Canon 35L II worth it?

Has anyone got their hands on a 35L II? I want to see what people think about it before purchasing.

Have a look in the lens sample section there's a thread in there that should have some pics by now

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 guess a lot of people -including me- will be in the same dilemma until the price drops to a reasonable amount(below 1200 would be nice )

I am really interested about the lens, but the lens photo archive here on POTN and especially the one on Flickr are quite underwhelming. Not seeing the magic.

To be clear, though, I have no issue with anyone owning this lens purely to take photos of cats, kids, and girls, it's just that those sorts of photos are dreadfully uninspiring to me. It's a shame that the sample photos that Canon released to promote the lens appear to be the best photos anyone has ever taken with the lens to date (from all I've seen).

considering it ... i've been wanting a 35mm for a loooong time as im not really happy with the 50 mm view.. i was ready to buy 35L but then mkii came out and
the fact that this one is weather sealed makes it even more temptimg..

but that price

I purchased the 35L II two weeks ago and besides the price, I'm happy with it. Wide open is very sharp, distortion is virtually non-existent and there seems to be nice OOF transition with very nice contrast. I also notice that this lens produces some nice micro-contarst. Focusing is fast, silent and accurate. The lens is heavy like 24-70L II heavy.

I passed on the Sigma 35A because every image I see from this lens seems to have a red cast to it. It's probably my eyes and could likely be corrected in post. I own the Sig 50A and while I like what the lens produces, focus inconsistencies do exist. I have the dock and have spent many hours with this lens and have gotten it to the point where it is the best it's going to be. Didn't want to go throught that again with the 35A.

My only other consideration for a 35mm would have been the Zeiss 35/1.4. Great micro-contrast and very nice OOF transition but distortion wide open was not great. This lens is MF which is not a consideration for me or a deal breaker.

The 35L II is expensive but I think for what the lens does and produces, the high price is worth it. I would think that I will have this lens for a long time. A caveat, these are my intial observations and limited because of crazy weather. I've not done exhaustive testing with charts, brick walls and lens MFA software.

rantercsr wrote in post #17869648
considering it ... i've been wanting a 35mm for a loooong time as im not really happy with the 50 mm view.. i was ready to buy 35L but then mkii came out and
the fact that this one is weather sealed makes it even more temptimg..

but that price

I'm in the exact same boat. Might just pick up a used 35L while I wait for a better deal on a MKII to come along which may take 6-12 months still.

Thanks everyone for the input! Gonna go test the MK2 and Zeiss 35 out

Every time I consider spending money on a 35mm, I take out my 24mm, go shoot, and forget all about it.
Nothing beats a fast prime, just make sure it's the right Fl for your desired results.

I did try out the my 35L II on my camera at the lens shop. It was heavier than I expected. More than the MKI
The Sigma's about the same as the 35L II, perhaps the share the same internals.

"Canon 35L II worth it?"

Stingray Corvette worth it? 2-stage snowblower worth it? Six cores processor worth it? Bespoke suits worth it?

I'm in love with my 35mm mark 1. It's sucha great lens, It never misses a beat, i don't know what more I'd really want it to do!

I've had the 35mm II for about a couple months now. I doubt anything is sharper, but there are lenses that are pretty close. The autofocus is rock solid and zippy. I tested it on my 7d2 against the Sigma 18-35 Art, and I found it noticeably (but not hugely) sharper. For those who use the 18-35, you'll know that is a very, very high compliment, as it bests even Sigmas' 35mm Art prime. To tell the differences, it's serious pixel peeping.

But is it worth it? Probably not for most people. I got the Tamron 15-30 for my full frame body, and the 30mm on that lens is sharp enough that I don't think it's worth keeping the 35L, even with the couple extra stops of light. I will likely sell it when the 5d4 comes out to help fund the upgrade, and maybe think about picking up the new Tamron 35 1.8, which is downright cheap. It has VC, which I like, but I'll want to make sure the autofocus is consistent enough - a problem mentioned in a couple reviews.

I have had the 35II for a couple of months and it has replaced my 85mm for many portrait situations. I had an original 35L which sat in my bag due to focus accuracy issues and fringing artifacts wide open. The new lens is much more reliable focusing and essentially eliminated the CA wide open. Additionally, it is much sharper across the whole frame than the original especially wide open. Most of the reviews I have read seem to favor this opinion.

As for whether or not its worth it, that is an individual decision based on ones own standards and financial situation. These posts simply provide data points with which to help direct each photographer to the right choice for their situation...

mebailey wrote in post #17880154
I have had the 35II for a couple of months and it has replaced my 85mm for many portrait situations. I had an original 35L which sat in my bag due to focus accuracy issues and fringing artifacts wide open. The new lens is much more reliable focusing and essentially eliminated the CA wide open. Additionally, it is much sharper across the whole frame than the original especially wide open.

Wait, a 35mm replaced an 85 for portraits? Isn't focal length your first choice?

I had a 35L and most original L primes. The wides sucked and I went Zeiss, but as much as I love MF, I like to shoot 35 with AF (something about what I shoot with that length and the time I have to capture).

6 months ago I wanted a fast 35 and options were a slow plastic 35IS and the Sigma. I'm so old that Sigma has a huge stigma. I kept them both for now, the Sigma for wide open and the 35IS for bad light where the Sigma can't focus. I'd consider selling both for the 35LII but I'm not sure what I'd gain besides build. Canon wides have been so historically lame that I still need more proof.