lafilm Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Canon has just released their Version II of their famed super fast 35mm F/1.4 - at a shocking price of $1,800.Anyone buy this or use it through rental company?Thoughts for video? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted October 8, 2015 Author Share Posted October 8, 2015 The Digital Picture just reviewed this lens. Seems no one else has it. Looks extremely impressive. Shame no IS. Heavy lens, though at 35mm may not matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lafilm Posted March 2, 2016 Author Share Posted March 2, 2016 Bump. FWI, this lens is the sharpest 35mm I have used. Perfect for stills or video. No issues. (no IS however and expensive). Sony users take note with the in body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chris Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 The pricey 35's are hard for me to justify with the sigma art down to about $600 used. The canon looks awesome with better bokeh, but is it worth 3x, not so sure. Flynn and BrorSvensson 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 My store are calling it an OTUS-quality lens with AF. They say it's markedly sharper than the Sigma and has better AF. Does it justify the price difference for a videographer who won't be using AF nor seeing the resolving difference between them in most cases even in 4K? I don't think so. I'd go for the sigma for video and the Canon for use on a 50mp 5DSR/A7RII type photography camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas MAILLET Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Ebrahim i often agree with you. For video, the sigma is surely the best option. For photo it's clear a sharper lens would be the best option. 1800 US dollars though is not what i call a bargain... I have some lenses at this price range, that's true, but i would love to see a side by side comparison... as i think the sigma is already a sharp good lens... Some vignetting wide opened but i can't imagine a 35mm lens F1.4 could be free of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Yes Nicolas, I agree. While the Canon is markedly sharper @1.4 and even remains sharper to f/5.6, the most sharpness advantage is seen at corners. And while the Canon has faster, quieter and more consistent AF, who shoots fast moving sports on a 35mm? The Sigma AF is alright. Distortion, CA, Flare & vignetting are all better on the Canon but the Sigma is no slough. The Sigma is the best value 35mm and 50mm primes in today's world. Yes this is a better lens but nowhere near as affordable.. So I recommend the Sigma for all shooters both photographers or videographers, while the Canon version for a small number of people who demand the best and can pay double the Sigma's cost. Side by side at f/1.4 @ 21mp (1dsIII). Of course the Canon (right) will take an even larger advantage at 36/42/50mp. The Canon (left) has less corner shading, not by very much The Canon has zero distortion (perfectly level lens from corner to corner) while the sigma does bulge. I do applaud Canon for the optical quality of the 35mm f/1.4 L II, it's the best 35mm. And I appluad Sigma for being able to achieve that good of an optical quality at 800-900$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas MAILLET Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Wow the Canon looks to be a great lens on these tests !!!! Sharp piece of glass !!! Certainly a difference when shooting with it. I'd love to buy it to be honest... but my sigma is just enough to my needs... (video 80% - Photo 20%). You're right the difference will sit in the corners on a 24x36 and mostly on the AF speed and accuracy. Not a bargain but if someone could put the money difference, it would surely be worth the extra money... That's what we say : to obtain a 90% quality thing, it costs you a reasonnable amount of money... To obtain the last 10% of quality, you have to spend a BIG amount of money... I think we are here with these two lenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 3, 2016 Administrators Share Posted March 3, 2016 Shame it would be completely wasted in 1080p on Canon DSLRs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolas MAILLET Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Just now, Andrew Reid said: Shame it would be completely wasted in 1080p on Canon DSLRs. I think canon has built it more for photographers than for movie makers... They know it themselves as their 1080p is softer than soft... lol. Joke apart, this will be a great lens to have, in some years when it will be a better bargain for a 35mm prime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Andrew Reid Posted March 3, 2016 Administrators Share Posted March 3, 2016 Shame then that 90% of Canon's DSLRs can't shoot high resolution enough stills to make use of it... Only the 5DS. Haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: Shame it would be completely wasted in 1080p on Canon DSLRs. True. Very sad. It'll shine on the 1DXII/1DC 4K though and in DPAF with the very smooth silent AF motor. And of course the cinema line is a perfect match. 24 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said: Shame then that 90% of Canon's DSLRs can't shoot high resolution enough stills to make use of it... Only the 5DS. Haha. No, actually in the 18-20mp stills the lens looks glorious and gives markedly better and sharper images than the other 35mms like the Sigma ART. An 1200D makes use of it. 100% of Canon DSLRs make use of it. Just not in the video mode below the 1DxII/1Dc/C100. I wish for two things, that - These pieces of glorious Canon glass were cheaper (11-24mm F/4 L, 70-200mm IS II, 16-35mm L, 35mm f/1.4 L II, - They made higher resolution video in their cameras than crappy 1.5/2mp & DPAF to make full use of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.