# Review: PhotoZone - 35L II on 5DS R



## ahsanford (Dec 1, 2015)

Photozone's take on the 35L II, with their go-forward reference camera, the 5DS R:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/964-canon35f14mk2?start=1

A mixed endorsement for sure. It's absolutely off the charts in the middle of the frame, but wide open the Sigma 35 Art outresolved the 35L II in the corners -- _with a 22 MP 5D3!_

In the conclusion:
_
"Speaking of the competition we are primarily talking about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art. Now we haven't tested this lens on the EOS 5Ds R yet but at least *in terms of resolution we are having some strong doubts that it is inferior to this new Canon lens*."_

(Keep in mind that the Sigma 35 Art -- though stellar optically -- is pretty much dead to me based on a rental that showed a very poor hit rate with the AF when shooting wider than f/2. I've long said the 35L II is worth $1500 if it 'only' turns out to be a Sigma 35 Art with reliable autofocus.)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2015)

Like you, not interested, and never will be, in Sigma, so much angst when I moved from film EOS to digital EOS and Sigma basically washing their hands of their loyal customers. 

What interests me in the various 35 f1.4 MkII bench tests so far is the very small differences in actual performance between it and the absolutely stellar EF 35mm f2 IS, so far I haven't seen anything that puts a clear distance between the two.

I used to use the 35mm a lot with film but never liked the 35 f1.4L on digital, I have the f2 IS and really fell back into the 35 prime market again and have contemplated switching to the MkII L, but just can't see the differences anywhere yet and I am really liking the IS......


----------



## Shane1.4 (Dec 1, 2015)

I shoot weddings every weekend with the Sigma 35A and 50A. Their hit rate is certainly as reliable my 85L and 135L all of which I shoot wide open 90% of the time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2015)

Shane1.4 said:


> I shoot weddings every weekend with the Sigma 35A and 50A. Their hit rate is certainly as reliable my 85L and 135L all of which I shoot wide open 90% of the time.



I am sure there are many thousands of very happy Sigma owners and users that never have any issues with their lenses and focus. Unfortunately for me there are too many instances of people who are not, and given my experiences with Sigma lenses years ago it is a situation of once bitten twice shy, I will never buy another Sigma product, ever.


----------



## chromophore (Dec 9, 2015)

PhotoZone's results are not reliable. I stopped reading that site years ago because it is clear that the author has a strong bias toward Zeiss, even when other brands perform just as well; and in general, the author has a bias toward alt lenses.

As evidence I submit that PZ does not test more than one copy, and they do not test the lens in a way that measures its actual optical performance, unlike Roger @ LensRentals.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/11/lensrentals-reviews-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-lens

As you can see, the average MTF wide open for the 35/1.4L II is, at the very least, comparable in the image periphery to the Sigma 35/1.4 Art. And this is coming from a reviewer who has recently been impressed by the performance of a number of Sigma's offerings, most recently the 20/1.4.

Personally, I am down to two sources for lens performance information: LensRentals and LensTip. I don't need to see PZ or DxO or any other sources not capable of objective review.


----------



## tron (Dec 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Shane1.4 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot weddings every weekend with the Sigma 35A and 50A. Their hit rate is certainly as reliable my 85L and 135L all of which I shoot wide open 90% of the time.
> ...


I am with you on that. I was about to make an exception for Sigma 20mm 1.4 since I would use it for astro and I wasn't interested in AF. Unfortunately it has coma so...


----------



## chromophore (Dec 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Insulting Comment removed by Moderator


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Firstly, leave the personal comments out. If you can't argue a point without getting personal then you lose.



That's not a rule. You can be correct, and win and be insulting, just ask Neuro ;D


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2015)

chromophore said:


> PhotoZone's results are not reliable. I stopped reading that site years ago because it is clear that the author has a strong bias toward Zeiss, even when other brands perform just as well; and in general, the author has a bias toward alt lenses.
> 
> As evidence I submit that PZ does not test more than one copy, and they do not test the lens in a way that measures its actual optical performance, unlike Roger @ LensRentals.
> 
> ...



No kidding. Hmmm.


----------



## sanj (Dec 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, leave the personal comments out. If you can't argue a point without getting personal then you lose.
> ...



LOL


----------



## martti (Dec 11, 2015)

What Photozone is finding out is the law of diminishing returns.
The last two percent of a Perfect Product are difficult to achieve and cost a lot of money.
Very much attention is paid to the curves and resolution and distortion but a lot less to reliability.
For instance I had just a little knock on my Tamron 24-70 and it ceased to autofocus. The twelve years I had the Canon 24-70 it was knocked around but it took pictures. That's basically what lenses are for.
Now imagine you are in Tierra del Fuego and you knock your lens..."Sorry mr. Elephant Seal, could you back up a bit, my wide angle broke..."

Roger Cicala is a very good source of information. I cannot imagine anybody else having such a living experience of how lenses perform when they are thrown around in FedEx conveyors and used by people who do not care much. What he says about post sales service is also interesting: How Canon and Tamron take care of their products while some others don't...how long does it take to get a Leica lens serviced, for instance.

If photography was my source of income, I would stay away from third party lenses. Like Ken Rockwell! 8)
As thing are, I can afford playing around with Tamron and Sigma. Which is cool.


----------



## chromophore (Dec 11, 2015)

Insulting comments removed by Moderator


----------



## TeT (Feb 22, 2016)

Gotta go with Dilbert on this one, he is annoying and irritating and often seems wrong, he wasn't rude or being a dick.


----------



## raptor3x (Feb 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> So which focus distance should they test at? All of them? (I will point out that nobody tests at all focus distances.) Criticizing them for not choosing distance X just means that people will bitch at them whichever way they go and to be frank, testing at infinity focus is not going to be very useful - in fact none of the reviews that you read will be able to do a meaningful (is measurable) focus at infinity. That includes Lens Rentals and Lens Tips.



Not true, Lens Rentals has been doing lens testing for some time now with an optical bench. The optical bench takes measurements at infinity focus. All of those fancy MTF curves they've been showing for the last two years or so have been taken at infinity focus.



dilbert said:


> Roger's methodology is very similar to what others do - using imatest. Roger at Lens Rentals is just lucky to have the luxury of getting multiple copies to test because of the business they run.



As mentioned before, you're a bit out of date. Lens testing is done with an optical bench although they did post some LMAtest results when they wanted to show the effect of the 5DsR sensor.



dilbert said:


> So either Lens Rentals, Lens Tip and Photozone all use the same good technique (imatest) or they both use a flawed technique. "Oh, but Lens Rentals does ..." - read all of the above page from Lens Rentals first. It's all trade offs.



You might want to double check that you actually read everything, not just the article that confirms your idea, before you criticize others for doing the same.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 22, 2016)

TeT said:


> Gotta go with Dilbert on this one, he is annoying and irritating and *is often* wrong, he wasn't rude or being a dick.



I fixed that for you. Look, I call it like I see it. If someone is factually incorrect--which he very clearly is--and refuses to own up to it, then he deserves to be ridiculed. If he were a decent human being and acknowledges that he has been spreading misinformation, then I would not be hostile toward his behavior.

Everyone makes mistakes, including myself. Everyone says or believes things from time to time that are not true. But what defines the integrity of one's character is not whether or not one gives the mere appearance of politeness or civility, but rather, whether one is mature enough to own up to being factually incorrect after being proven wrong.

It's like politicians these days--after being caught lying or spreading misinformation, their reaction is to double down and insist they were truthful, or to deflect and talk about something else entirely. There's no accountability. That is the kind of behavior I have zero respect for.


----------



## TeT (Feb 22, 2016)

Thanks, for the fix.

Dilbert the Politician might be almost appropriate


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


FYI, here is a good post on test methodology (and sources of errors) from someone who is actually studying optics:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26782.msg529529#msg529529


----------



## Kwwund (Feb 23, 2016)

I joined Canon Rumors to learn more about photography but I'm learning a lot more about the sorry state of human relationships. 

Is anybody out taking photos?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> I joined Canon Rumors to learn more about photography but I'm learning a lot more about the sorry state of human relationships.
> 
> Is anybody out taking photos?



I am..........


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 23, 2016)

Kwwund said:


> I joined Canon Rumors to learn more about photography but I'm learning a lot more about the sorry state of human relationships.
> 
> Is anybody out taking photos?



Out of all the forums I've signed up for since I started reading about photography in 2012, this group is one of the most technically competent. And Canon Rumors is still a family friendly environment which is somewhat rare in this industry, so it seems like no matter how many times I try to frequent other forums I always end up back here.

There's always a few feathers flying but that's not entirely unexpected, Canon and Nikon are known for having a fanatical following. I'd hate to see what forums would have looked like in the 90's.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 23, 2016)

9VIII said:


> I'd hate to see what forums would have looked like in the 90's.



It was not that long ago, he says..... Basically, they were the same, just much, much, much quieter. People in the whole had still not grasped the online forum thing and the few that were around were much quieter. Most from that day have closed down, as many webmasters gave up.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Feb 23, 2016)

in My opinion Lenstip is much better, they are pysicians and have a look at many more possible aberrations than photozone. What i do not like at photozone as well is, that they jump the camera body without notifications. The 11-24 is tested on 5Ds and the 16-35 4.0 on 5Diii, so no comparision is possible. Lenstip at least are giving recommendations, how to compare between the bodies, even between the brands.

Next point is that there should be tested with raw files, as to measure lens performance, we do not want to have sharpening algorithms incuded in the test, especially as they can simulate (by guessing information which may be there or not, and wih may appear as noise or artefacts) a higer resolution which is not valid, even beyond the diffraction limit. In such aspects i would better trust lenstip.

Sure, lensrentals are the only testers who have access to pools of lenses and can measure sample variation, but they do resolution tests only and give no informaton about other aberrations, as lenstip do. 

BUT: the best is to combine the statistic information of lensrentals with the detailed examination of lenstip


----------



## Larsskv (Feb 23, 2016)

TeT said:


> Gotta go with Dilbert on this one, he is annoying and irritating and often seems wrong, he wasn't rude or being a dick.



+1.

I agree with Dilbert this time. I really do appreciate photozone.de, and I have always thought of them as objective and fair. Shure, they're tests are not perfect, but we can't expect everybody to test 10 copies and every lens on multiple bodies. 

Dpreview and DXO on the other hand... lets just say that I don't take advise from anyone I in general disagree with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> You are right, I was wrong at including "Lens Tip" there - I did that because someone else had suggested the Lens Tip was as good as Lens Rentals (may fault for assuming they were right - silly me!) however Lens Tips is a lot similar to Photozone as they only use 1 lens too:



Even when admitting you were wrong trying to excuse/justify your mistake, you are wrong about what you were wrong about. Pathetic.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 23, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> in My opinion Lenstip is much better, they are pysicians and have a look at many more possible aberrations than photozone. What i do not like at photozone as well is, that they jump the camera body without notifications. The 11-24 is tested on 5Ds and the 16-35 4.0 on 5Diii, so no comparision is possible. Lenstip at least are giving recommendations, how to compare between the bodies, even between the brands.
> 
> Next point is that there should be tested with raw files, as to measure lens performance, we do not want to have sharpening algorithms incuded in the test, especially as they can simulate (by guessing information which may be there or not, and wih may appear as noise or artefacts) a higer resolution which is not valid, even beyond the diffraction limit. In such aspects i would better trust lenstip.
> 
> ...



But LensRentals optical bench testing can show you things about the lens aberrations that you can't necessarily see in a resolution chart, too. Astigmatism is one clear example. The MTF chart also shows how the lens behaves as a function of spatial frequency, and again how these vary with image height, which is not always how Imatest results are reported.

People such as "dilbert" who criticize MTF charts at infinity focus as not being representative of how a lens performs on a camera body in real-world conditions only reveal that they don't understand how to read MTF charts. That's not to say that optical bench testing is the end-all and be-all of how a lens performs, no; not by any means. If I want to understand the nature and extent of color aberrations, for example, I will look at other sources of information. But not all review sites have information that I trust, because sometimes what I see being reported doesn't make sense when I gather all the information together.

The bottom line is that it's all splitting hairs anyway. Virtually all lenses produced today are excellent, and people should be happy with their performance. I would be more concerned about a lens that fails to focus consistently if it offers AF, or a lens that is easily damaged or not put together well, because that's an issue of value. But these have very little to do with whether a $5000 Zeiss lens or a $700 Sigma lens or a $1700 Canon lens are of equivalent optical performance. I just wish photographers would not use review sites as justification that one lens is "absolutely" better than another.


----------



## Bdube (Feb 23, 2016)

chromophore said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > in My opinion Lenstip is much better, they are pysicians and have a look at many more possible aberrations than photozone. What i do not like at photozone as well is, that they jump the camera body without notifications. The 11-24 is tested on 5Ds and the 16-35 4.0 on 5Diii, so no comparision is possible. Lenstip at least are giving recommendations, how to compare between the bodies, even between the brands.
> ...



You can't discern astigmatism from a large aperture plot of MTF vs spatial frequency. In fact, I would say it is quite the opposite. You also can't do it from small aperture MTF charts unless you know about the lateral color.

Regards,
Brandon
Olaf Optical Testing, Photozone.de


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> MTF charts represent theoretical performance. They provide a guide as to what sort of performance to expect from a lens but you need testing on a body to establish actual performance (e.g. what everyone with imatest does.)



If someone gives you a dollar, will you go buy a clue? :

Granted, it's probably my fault – I wouldn't expect a bowling ball to grasp the difference between the theoretical MTF charts published by most lens manufacturers and empirically determined MTFs measured by LensRentals (and by Zeiss for their own lenses), so why should you understand it?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I try to read lots of reviews because you do get different viewpoints. However, it is going to be misleading to compare results of lens tests on different cameras. The lens testers warn of this, but some persist.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 23, 2016)

Bdube said:


> You can't discern astigmatism from a large aperture plot of MTF vs spatial frequency. In fact, I would say it is quite the opposite. You also can't do it from small aperture MTF charts unless you know about the lateral color.
> 
> Regards,
> Brandon
> Olaf Optical Testing, Photozone.de



Brandon, tell us more about how to discern astigmatism. I know Roger has some good information, but it has long since rolled of my memory chart, which is not all that long anymore.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 23, 2016)

For me the deciding factor is which lens will give the most keepers with the best IQ, and after owning 5 Art lenses and now the 35 L II there is absolutely NO contest whatsoever. The 35 L II is just out of this world. It's been proven in tests also, better sharpness and contrast, better colors , less ca and no distortion. And it delivers with spot on AF every time. These are facts.


----------



## Bdube (Feb 26, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bdube said:
> 
> 
> > You can't discern astigmatism from a large aperture plot of MTF vs spatial frequency. In fact, I would say it is quite the opposite. You also can't do it from small aperture MTF charts unless you know about the lateral color.
> ...



If you have a lens you know is very well corrected for lateral color (e.g. Zeiss 100/2 makro-planar), you make consider a difference in the tangential and sagittal MTF at closed apertures - perhaps f/8 - to be the astigmatism. At larger apertures, aberrations such as oblique spherical aberration and misalignment-related coma will cloud the view. 

If you have a lens - perhaps a 24mm f/1.4, which is much less well corrected for astigmatism, you will have no such luck at any aperture. 

However, one may also use monochromatic measurements of the MTF, which removes any lateral color, to tell the astigmatism as well.


----------

