I own it and I love it since the first day ❤️ the hefty price tag is not only for the excellent image quality but the extraordinary fast and accurate autofocus.This is the best lens Canon ever made
The difference in corner sharpness can almost certainly be attributed to sensor stack thickness. The thickness of the glass block attached to the sensor is not consistent between manufacturers, and for optimal performance the lens must be designed to match the sensor's optical characteristics. The centre sharpness is not affected by the optical block thickness since there is no refraction. There can be several layers of glass involved with a variation of around 4 mm.
Agreed, especially with Sony's earlier generation sensor stacks. For this reason I would like to see more lenses adapted and reviewed on the EOS R in future 🙂
This is the first review site that says it's NOT the sharpest 35mm full frame lens ever made. Who cares about price? If you want the best, you buy the best. This smoked my Sigma Art 35. It's fantastic. Sharpness really is everything and background blur might not be as pleasing as you'd like, but it's better than all other 35mm lenses. A+ lens.
I just put an order in for this lens to replace my Sigma 35mm Art lens. My reasons were that the Canon renders colours better, especially skin tones Better Bokeh and highlight roll off Matches the filter diameter of my 50 and 85 so I can easily swap magnetic filters between the 3 lenses Weather sealing, already had to replace the board on my Sigma Art lens Can adjust the focus transition speed on the R5 for video Faster AF The two downsides are the cost and the weight
Price is difficult to judge. Testing a lens briefly doesn't give you any idea of value. My first 35L cost me £900, in 2007. I used it so much I replaced the rubber focus band, 150 weddings with it as the primary lens (some suited a 24-70LII better). It is still worth maybe £400 used. So it cost me about £500 over the years, approx £3.30 a wedding. As a perfectly working spare it continues to be valuable without losing further resale value. That is hardly extravagant spending. 9 years later I got the mkII when it was released and years after it is proving to be a great buy. Before I did I tested the Tamron 35/1.8 and the Sigma 35mm Art to see if I could save some money. Not having fringing vs back light, think bride and father vs the much brighter outside behind, is worth it alone. The background bokeh is excellent. Make sure you don't shoot it with EFCS on a Sony at very short exposure times, it causes edges at the top of the blur circles. The mount adapters for the Sony are mostly a fraction too short, you will see that the infinity mark is off with an adapter that is too short and this causing some corner issues also. It has exceptional coatings, finger marks and dust don't stick, a lens pen glides over it. Have a look at the lens rental tear down of this lens, it is well worth a look. It makes the Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 look very expensive if you compare the internals. Spending £600 on a Samyang 35mm, that would be expensive for me, if an unproven AF motor breaks. Or the AF doesn't get the shots that guarantee happy couples and recommendations. I do like Samyang MF lenses but the AF ones have not got the history behind them yet. There is a mint 35L II on ebay £1150 "mint and used once". Now that was expensive for someone. But the guy that buys that can probably use it for a few years for £100 drop in value. Do you think it is ethical to go into a job knowing you could have done better if you had invested more in the tools of your trade?
I had a lot of the same thoughts here, especially about the Samyang lens. I have high doubt the AF performance on that lens is going to be reliable, especially in poor lighting where it is really going to count for people using it professionally. I have the Sigma Art lens, and I really like it, but it misses the occasional focus simply because it's not as reliable as what the Canon lens is. Third party AF is almost always not great in poor light, and a 35mm F1.4 is likely going to be in situations like that.
Worth renting once to see if it is right for you but rentals on the 35L would have cost me nearly £7000 and I'd not now have the lens. That's if you don't include anything for time and petrol for collection. The other problem with rentals is not knowing if the lens you have has been dropped on the previous rental and is misaligned. Or not knowing what microadjustment it needs without testing. Knowing you can trust your gear is priceless and in this case cheaper in the long run too.
Great review. I own the 35mm f1.4L mark 1. It is sharp lens, but CA is visible at 1.4. it redeems its peak image quality about f2.2-2.8. I'd say that the for the value, the mark 1 version is still good. But if budget permits i will probably get the mark 2 version. As of now that difference in money is better off to another piece of glass
For DSLR like 5d4 it is obvious choise, because sigma have BIG problems with focus accuracy ! But adapted on EOS R, Sigma works much better (people say, I personally have not tested). But seriously, price around 1400-1800 is normal thing for actual 1.4 prime from native brand, there is nothing to be surprised. I say even more - Nikon sells his 35 1.4 around same price, but it not very "actual" lens, optically it is typical lens of past decade.
I have been working with the 35mm 2.0 IS since this season. In general, I also appreciate in photography the advantage of stabilization higher than a light value better. For the 35mm 1.4 speaks mainly the weather protection, in the image quality are no practice-relevant differences to see. Thank you Chris and best regards from Germany.
This is going to sound stupid, but I recently bought a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art from B&H, not realizing I already had one 😆 I just assumed that my original one, which I'd had for 6 years, had been replaced by a newer design, but they're identical. I got an RMA and was about to return it, but then decided to try and sell the older one instead, especially since its focussing ring was getting a bit stiff. I got a decent price for it and kept the brand new one and the free firmware update adapter and UV filter that came with it. Back on topic: I love the Sigma (I use it adapted on an a7r3 these days) and would highly recommend it to anyone for whom the Canon is just too rich!
@@LieslHuddleston Yep, it's definitely solid! I did have a slight problem with lens hood of the new one. It needs a slightly firmer twist to lock it compared to the older one, and the first time I took out to shoot, it dropped off somewhere in the middle of a miniature golf course. Luckily my eagle-eyed eight-year old daughter spotted it lurking in a bush. Now I always make sure to give it that final twist!
@@PeteC62 Interesting. I only used the lens hood once and I don't know if it had to do with how I put it on, but I could 'see' it in my pictures...so I find it a bit useless. I guess I should try it again sometime.
@@LieslHuddleston I don't know for others, but the issues with AF on Sigma lenses are the reason why I went for Canon lens instead. I was considering the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I did rent the Sigma for a weekend and literally 30% of pictures had missed focus, and not on the micro-adjust level, in few places it did focus to like 2m before me when I was trying to focus at infinity. When it did focus correctly, it was amazing, with detail down to 100% zoom. But as I often shoot action, fast and reliable AF is worth more than this level of sharpness and a bit over one stop more light. For landscape, architecture or studio work I would pick Sigma though. I plan to rent the Sigma 60-600mm soon, hopefully the newer lens will have fewer problems...
@@666Tomato666 I totally understand how you feel, I was frankly scared to get the lens because of so many complains about focusing issues, I was shocked when my copy was perfect! LOL I read so many bad reviews, including some people who tried to fix it with their dock and still couldn't get it right. When I dropped the lens I thought for sure I've gone and messed up the focus - but it is still fine. I'm one of the lucky ones I guess. I'm also interested in their telephoto lenses but again worried about getting a bad copy.
Your comments regarding the build quality are uninformed and misleading. I refer to Roger Cicala and Lensrentals teardown of this lens: “I have rolled my eyes for years when people say a lens is “Built like a tank” because it has a heavy metal shell. Then we open it up and see the insides are tiny little screws and weak nylon collars set in thin sheet metal helicoids. That kind of ‘built like a tank’ is probably useful if you want your lens to stop a bullet, but doesn’t make the lens reliable. This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That’s a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we’ve ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I’ve seen. This is an engineer’s lens.”
Further, people should be informed of the shock absorber which is put in front of the lens. It is hard to notice, but if you press the lens against a surface the front will actually move a tiny bit, designed to absorb energy of the lens is dropped face down. I believe Canon has started to put this kind of construction into their newer L lenses with non extending outer shell.
Okay...please accept my apologies for not getting my toolbox out and tearing the lens down to study its internal build quality (you expected me to have done that?!)
I agree, Roger Cicala's teardowns of lenses are highly informative and a very valuable resource, he tells us what's going on internally, rather than just making shallow superficial judgements. I bought a mint s/h copy of this lens for £900, a great buy. About the Sigma lens, he wrote: 'This lens is constructed very well. There isn’t the amazing heavy-duty construction of the Canon 35mm f/1.4. Instead, I’d characterize the construction of the Sigma as very efficient and carefully laid out. ... If I was going to subject my lens to harsh conditions and use, the Canon looks like the way to go if you can afford it.'
Sorry Chris, but you can't call the Sigma 35mm f1.4 an alternative without talking about difference in autofocus. I have had the Sigma for half a year and then discarded it, because what is the use of a f1.4 lens if the focus is continuously off.
At this price the quality of the bokeh should be as good or better than anything else on the market. Nice and sharp but that does not fully justify the price. Good review Chris!
Great review. We really appreciate your effort. I literally check out all your reviews and look to see if you have one for any lens I’m interested in purchasing.
Thank you for the review! Can't understand why people complain about the price, since there are so many alternatives. Do you people complain about Ferrari prices too? You could buy the old 35/1.4L or 35/2 IS or the old 35/2 or Sigma 35/1.4 or Tamron or Samyang and so on! If you want the best 35/1.4 available for Canon, you can get this lens. ;) What I am missing from your review is a comparison of autofocus, where the 35/1.4L II stands out. It's also a great lens for astrophotography, where the weather sealing can be important. 35/1.4 is a very good compromise to capture the milky way which can look too small on images captured with a wider focal length. I used the 35/2 IS USM too, it's good but the 35/1.4 L II beats it by far with bokeh, color rendition, weather sealing, rendering (3d pop), autofocus, astro, build quality...all this comes at a price.
Hello Christopher, I beg your pardon for the ot. I was wandering if you’re experiencing af issues using the sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and the canon 70d. I was eager to buy that lens after watching your enthusiastic reviews but I am also reading on the web of technical problems with dual pixel technology. Do you experience af issues or random soft images? Thank you very much your time, I appreciate your work so much. Marco
It has little to do with the megapixel count, it is the different sensor stack thickness of the Sony sensors compared to Canon. Test it out on the 5DsR and it will have no corner softness issues.
5DSr, one of the sharpest cameras out there. Really wish Canon would update it, but it doesn't look like we will get it. Rumor is there is going to be an RF mount that will be what the mkII would have been. We will see I guess. Need something to put those expensive RF lenses on.
Why would anyone pay 1.700 bucks on a prime without any extra features. No IS, no macro focus, no zoom, no metal body. I'm seriously questioning the camera market at this point. I don't think any lens is worth that much money, unless it does it all.
Hi Christopher. I have been a long time subscriber to your channel. Excellent reviews. My question centres on AF performance with respect to indoor sports and non- sport events where lighting can be an issue. If we compare the canon 35mm f1.4 ii vs the canon 35mm f2 IS vs the canon 24-70mm f2.8 ii, which would you recommend? Also image quality is important. I prefer using a prime but not sure here
Chris, thnx. Ive the samyang 35 1.4 for my a7R3, but i also use canon 6d2 with 24 1.4 sigma. Aaaaand i am debating myself if i need another 35... Got the nifty fifty too.
Hi Chris. Love your videos. Very informative. Wanted to know how the M3 is? How is the autofocus? Thinking of getting a used one but also comparing to the M6
Finally... I thought you forgot that lens. My favorite one. Will the RF 35/1.8 IS justifies the 1.4 aperture ? I only care about how much differences between the two. Will you make another comparison ?
Thank you for this review. Great to hear it's strengths and weaknesses. It is pretty insanely expensive which is great for 3rd party manufacturers. I love my 35mm f2 IS USM for what it is and value for money but since I shoot often in low light I'm looking for a 1.4 lens. Looking forward to seeing you review the new Tamron equivalent version as well. Hopefully the Tamron gives at least 80% performance for roughly 50% of the price compared to the canon ii
However those other lens are terrible when it comes to weather sealing. I’ve gone through 4 35 art lenses because of poor weather sealing. I’ve owned other canon lenses (non L series) for years and ran them through tough elements and they still work to this day.
Hi Christopher, as usual, well done review, thank you very much. Concerning the plastic outside of the lens: the folks of lensrentals did a teardown (wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/). Basically, they say, that it is plastic on the outside, but built "like a tank" on the inside where it counts. In fact, they say, that it is the most robust 35mm they ever disassembled. The outside plastic might work as a bumber and should absorb the energy of a shock in case of a drop. Sincerly with appreciation from Germany, Dominic
Or 1,600.00 Quid!!!!!! I hear this is one of Canons best lens due to the coatings and glass used only in the top of the line telephoto zooms is this true?
I’m glad this lenses didn’t have IS because it would be useless with todays mirrorless camera with digital stability which I’m sure is why better then any IS from that era.
I had both and Samyang is not in the same league as Canon. It's less consistent with changing light. Backlit images are poor, distortion is a bit much and there is huge vignetting on full-frame.
Another great review--thank you. Too bad Canon's answer to their sales spiral is to gouge customers albeit they do produce beautiful lenses (mirrorless cameras...not so much). Just my opinion.
Sigma usually have focusing issues with Canon's dual pixel cameras, and the calibration dock is a waste of time and money, I would stay away from Sigma lenses in that case
The 35mm f1.4 || may seem like a "plasticky" and not very well build lens, but this aricle from Roger Cicala shows that it is actually way better than its competitors: wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/
They handed the glass game to the third-parties while Canon makes the lens exclusive to their own cameras only. Exclusivity narrows the audience and will always drives the price astronomically high. Even Sony's own lenses are more 'over-priced' than many of the third-parties.
Overpriced? No. Do you realize how much R&D has to go into optics? Canon already had a good 35mm f1. 4 but they needed to come up with the best optical formula for digital sensors. This lens uses the best modern coatings and a unique lens element. Maybe Leica is overpriced but the Canon is a steal.
1:05 - This is not correct: For any given lens focal length and the aperture, the depth of field does NOT change with sensor size. However, the field of view (FoV) does change with sensor size. So, if you're framing the same scene with a full-frame camera and a crop-sensor camera, using the same lens and aperture, you would have to physically move closer with the full-frame camera, to match the FoV of the crop-sensor camera. This would of course result in a shallower depth of field.
Few things for this video. Ummm saying FREE HOOD for lens at this price sounds very bad to me :-D Please refer to HOOD INCLUDED .. but maybe its just me. It is fantastic time to look at this lens and even better that you compared it to Samyang 35mm. Internet is now full of raging people that Sony 35 f/1.8 is overpriced and yet its still just 1/2 of the price of this beast. Yea sure, it is ''just'' 1.8 but if you would be heading for 1.4 that's where the Samyang comes in play. Thanks Chris. Perfectly timed video with perfect content. Keep the good work up. Friendly reminder (Sony 70-300 G OSS)... C'mon you knew this was coming :D
You will be pleased to know Sigma has done a deal with Canon. For its newer lenses anyway. MY 5DMiv recognizes my new Sigma 105f1.4 Art like a native lens. I have taken over 1000 photos with it in the last couple of weeks under all conditions and have not missed focus once. Here's hoping there's a firmware update that allows all their Art lenses to be recognized by Canon cameras. My 5DMiv does, my 7DM2 doesn't.
I own it and I love it since the first day ❤️ the hefty price tag is not only for the excellent image quality but the extraordinary fast and accurate autofocus.This is the best lens Canon ever made
The RF 85 1.2 should be a strong contender for this claim^^
Notgazo , AF...
This 35mm f1.4ii and 85mm f1.4 is, Is my favourite wedding combo.💯
Marvin John 💯
@Kafala yeah that would be awesome
*I* came here for an ethics seminar. What's with the lens review??
😂
The difference in corner sharpness can almost certainly be attributed to sensor stack thickness. The thickness of the glass block attached to the sensor is not consistent between manufacturers, and for optimal performance the lens must be designed to match the sensor's optical characteristics. The centre sharpness is not affected by the optical block thickness since there is no refraction. There can be several layers of glass involved with a variation of around 4 mm.
Agreed, especially with Sony's earlier generation sensor stacks. For this reason I would like to see more lenses adapted and reviewed on the EOS R in future 🙂
This is the first review site that says it's NOT the sharpest 35mm full frame lens ever made. Who cares about price? If you want the best, you buy the best. This smoked my Sigma Art 35. It's fantastic. Sharpness really is everything and background blur might not be as pleasing as you'd like, but it's better than all other 35mm lenses.
A+ lens.
I just put an order in for this lens to replace my Sigma 35mm Art lens.
My reasons were that the
Canon renders colours better, especially skin tones
Better Bokeh and highlight roll off
Matches the filter diameter of my 50 and 85 so I can easily swap magnetic filters between the 3 lenses
Weather sealing, already had to replace the board on my Sigma Art lens
Can adjust the focus transition speed on the R5 for video
Faster AF
The two downsides are the cost and the weight
Price is difficult to judge. Testing a lens briefly doesn't give you any idea of value.
My first 35L cost me £900, in 2007. I used it so much I replaced the rubber focus band, 150 weddings with it as the primary lens (some suited a 24-70LII better). It is still worth maybe £400 used. So it cost me about £500 over the years, approx £3.30 a wedding. As a perfectly working spare it continues to be valuable without losing further resale value.
That is hardly extravagant spending.
9 years later I got the mkII when it was released and years after it is proving to be a great buy. Before I did I tested the Tamron 35/1.8 and the Sigma 35mm Art to see if I could save some money.
Not having fringing vs back light, think bride and father vs the much brighter outside behind, is worth it alone.
The background bokeh is excellent. Make sure you don't shoot it with EFCS on a Sony at very short exposure times, it causes edges at the top of the blur circles. The mount adapters for the Sony are mostly a fraction too short, you will see that the infinity mark is off with an adapter that is too short and this causing some corner issues also.
It has exceptional coatings, finger marks and dust don't stick, a lens pen glides over it.
Have a look at the lens rental tear down of this lens, it is well worth a look. It makes the Sony/Zeiss 35/1.4 look very expensive if you compare the internals.
Spending £600 on a Samyang 35mm, that would be expensive for me, if an unproven AF motor breaks. Or the AF doesn't get the shots that guarantee happy couples and recommendations. I do like Samyang MF lenses but the AF ones have not got the history behind them yet.
There is a mint 35L II on ebay £1150 "mint and used once". Now that was expensive for someone. But the guy that buys that can probably use it for a few years for £100 drop in value.
Do you think it is ethical to go into a job knowing you could have done better if you had invested more in the tools of your trade?
I had a lot of the same thoughts here, especially about the Samyang lens. I have high doubt the AF performance on that lens is going to be reliable, especially in poor lighting where it is really going to count for people using it professionally. I have the Sigma Art lens, and I really like it, but it misses the occasional focus simply because it's not as reliable as what the Canon lens is. Third party AF is almost always not great in poor light, and a 35mm F1.4 is likely going to be in situations like that.
of course, there is the option of hiring...
Worth renting once to see if it is right for you but rentals on the 35L would have cost me nearly £7000 and I'd not now have the lens. That's if you don't include anything for time and petrol for collection. The other problem with rentals is not knowing if the lens you have has been dropped on the previous rental and is misaligned. Or not knowing what microadjustment it needs without testing. Knowing you can trust your gear is priceless and in this case cheaper in the long run too.
Great review. I own the 35mm f1.4L mark 1. It is sharp lens, but CA is visible at 1.4. it redeems its peak image quality about f2.2-2.8. I'd say that the for the value, the mark 1 version is still good. But if budget permits i will probably get the mark 2 version. As of now that difference in money is better off to another piece of glass
This is my dream lens.
I liked the "ethics seminar." Who ever thinks about saving money so they can be less selfish? Seems a good call.
7:04 I love my SNES Mini classic. I put all the original arcade games in addition to the SNES games on it. The best console ever.
I love the 35mm 2.0 is USM. Not sure I could put down that much cash for this one.
I've been using this lens since 2017 and I love it very much. It works brilliantly on the Sony a9.
If you love using it, that's all that matters :-)
@@smaakjeks I probably would have bought the Samyang though, if it were released before I've made the purchase.
It is not overpriced. My entire business hinges on this lens.
For DSLR like 5d4 it is obvious choise, because sigma have BIG problems with focus accuracy ! But adapted on EOS R, Sigma works much better (people say, I personally have not tested).
But seriously, price around 1400-1800 is normal thing for actual 1.4 prime from native brand, there is nothing to be surprised. I say even more - Nikon sells his 35 1.4 around same price, but it not very "actual" lens, optically it is typical lens of past decade.
I have been working with the 35mm 2.0 IS since this season. In general, I also appreciate in photography the advantage of stabilization higher than a light value better. For the 35mm 1.4 speaks mainly the weather protection, in the image quality are no practice-relevant differences to see. Thank you Chris and best regards from Germany.
I have the Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 (luckily I had no focusing issues like some people) and I love that lens, super sharp and beautiful bokeh!
This is going to sound stupid, but I recently bought a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art from B&H, not realizing I already had one 😆 I just assumed that my original one, which I'd had for 6 years, had been replaced by a newer design, but they're identical. I got an RMA and was about to return it, but then decided to try and sell the older one instead, especially since its focussing ring was getting a bit stiff. I got a decent price for it and kept the brand new one and the free firmware update adapter and UV filter that came with it.
Back on topic: I love the Sigma (I use it adapted on an a7r3 these days) and would highly recommend it to anyone for whom the Canon is just too rich!
@@LieslHuddleston Yep, it's definitely solid! I did have a slight problem with lens hood of the new one. It needs a slightly firmer twist to lock it compared to the older one, and the first time I took out to shoot, it dropped off somewhere in the middle of a miniature golf course. Luckily my eagle-eyed eight-year old daughter spotted it lurking in a bush. Now I always make sure to give it that final twist!
@@PeteC62 Interesting. I only used the lens hood once and I don't know if it had to do with how I put it on, but I could 'see' it in my pictures...so I find it a bit useless. I guess I should try it again sometime.
@@LieslHuddleston I don't know for others, but the issues with AF on Sigma lenses are the reason why I went for Canon lens instead.
I was considering the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 or the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. I did rent the Sigma for a weekend and literally 30% of pictures had missed focus, and not on the micro-adjust level, in few places it did focus to like 2m before me when I was trying to focus at infinity. When it did focus correctly, it was amazing, with detail down to 100% zoom. But as I often shoot action, fast and reliable AF is worth more than this level of sharpness and a bit over one stop more light. For landscape, architecture or studio work I would pick Sigma though.
I plan to rent the Sigma 60-600mm soon, hopefully the newer lens will have fewer problems...
@@666Tomato666 I totally understand how you feel, I was frankly scared to get the lens because of so many complains about focusing issues, I was shocked when my copy was perfect! LOL I read so many bad reviews, including some people who tried to fix it with their dock and still couldn't get it right. When I dropped the lens I thought for sure I've gone and messed up the focus - but it is still fine. I'm one of the lucky ones I guess. I'm also interested in their telephoto lenses but again worried about getting a bad copy.
"This is not an ethics seminar". Kkkk, loved it!
Your comments regarding the build quality are uninformed and misleading. I refer to Roger Cicala and Lensrentals teardown of this lens:
“I have rolled my eyes for years when people say a lens is “Built like a tank” because it has a heavy metal shell. Then we open it up and see the insides are tiny little screws and weak nylon collars set in thin sheet metal helicoids. That kind of ‘built like a tank’ is probably useful if you want your lens to stop a bullet, but doesn’t make the lens reliable.
This is my kind of built like a tank. There is a flexible polycarbonate shell over a very solid metal core with really heavy-duty rollers, screws, and bearings. That’s a logical way to build things; make the core the strongest part, not the shell. It sounds so simple, but like I said, this is the first time we’ve ever seen this kind of construction in a prime lens of standard focal length. We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I’ve seen. This is an engineer’s lens.”
Further, people should be informed of the shock absorber which is put in front of the lens. It is hard to notice, but if you press the lens against a surface the front will actually move a tiny bit, designed to absorb energy of the lens is dropped face down. I believe Canon has started to put this kind of construction into their newer L lenses with non extending outer shell.
Okay...please accept my apologies for not getting my toolbox out and tearing the lens down to study its internal build quality (you expected me to have done that?!)
I agree, Roger Cicala's teardowns of lenses are highly informative and a very valuable resource, he tells us what's going on internally, rather than just making shallow superficial judgements. I bought a mint s/h copy of this lens for £900, a great buy. About the Sigma lens, he wrote: 'This lens is constructed very well. There isn’t the amazing heavy-duty construction of the Canon 35mm f/1.4. Instead, I’d characterize the construction of the Sigma as very efficient and carefully laid out. ... If I was going to subject my lens to harsh conditions and use, the Canon looks like the way to go if you can afford it.'
Howdy! I just love seeing your videos!! It is very informative on which lens to invest in!
Superb lens. Thanks a lot for the great review.
Sorry Chris, but you can't call the Sigma 35mm f1.4 an alternative without talking about difference in autofocus. I have had the Sigma for half a year and then discarded it, because what is the use of a f1.4 lens if the focus is continuously off.
It's still an alternative...!
At this price the quality of the bokeh should be as good or better than anything else on the market. Nice and sharp but that does not fully justify the price. Good review Chris!
Great review. We really appreciate your effort. I literally check out all your reviews and look to see if you have one for any lens I’m interested in purchasing.
Sharpness is everything. I love this lens on canon and Fuji
I'm looking for a 35mm lens. I just bought a 5d2 and appreciate this review!
Thank you for the review!
Can't understand why people complain about the price, since there are so many alternatives. Do you people complain about Ferrari prices too? You could buy the old 35/1.4L or 35/2 IS or the old 35/2 or Sigma 35/1.4 or Tamron or Samyang and so on!
If you want the best 35/1.4 available for Canon, you can get this lens. ;)
What I am missing from your review is a comparison of autofocus, where the 35/1.4L II stands out.
It's also a great lens for astrophotography, where the weather sealing can be important. 35/1.4 is a very good compromise to capture the milky way which can look too small on images captured with a wider focal length.
I used the 35/2 IS USM too, it's good but the 35/1.4 L II beats it by far with bokeh, color rendition, weather sealing, rendering (3d pop), autofocus, astro, build quality...all this comes at a price.
you forgot the new tamron 35--oops!!! ;)
Chris as far as image quality and sharpness is it the best you can get even over the art 35 ?
Newer lenses, like the Tamron 35mm f/1.4 for Digital SLR and Sigma 35mm f/1.2 for mirrorless cameras are now sharper
Hello Christopher, I beg your pardon for the ot. I was wandering if you’re experiencing af issues using the sigma 18-35 f/1.8 and the canon 70d. I was eager to buy that lens after watching your enthusiastic reviews but I am also reading on the web of technical problems with dual pixel technology. Do you experience af issues or random soft images? Thank you very much your time, I appreciate your work so much.
Marco
It's a very long time since I owned that lens or a 70D. The AF probably won't be perfect through the viewfinder, but it'll be great in liveview mode
2023: 1700$? Budget lens! Great deal!
Worth every penny.
I agree.
Thanks I have been waiting this review for a long time
It has little to do with the megapixel count, it is the different sensor stack thickness of the Sony sensors compared to Canon.
Test it out on the 5DsR and it will have no corner softness issues.
5DSr, one of the sharpest cameras out there. Really wish Canon would update it, but it doesn't look like we will get it. Rumor is there is going to be an RF mount that will be what the mkII would have been. We will see I guess. Need something to put those expensive RF lenses on.
Why would anyone pay 1.700 bucks on a prime without any extra features. No IS, no macro focus, no zoom, no metal body. I'm seriously questioning the camera market at this point. I don't think any lens is worth that much money, unless it does it all.
Which one is good comparison with sigma art?
the tamron. waiting on more folks to review that.
Hi Christopher. I have been a long time subscriber to your channel. Excellent reviews. My question centres on AF performance with respect to indoor sports and non- sport events where lighting can be an issue. If we compare the canon 35mm f1.4 ii vs the canon 35mm f2 IS vs the canon 24-70mm f2.8 ii, which would you recommend? Also image quality is important. I prefer using a prime but not sure here
Chris, thnx. Ive the samyang 35 1.4 for my a7R3, but i also use canon 6d2 with 24 1.4 sigma. Aaaaand i am debating myself if i need another 35...
Got the nifty fifty too.
My favourite lens:)) Great video!
Thanks for the video I was looking for best sharp lens and I guess this is one for me to rent for my weekend trip with friends
Hi Chris. Love your videos. Very informative. Wanted to know how the M3 is? How is the autofocus? Thinking of getting a used one but also comparing to the M6
The M3 really is a bit old now. I would personally save up for the M6
Great review. Can you pl. review this lens for canon mirror less like EOS R5/R6 bodies. Currently there is no option for 35 1.4 in RF.
It does wonderful on my r5. So a useful focal length for portrait and wedding photography
Sigma now has 35mm f1.2, making this even more ridiculous.
When RF from this, we'll come out ?
What's your opinion on the slightly cheaper Canon 35mm f2 IS USM?
With it being a stop darker but having image stabilization and a 1/3 of the price?
he did that review.
@@brandonj8018 Sorry, I mean in comparison
Take a look at my review :-) personally I'd just go for the f/2 IS USM
@@christopherfrost nice to know I went for the right one then :P
Love your video's Chris!
Can you please review Tamrons new 35-150 please?
I will get round to it eventually :-)
Cheers mate, looking forward to it :) I'm tossing up between that and Tamron's 24-70 2.8 G2.
I'll stay tuned 👍
Thumbs up for the Super Famicon Classic!
Finally... I thought you forgot that lens. My favorite one. Will the RF 35/1.8 IS justifies the 1.4 aperture ? I only care about how much differences between the two.
Will you make another comparison ?
Thank you for the hard work. Could you review the mark I as well?
Thank you for this review. Great to hear it's strengths and weaknesses. It is pretty insanely expensive which is great for 3rd party manufacturers. I love my 35mm f2 IS USM for what it is and value for money but since I shoot often in low light I'm looking for a 1.4 lens. Looking forward to seeing you review the new Tamron equivalent version as well. Hopefully the Tamron gives at least 80% performance for roughly 50% of the price compared to the canon ii
from what i've seen so far, it does!
However those other lens are terrible when it comes to weather sealing. I’ve gone through 4 35 art lenses because of poor weather sealing. I’ve owned other canon lenses (non L series) for years and ran them through tough elements and they still work to this day.
Impressive, but I think I’ll stick with my Fuji 23mm 1.4 😊
A fcking fuji comment on a canon ef lens review.
CAM MAC Damn right
$1700, and no image stabilizer! I’m a CANON user but I agree they overprice their products!! I’ll skip this lens! Nice review as always, thank you!
TheOtherSide This is why i'm making the switch to Tamron's newer G2 line up. Sharp and more affordable
This is the holy grail of 35mm focal length.
This is a beautiful lens. I own it and love it!
Would love a review of the mark i 35mm f1.4L
compare this to RF 1.8 with IS....which one has better image quality at same f stop?
This lens does
Hi Christopher, as usual, well done review, thank you very much. Concerning the plastic outside of the lens: the folks of lensrentals did a teardown (wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/). Basically, they say, that it is plastic on the outside, but built "like a tank" on the inside where it counts. In fact, they say, that it is the most robust 35mm they ever disassembled. The outside plastic might work as a bumber and should absorb the energy of a shock in case of a drop. Sincerly with appreciation from Germany, Dominic
i agree with this. as to see modern Canon Lenses built the same quality since the 100mm f2.8L IS macro
I used it.its sharp but misses a lot of focus
Would love to see some more vintage lens reviews adapted onto your Sony A7Rii 👍
I have a Nikon d7200 and have the same Lena are you do. Would you know what adapter I can purchase?
I don't know if you can. Maybe you can
That lens hood is absolutely NOT free. Very nice review, as always.
It is free. You don't have to pay for it, and Canon didn't have to include it
Could you re-test this lens on R5?
It's my workhorse and also mounted on r5.
Please test the 35F1.2 for E-mount
Or 1,600.00 Quid!!!!!! I hear this is one of Canons best lens due to the coatings and glass used only in the top of the line telephoto zooms is this true?
Looking at the lens flares as well as the colour cast at wider apertures, I doubt the quality of the coating - otherwise it looks good though.
Please review Yongnuo 35mm 1.4
Why no test on the EOS R Chris?
Good question - I actually made this review a while ago, before I owned the EOS R
@@christopherfrost 😎
@@dr.sommer5069 You can see from the pictures that I made this at Christmastime :-)
@@christopherfrost Oh yeah, but there are YTers out there who have christmas all over the year ;-)).
@@dr.sommer5069 Well I'm quite a happy person so it's Christmas every day inside my head ;-)
can i use it on m50 with adapter from viltrox speedbooster ?
Yup
I’m glad this lenses didn’t have IS because it would be useless with todays mirrorless camera with digital stability which I’m sure is why better then any IS from that era.
It's a grand better than the RF 35?
Not IMO
Great videos, have ever consider to try nikon camera and lens? I hope someday you will review them, thanks.
That'll be very promising
Samyang vs Sigma vs Tamron vs Canon 35mm 1.4 lenses?
Just this until Christopher gets a copy to review. www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=33351
Hello brother Chris... Can you do a test for Yongnuo Canon 35mm f1.4?? ThankYou Before.. ;)
I will be testing the new ultrasonic one eventually
@@christopherfrost yep, was just going to say best to wait for that one.
I had both and Samyang is not in the same league as Canon. It's less consistent with changing light. Backlit images are poor, distortion is a bit much and there is huge vignetting on full-frame.
Canon compensates drop in sales numbers by selling overpriced plastic lenses ... this shouldn’t cost more than a grand. As always, great review man!
Plastic lenses or plastic body, there are very big different, um......
Another great review--thank you. Too bad Canon's answer to their sales spiral is to gouge customers albeit they do produce beautiful lenses (mirrorless cameras...not so much). Just my opinion.
I guess that red colour is a result of correcting huge vignetting
Hi christooher please review the sigma 16mm f1.4 and 18-35mm f1-8
Doesn’t he have the review of the 18-35 1.8? I thought so, might be wrong...!
I already have
considering this Canon and the new Tamron 35mm f/1,4. Please help to do a comparison if you are free !~
heck, i feel a 35mm shootout coming! :D
This has a crackling performance but the price is ridiculous. Half would be well paid.
7:03 £650 or 550£?
Sigma usually have focusing issues with Canon's dual pixel cameras, and the calibration dock is a waste of time and money, I would stay away from Sigma lenses in that case
I don't know what issues you're talking about here but I've never run into them
$1700!? Why, just why
Especially when the Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is newer and better for only $1400. Canon raised the price on this lens to $2000 🤦🏽
Yes, pricing is redonculous
Did Canon ever see this? The lens has actually gone up in price now on the Canon UK site
I bought the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and is a better deal for the rest of us.
sigma 70-200 sport please, sir
The 35mm f1.4 || may seem like a "plasticky" and not very well build lens, but this aricle from Roger Cicala shows that it is actually way better than its competitors:
wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/
I used almost only this 35mm lens this summer. I have not been a big fan of 35mm but this one was a pleasure to use. pair it with the eos r.
Canon have a reputation that over price their equipment😂
They handed the glass game to the third-parties while Canon makes the lens exclusive to their own cameras only. Exclusivity narrows the audience and will always drives the price astronomically high. Even Sony's own lenses are more 'over-priced' than many of the third-parties.
gotta love that almighty dollar..
Wait, one of your sample images is of a well worn open-hole flute, probably a Yamaha. Who does this belong to?
Me - and it's an Altus :-)
@@christopherfrost Oh, that's great! 😊👍 I've never seen an Altus in real life before, only Yamaha and Emerson.
Overpriced? No. Do you realize how much R&D has to go into optics? Canon already had a good 35mm f1. 4 but they needed to come up with the best optical formula for digital sensors. This lens uses the best modern coatings and a unique lens element. Maybe Leica is overpriced but the Canon is a steal.
It's not worth $2000 which it is currently going for. The Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is $1400 and way better.
@@kifley19 I think because this lens is made in Japan the price is inflated
Watching this video and prices of RF L glass in 2024, 1K was a bargain ;-)
I have the sigma version. it's great
Sigma is better tho
1:05 - This is not correct: For any given lens focal length and the aperture, the depth of field does NOT change with sensor size. However, the field of view (FoV) does change with sensor size. So, if you're framing the same scene with a full-frame camera and a crop-sensor camera, using the same lens and aperture, you would have to physically move closer with the full-frame camera, to match the FoV of the crop-sensor camera. This would of course result in a shallower depth of field.
Get the Sigma instead. Nobody will ever be able to tell the difference.
RKG Austin sigma is a great lens, but struggles a bit in low-light and/or changing low-light conditions, such as night clubs :)
Few things for this video. Ummm saying FREE HOOD for lens at this price sounds very bad to me :-D Please refer to HOOD INCLUDED .. but maybe its just me. It is fantastic time to look at this lens and even better that you compared it to Samyang 35mm. Internet is now full of raging people that Sony 35 f/1.8 is overpriced and yet its still just 1/2 of the price of this beast. Yea sure, it is ''just'' 1.8 but if you would be heading for 1.4 that's where the Samyang comes in play. Thanks Chris. Perfectly timed video with perfect content. Keep the good work up.
Friendly reminder (Sony 70-300 G OSS)... C'mon you knew this was coming :D
Sigma is not an option. Hate lost pics due their AF problems.
You will be pleased to know Sigma has done a deal with Canon. For its newer lenses anyway. MY 5DMiv recognizes my new Sigma 105f1.4 Art like a native lens. I have taken over 1000 photos with it in the last couple of weeks under all conditions and have not missed focus once. Here's hoping there's a firmware update that allows all their Art lenses to be recognized by Canon cameras. My 5DMiv does, my 7DM2 doesn't.
overpriced--got that right. thanks chris!
haha, sounds like you are richer than him. i have no choice and stay with my Canon. lol
not richer. even if i was, i still wouldn't buy it! :)
Im more of a 24 guy because in super 35 mode we can get a 36 f2
I have the MK 1