharpness in corners are better with Sigma, but I completely agree with you that the IQ of the 35 L is really good, and the AF of that lens is simply fantastic. But color and contrast, build and ca correction needs a BIG update.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 7, 2014)

35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 8, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> 35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.



I can say the 35 L II will be weather sealed 1000% certain.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > 35mm is such a useful focal length for me, I hope Canon will weather-seal a mark-II version. That does give some peace-of-mind especially working outdoors and in humid areas.
> ...



Not that the little black rubber gasket does much! I've had most of my L primes soaked on a number of occasions by rain water and I've never had any problems regardless of the weather seal claim or not.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 11, 2014)

Viggo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > aleshaloginov said:
> ...



Don't mistake engineering plastic as weak and fragile. Sure the 24IIL is a lot more robust in how it feels in the hand and the shell doesn't flex. But after 8 years of heavy professional use, it's never failed me and still looks as good today as the day i bought it...although the hood is looking a bit worn. Most Sigma's I've bought and used in the past (the old painted matt finish and earlier) have looked terrible after a year or so. My old Sigma 12-24mm lens was solidly made from metal and yet had to go back to Sigma 3 times over 10 years due to a number of mechanical and electrical issues. First the Aperture motor burnt out, amazing considering how little I used this lens. Then one of the internal lens groups became free of their housings and acted like a marble in a cup. Then for some reason the lens started to mechanically vignette at all focal lengths...it had to go back for a re-build. If I compare that to my 16-35IIL which has been used in far more inhospitable environments and used a lot more...i've had no problems with it at all. I sent it into Canon last year becuase of a scratched front element (it was effecting my sun star shots) but that was my fault not Canon's. 

While I'm sure the Sigma operates well, looks and feels good and delivers great results....I am very shy of Sigma. My fingers have really been burnt a lot by that company and I'm not sure I want to risk them again.


----------



## LightandMotion (Jul 11, 2014)

Not sure what your budget is but sold my 35L for the Zeiss 35 f1.4 after testing one for a week. Manual focus is accurate and easy with AF notification on the 1dx. The lack of distortion, clarity and sharpness is on another level compared to the L.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 11, 2014)

I think I'm slightly mis-representing my position on this lens...the 35L is a great lens. It's faithfully provided great service for me over the years. The new one will need to provide this and more to replace my existing lens, which has proved itself many times.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



I don't have anything nice to say about the old Sigma's, I'm only referring to the new GV lenses...


----------



## Menace (Jul 11, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think I'm slightly mis-representing my position on this lens...the 35L is a great lens. It's faithfully provided great service for me over the years. The new one will need to provide this and more to replace my existing lens, which has proved itself many times.



+1

I'm confident Canon won't release a mark II lens that's inferior to the original in any way - just expect a price increase. 

For many photographers, a hike in price will not be an issue as they simply need it or want it and will get it. For many, the price might be too much and no doubt there will be many threads on CR lamenting how Canon only care about profit and have ditched its most loyal supporters.

(Currently I don't need a 35 lens so my wife will be happy)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2014)

JLRoyal42 said:


> I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..




They probably did not mention it, because most photographers know there is a signigicant difference in focal length between 24 and 35mm. It really does not matter how sharp a lens is, if its not the focal length you need.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> JLRoyal42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little curious on why nobody mentioned the 24mm 1.4 L ll? Because I'm pretty much in the same boat right now. Ive been waiting for the 35mm 1.4 L ll and have yet to hear some solid announcements on it.. So unless the 35mm L ll comes out soon then the 24mm L ll is looking pretty good to me right now..
> ...



+1


----------



## Viggo (Jul 12, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


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



Great for you, but I have had an 85 L fog up after 30 seconds in the rain, but I have used sealed gear in very heavy rain all the time with zero issues.

And it's not just the rear seal that is the weather sealing. Some L's like the 300 f4 L IS Has a lower grade of sealing like the rear gasket. But like my 200 and 24-70 all the buttons are sealed and also sealings around the barrel where the zoom operates.


----------

