Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Jan 2016 (Saturday) 00:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 35L II worth it?

 
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,089 posts
Gallery: 1546 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9965
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jan 31, 2016 10:04 |  #16

Hrm,

Worth it would be relative to the situation.

If 35mm is your bread & butter, and you want the best 35mm you can get, it may be worth it if you absolutely must have Canon. But really, it's competing with a few lenses, namely the Sigma 35 ART which significantly less. If you already have a 35mm F1.4, then to me, it probably isn't worth it. Granted, the 35 F1.4L is an aged lens, the 35 F2 IS optically is better, etc. But it's F2 not F1.4. So the Sigma 35 ART made a ton of sense for people wanting a fast 35 F1.4 with AF. Then Canon finally drops the 35 L II, with an enormous price tag. Not worth it based on cost alone to me. Sigma ART being the better deal, for quite literally the same IQ. Again, if it's your bread & butter and you need Canon, then the 35L II makes sense. But if it's just for shooting kids around the house or something, I'd say no.

Since you're even considering the Zeiss, then I would say that answers a ton of questions right away about the need for AF, Canon, etc.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,059 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
     
Jan 31, 2016 13:17 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #17

M 35IS focuses in far dimmer light than my 35Art, which does nothing but hunt. I would hate to rely on it for AF in poor light, and if you can't, a 35 Zeiss 1.4 would be the best option imo.

I think the bene of the 35II is that is has Canon AF and Sigma sharpness.

I have a lot of Zeiss MF lenses, but I appreciate having AF in a nearby focal length. You have to decide if it's important in this focal length.


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 85L, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, XT-20, 16, 18, 56, 16-55, 50-140; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,837 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Jan 31, 2016 17:17 |  #18

Vertigo1 wrote in post #17869613 (external link)
Have used a 35L and own a 35 Art but have not tried the 35L II yet - might get a quick chance at an upcoming show.

From what I've read, it is slightly better than the Sigma but not by much and has weather sealing which the Sigma lacks. The focusing is also probably a bit more reliable but I can't say I've had any issues with my Sigma.

Basically I get the impression it's maybe 10-20% better than the Sigma but three times the price. Yes I'd love one and I lust after it but it makes no logical sense. As I already have the 35 Art, it'd cost me circa £1k to upgrade to the 35L II which is bonkers.

I can't speak for the prices wherever you are located, but in the US, the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L II is exactly twice the price of the Sigma 35mm, not 3 times. It's still very expense by comparison, but not as bad as you suggest. I've seen and personally had enough focus inconsistency issues with the new Sigma lenses that I would pay a premium for a lens that hit AF every time. A 15 or 20% miss rate because of inconsistent AF is not acceptable to me. While many Sigma owners have had minimum AF issues, too many others like me have been frustrated by it.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mebailey
Goldmember
1,992 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2005
Location: USA
Post edited over 3 years ago by mebailey.
     
Jan 31, 2016 19:52 |  #19

mcluckie wrote in post #17880205 (external link)
Wait, a 35mm replaced an 85 for portraits? Isn't focal length your first choice?

Typically yes, but new 35L is so much better wide open than 85L, I just shoot closer. For a group portrait its a no brainer... 35L II


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
norbelthomas
Member
146 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Feb 01, 2016 07:31 |  #20

I would love to see some direct comparison between 35L vs 35L II.
There are not many photos can seen since the 35L II released last year and just like some people said above in the thread, the images from 35L II didn't inspire or surprise me.


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/norbelthomas/ (external link)
My Gear: 450D Canon 18-55 kit+50mm F/1.8 Canon 70-200/F4 L USM Canon 580EXII speedlight
Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG EX HSM E-P1+M14-42 kit lens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,059 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
     
Feb 01, 2016 08:24 as a reply to  @ norbelthomas's post |  #21

Agreed. A lot of acclaim surrounded the original L lenses, and from MTF charts and the like, they were highly recommended. I moved from Leica to Canon for digital and lenses were a big factor (and fellow pro friends that were already singing the praises of the 1Ds systems). I hated my first 2 L zooms and was usually disappointed with most of the primes. Hence my Zeiss collection.

People tend to positively review lenses they're supposed to like. There is so much more to good glass than specs.


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 85L, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, XT-20, 16, 18, 56, 16-55, 50-140; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,059 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
Post edited over 3 years ago by mcluckie.
     
Feb 01, 2016 09:45 as a reply to  @ mebailey's post |  #22

"Typically yes, but new 35L is so much better wide open than 85L, I just shoot closer."

Hasn't anyone commented on the shape of their head? (That can be rhetorical as it seems the nuances of focal lengths elude many people.)

Oh I just realized maybe you're on a crop body...


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 85L, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, XT-20, 16, 18, 56, 16-55, 50-140; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mebailey
Goldmember
1,992 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2005
Location: USA
     
Feb 01, 2016 11:57 |  #23

mcluckie wrote in post #17881455 (external link)
Hasn't anyone commented on the shape of their head? (That can be rhetorical as it seems the nuances of focal lengths elude many people.)

Not that close! LOL!


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,857 views & 8 likes for this thread
Canon 35L II worth it?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is astrobalcony
911 guests, 281 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.