Canon's rumored 35mm follow-up is finally here. Apart from the obvious general increase in quality with the standard aspheric and ultra-low dispersion elements, the new lens specifically promises to further reduce chromatic aberration (important for wide-aperture lenses) while being the "ideal complement to the latest generation of Canon's high-resolution DSLRs" (i.e. the 50-megapixel Canon 5DS and 5DS R cameras).
Apart from the standard dust- and water-resistant features that every L-series lens receives, the new Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM adds the same everything-repelling fluorine coating that every professional Canon and Nikon lens seems to be getting these days. Applied to both the front and rear elements of the lens, this fluorine coating repels water, oil, and dirt, serving as a significant lens protectant against the elements.
The new 35mm's "blue spectrum refractive optics" (BR Optics) are what really keep chromatic aberration (those colored, purple and green fringes around the edges of objects in a photograph typical to shots taken with lenses set to extremely large apertures) down to new minimums. Meanwhile, Canon's subwavelength coating (SWC) reduces ghosting and flares.
Finally, Canon claims the new 35mm increases your overall working distance with the shortest focusing distance in its class at 0.28 meters (about 11 inches), which is always a good thing.
The Canon 35mm f/1.4L II USM is now available for pre-order for $1,799.00 from B&H.
![Will the RF 500mm f/4L IS Telephoto Be the First "Big White” Lens For Canon Mirrorless? [Rumor]](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/lead/2019/05/443ea87e7bd10a3fade27ca232abe9d7.jpg)
Looks like I'll be eating Ramen noodles for the next year.
A worthy sacrifice... (latest headline: Study Finds 99% of Professional Photographers Show Significant Signs of Jaundice After Decades of All-Ramen Diets, Leads to Incorrect White Balance for Self Portraits)
We have to sell our old and waxy ef 35mm 1.4 L :D but I'm really curious how the lens performance against the 35mm Sigma Art.
Both you and me brother!
beauty
At double the price of the Sigma Art equivalent, it'd better be awesome to justify its price. Seeing how great the Sigma is, I don't see myself buying this canon lens...
I'm disappointed it doesn't have IS. Specially seeing how just like with medium format, ultra high resolution cameras are affected by camera shake.
Couldn't take the embarrassment from Sigma anymore. Let's see if Nikon's embarrassed too. :-) They're gonna have to justify that price tho. Better be better than the Sigma.
1% better than the Sigma at 200% the cost. This will only be purchased by those few with a) with more money than sense and/or b) an extreme loyalty to the Canon brand.
More money that's senses is relative to the person buying. Tell a non photographer you paid $900 for a camera lens that doesn't zoom and they will say the same thing.
I hope the BR coating doesn't screw with Canon's color renditions. Consistent color across lenses is the reason I switched back from the Sigma 35mm Art to the Canon "L".
I cant buy sigma because I am afraid of auto focus performance. I don't have or have used sigma, but people report, widely, the inconsistent auto focus of sigma lenses.
I thought the same until my Canon 50mm 1.4 AF stopped working during a wedding. Even though the AF motor had been changed 3 times! I bought a Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, no problem with it so far.
In low light and strongly backlit situations the AF doesn't work all that great, but otherwise it is way more consistent than the two copies of the Canon 50mm 1.4 I have owned :)
That is great! But to play devils advocate the 50 1.4 from Canon is known to have a weak auto focus motor. I have the 50 1.2 and shoot sports with it, and while it was rumored to be "slow" I have had nothing but excellent performance and results.
Oddly enough I generally never shoot at 1.2 (unless using video) but I also do not really shoot events.
I heard so many horror stories about the 1.2 having back/front focusing issues, that I didn't want to gamble on buying a "good version". On the other hand, I heard only great things on the sigma and it is half the price of the 1.2… If Canon makes a new version of 1.2 with great focusing, I might buy as I find the bokeh of the Canon's more pleasing … though I must admit my clients don't see a difference :)
I do not see any focus shift. I am not quite sure why, as to my understanding it is a design characteristic of the lens, not a copy issue.
Looking forward to the upcoming comparisons.
My 35L I is one of my favourite PJ lenses. I fear that an upgrade may be in my future. I resisted the upgraditis on my 70-200/2.8 for a couple of years, but when I eventually made the leap I was blown away by the difference in key areas like sharpness, colour and contrast. If the 35L II can offer a similar step up in performance, I'm all over it.
As to comparisons with the Sigma ART, the bokeh rendition is the only thing I'm interested in. I find a lot of images that I've seen from the ART series lenses to have a very 'nervous' bokeh that is not pleasing to my eye. Guess I'll have to wait for the slew of reviews to start when it hits the market.
Funny thing, Tamron today announced a 35mm f/1.8 STABILIZED lens (along with a 45mm f/1.8 stabilized lens). It should an interesting development, other than the need of the extra stop for action or bokeh junkies, if it adds 2-3 stops to your shooting capability, and especially if it's reasonably priced, it could pull the rug out from under Canon's thunder.
There's very little need for stabilized lenses at this focal range, as camera shake is hardly noticeable in wide angle lenses.
Depends on what shooting conditions you're under. Stabilized lenses don't exist for nothing. ;-)