# 35L f/1.4L II Poll #1 -- How do you feel about that MTF chart?



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2015)

Whaddya think?

- A


----------



## NancyP (Aug 27, 2015)

MTFs look good. I can't get this lens because I have the very good Sigma Art already, and any fractional improvement wouldn't be worthwhile unless I printed much larger, and maybe not even then. I have other priorities.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 27, 2015)

I think the expectations are high now on all new Canon glass. It looks great but I expected it too. MTF charts don't do much for me. I eagerly await sample images!


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 27, 2015)

I think it pretty much falls into the "as expected" category. I would like to have seen better, at any price, but maybe it's like the 24mm lens design and there's only so much room for improvement.
Maybe in the next few years we'll see Nikon, Tamron, Sony and Samyang all come out with top of the line 35mm lenses and everyone will basically have equal IQ at that focal length.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 27, 2015)

I think the measured MTF graphs generally line up pretty well with the theoretical with the biggest divergeance usually towards the corners, where astigmastism is usually more in the measured MTF charts than what was predicted theoretically.

The shape and position of the MTF 30 at f/1.4 is extremely promising. For me, the MTF performance from centre(0mm of image height) to APS-H corner (about 16mm of image height) is the region of interest. As I generally allow a bit of space on the edge of my images for cropping and straightening this extreme corner zone is not too critical. Also given what I'd be shooting (and how I'd be shooting) with this lens the extreme corners are most likely going to be out of focus anyway. 

I'm excited to see Lensrentals run a few copies through OLAF. ;D


----------



## dolina (Aug 27, 2015)

Published MTF are fairly accurate to production for first party lenses.

Problems only crop up for first run products that will shortly be resolved at the factory floor and service center.

Do yourself a sold by waiting for the first price drop to happen by the 2nd quarter of 2016.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 27, 2015)

.
All we have right now is the opening salvo of a professional and well practiced marketing campaign. And you're banging the drums for them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2015)

Looks pretty fantastic and it's radically better than for the old lens (which wasn't even considered poor).

Plus don't forget the APO design which isn't even picked up much, if at all, in the MTF chart!!!!

Looks to be an outstanding lens.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 27, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> I think the expectations are high now on all new Canon glass. It looks great but I expected it too. MTF charts don't do much for me. I eagerly await sample images!


Experience with latest lenses that show such as impressive chart has matched the real performance. Just would like to see a comparison with the Sigma Art


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 28, 2015)

My first impression was holy _____. It looks more like a moderate telephoto than a moderate wide angle.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 28, 2015)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the expectations are high now on all new Canon glass. It looks great but I expected it too. MTF charts don't do much for me. I eagerly await sample images!
> ...



Oh, I'm pretty sure someone, somewhere will do a comparison with the Sigma. 

Frankly, we know the focusing and such will be classic Canon (very good), so the only question is how good are the images this lens produces. Even if it is "only" as good as the Sigma from an IQ perspective, I'd say Canon hit it out of the park on this one.


----------



## zim (Aug 29, 2015)

The charts look great (from what little understanding I have) but I want to see pictures.

As a side note. Imagining that a new 50 1.4 IS (non L) has a similar design (and hopefully chart) how much bigger would it be than this lens?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 29, 2015)

zim said:


> The charts look great (from what little understanding I have) but I want to see pictures.
> 
> As a side note. Imagining that a new 50 1.4 IS (non L) has a similar design (and hopefully chart) how much bigger would it be than this lens?



I wonder if it makes more sense for the 50 1/4 to be an IS version of the existing lens with slightly better optics and leave the art competitor as the 1.2L.


----------



## zim (Aug 29, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > The charts look great (from what little understanding I have) but I want to see pictures.
> ...



Now that's just teasing ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 29, 2015)

zim said:


> The charts look great (from what little understanding I have) but I want to see pictures.



There are a bunch of full-res samples up.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 30, 2015)

I have mixed emotions. Canon's recent lenses are very impressive. But, most are not for me.

I hope we are not getting to the point where the floor for "L" lenses starts at $2,000. Honestly, I find nothing wrong with some of the older lenses I own: the 24-105, the 17-40 and the 100-400 for example. I'm worried that Canon is focusing to much on specialty lenses and not enough on general purpose lenses.

On the plus side, I'm quite impressed with the quality of some of Canon's newer non-L lenses. For me personally, I almost never use a 35mm focal length so I would never invest in the new f1.4; particularly since I could pick up a perfectly good f2 version with IS for a fraction of the cost.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I hope we are not getting to the point where the floor for "L" lenses starts at $2,000. Honestly, I find nothing wrong with some of the older lenses I own: the 24-105, the 17-40 and the 100-400 for example. I'm worried that Canon is focusing to much on specialty lenses and not enough on general purpose lenses.



Have to disagree. The 24-70 f/4L IS is a clear IQ improvement over the 24-105 and its included macro mode is phenomenal, the the 16-35 F/4L IS categorically runs circles around the 17-40 f/4L. And neither of those lenses are anywhere near $2k.



unfocused said:


> On the plus side, I'm quite impressed with the quality of some of Canon's newer non-L lenses. For me personally, I almost never use a 35mm focal length so I would never invest in the new f1.4; particularly since I could pick up a perfectly good f2 version with IS for a fraction of the cost.



+1 there. The non-L IS refreshes of the 24/28/35 are just about as sharp as their L counterparts, are far smaller due to the smaller max aperture, pack IS, and focus quickly and consistently with proper USM. They are great lenses all, and I've been desperately waiting for the 50mm focal length to get the same 'IS-refresh' treatment -- not for the IS nearly so much as the sharpness + rock-solid AF.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I hope we are not getting to the point where the floor for "L" lenses starts at $2,000. Honestly, I find nothing wrong with some of the older lenses I own: the 24-105, the 17-40 and the 100-400 for example. I'm worried that Canon is focusing to much on specialty lenses and not enough on general purpose lenses.
> ...



Yes, the newer lenses offer significant improvements, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that the lenses they replaced were not bad lenses at all. 

The 24-70 f4 "L" is superior optically, but you also lose 35mm in focal length. 

Everyone has to make their own judgement call and prioritize their needs and resources. I'm just saying that I hope Canon doesn't go too far in their quest for perfect lenses and forget those of us who need versatility over perfect IQ.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2015)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



For them there are choices, don't get hung up on the 'L', the 35mm f2.0 IS is a superb lens; the 16-35 f4 IS is quantum leaps above the 17-40 and a comparable real world price, the 100L Macro is a decent upgrade from the non L version and not expensive either. The 8-15 f4 fisheye zoom was a bitter pill to swallow, the price was three times the predecessor for no gain in functionality for my personal use, so I didn't swallow it, guess what? The 15mm f2.8 fisheye still takes fantastic images just as it did before.

It doesn't matter what your personal need is, it is fairly certain you can find it within Canon's lens catalog either new or used, but people who are using the new sensors want and need lenses to match those capabilities and the cost of those lenses is going to be high.

I really like my 15 fisheye and it is better for me than the 8-15, I loved my 16-35 f4 IS but knew it would have to go after getting the 11-24, I am very glad Canon didn't stop at the 16-35 f4 IS, they could have done, but I shoot a lot of wide angle and have a need for 11-16 that I am prepared to pay $3,000 for, I appreciate most people aren't, but I say keep going Canon, just buy the best optics you can for what you need and if that means all your lenses aren't 'L's' then so what? Mine aren't and I don't care.


----------



## Zv (Aug 31, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Just to tack on to the end of that - The way I see it is you have two or three levels of L lens in a way. The lower priced, older stuff which gets the job done such as the 17-40 and 24-105L, gateway L lenses for hobbyists with 6Ds and then you have the mid range L for the advanced 5D3 user and finally high end L for the working pros with the very latest cameras. More options is always a good thing and gives me something to attain to - like being worthy of even owning an 11-24mm! (Still working on level 2 - 16-35L!)


----------

