Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM real-world sample gallery

Is it T/S lens?
This image exhibits strange focus plane "tilt"
http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3367774683/canon-ef-35mm-f-1-4l-ii-usm-real-world-samples-gallery/4955352521
Also this
.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3367774683/canon-ef-35mm-f-1-4l-ii-usm-real-world-samples-gallery/3818505530
Sad. I hoped that QC of equipment manufacturers is improving together with price increase. Apparently not.
And I mean not only Canon - it is the problem with almost all of them.

Nov 27, 2015permalink

Maybe I'm blind, but how do you get to the assessment, that there is a focus plane tilt? Which direction is it tilted? In the 1st example the camera itself is tilted of course.

Nov 27, 2015*permalink

scanar

Have a look at the marina shot at f1.4 and use the loupe to compare the left side of the image (very very sharp) to the right side (very very blurry, so bad it looks like one sided camera shake). I am surprised the lens was not sent back for a better example, also surprised canon would let one like that out into the 'wild' for testing.

Nov 29, 2015*permalink

Bildsee, look at the man, the grass and the plant. The plant is sharp, and the man is sharp - and the plant is behind the man. The grass is sharp only under the man's feet, and loose its sharpness towards the left edge.

Nov 29, 2015permalink

Indeed. I see the effect. While there is a chance that perspective fools us regarding the picture with the plant (the grass on the left side could be closer than we may think), the effect is very pronounced in the marina picture. In particular since it looks like a one sided camera shake as scanar described.

Nov 30, 2015permalink

is possible that the plant and person are on the same focal plane?

Dec 1, 2015permalink

Do the samples with the 1DX look better? I think so.
So either the resolution of the 1DX is too small to see the blur or it is caused by the 5DSR body in some way.

Dec 1, 2015permalink

timotale, have You seen this kind of installations from smaller distance? We can see stairs and ladders there. If this plant was not constructed by leprechauns or the person is not a giant - then these objects are not equidistant.

Dec 1, 2015permalink

two things:
1. plant and man r far away from the camera
2. 35mm is wide angle so you do get less blur effect.
I just dont see the tilt effect you mentioned.

Dec 1, 2015permalink

timotale, don't You think, that grass-sky is almost parallel to the sensor's plane, and plant is in about 2x larger distance than the man?Grass on the left side is oof.
If You still don't see it, look at the second image.

Dec 1, 2015permalink

timotale, look at this picture
http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3367774683/canon-ef-35mm-f-1-4l-ii-usm-real-world-samples-gallery/7079225177

While the poles on the left side are quite sharp (closest boats as well as far away), the right side is completely blurred. The is no focus at all.

Dec 2, 2015permalink

After there have been so many reports about the new Sony gear I'm pleased to see this gallery of the new Canon lens. Thank you DPR.
The side effect is, that it does not only show the quality of the lens but also the performance of the 5DSR. This gives us the chance for further comparisons. I had also a look into the sample gallery of the Sony A7RII review. However, the pictures I have seen there do look much less crisp. I know, there was different light, different environment and different lenses. Also most of the sony pictures have been taken wide open even at the lenses smallest f-number. This makes it so difficult to compare.
Based on the two galleries I would definitely go for the 5DSR with this new EF 35mm F1.4L II rather than A7RII with the 35mm Distagon for example.

Nov 27, 2015permalink

It would be nice to see a competition at same conditions. The Canon combo used in this lens review against the Sony combo used for the sample gallery of the A7RII review. A Nikon combo would be nice, too. Then shooting identical compositions (or almost identical, no tripod) at same ISO and arpertures. Just walk out and take pictures with the different systems.
If someone is going to send me the required gear I will not hesitate to perform this competition :)

Nov 27, 2015permalink

I've been saying the same thing for a while now. DP response was it's no easy task. I've seen various Japanese photo magazines doing exactly as what you'd said, and you can really see the differences....Keep in mind though, this website is to make sure that everyone is a winner, and they will never do such a thing. For direct comparisons of images from various platforms, go check out Image Resource: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Nov 28, 2015permalink

Joed700, thanks for the link. However, according to the exif data the Canon 5DSR was tested with the EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro from 1987(!). That can not be taken seriously?! Did I miss something?

Nov 28, 2015permalink

Thanks for that. Did you check out the lenses that were used by Canon's other competitors? If they all used the same kind of craps, I think that's fair. Anyhow, I don't see another way of getting a direct comparisons....

Here is a recently released video on the 35mm f1.4 II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXTKeaeZaDU
Just ignore the guy's jokes...just another opinion on the lens.

Nov 28, 2015permalink

Okay, I did a little research on the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5. This thing may be old but it's quite a top performer.

Nov 28, 2015permalink

On the resource mentioned above (http://www.imaging-resource.com) the sony A7Rii was tested with FE 55mm F1.8 ZA (Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*), which was introduced 2014, as far as I see.
I didn't check other examples yet (nikon). But the 5DSR with the EF50mm f/2.5 Macro is weird IMO.

Nov 28, 2015permalink

Joed, the Canon EF 50mm may be a top performer regarding macro. I don't know. But it is definitely from film era and does not make much sense when testing a 2015 56MP sensor. The Zeiss Sonnar, used for sony pictures, not only has a modern design optimized for digital cameras, it also costs 4x $.

Nov 28, 2015permalink

I went through the exif files for several platforms from the Imaging Resource site. They all used some sort of macro native lenses/standards. Keep in mind, these older lenses may not be the first choice in terms of functionality, but the optic is something different. If you are looking for sharpness, I think macro is the way to go. In the old days, a camera manufacturer's reputation is based on it's macro optical formula. I hope you are not a KenRockwell hater; you can check out what he has to say about this lens.
One more thing, I don't think a website such as the Imaging Resource would use something that's not up to standards. After all, they have to worry about their reputation and revenue from ads....

Nov 28, 2015*permalink

Well, if the macro lens used for the canon test is so superb, why are the results less than expected?
I looked into the exif data again and found "EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro +LSC". I missed the "+LSC" before. The LSC is a converter that changes the EF50 macro to a 70mm lens as the remaining exif shows.
Since the image crop is almost the same, the sample shots have been taken from different distances.
How sharp is the macro + LSC? Certainly not sharper than w/o the converter.
Does it make sense to compare with different focal length and shooting distance?
I appreciate all the work spent by Imaging Resource to perform the tests and present them.
However, I'm not convinced.
Personally I'd prefer field tests with eqivalent lenses regarding their specs and price range. The new 35 L of this sample gallery on the canon and the 35mm Distagon on the sony for example.

Nov 29, 2015permalink

Some say the LSC will give the macro a 1:1 magnification...but rather it will diminish the lens performance is another question. I suppose you could write to Imaging Resource and ask for a clarification about the lens choice...I too would like to see field test.

I personally had tried the Sony 35mm f/1.4 on the A7II. What turns me off was the fact that it has quite a bit CA. I think the Canon 35m f1.4 II definitely has an edge on that one.

Nov 29, 2015permalink

Okay, I wrote to Imaging Resource and cut/paste their response:

"Thanks for your email.

That's actually the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro, one of the sharpest lenses we've ever tested. And it was (now discontinued) also available in multiple mounts, so we use the same lens for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony DSLRs when supported.

It's not properly reported in EXIF by some cameras. If you however scroll down to LensID in our Canon EXIF pages, you will see the correct Sigma model listed. For example: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/EXIF/E5DSRhSLI00100NR2D.HTM"

I guess that makes their comparisons valid...

Dec 1, 2015permalink

Rooru S

Clever advertising. Showing the Mitakon 135mm F1.4 will make some people eager to stay on touch with DPR. And what about showing Sony cameras on a Canon lens sample gallery...interesting.

Aside from that, I really like the picture used on the article.

Nov 27, 2015permalink

photofan1986

Good glass for sure :)

Nov 26, 2015permalink

InTheMist

Rendering reminds me of the Sigma a good thing!

Nov 26, 2015permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edJStBgM6GQ

That is a joke, right? Sigma's bokeh can be horrendous in some situations.

Nov 26, 2015permalink

InTheMist

And yet it won the bokeh showdown.

Old Canon model, but still.

Nov 27, 2015*permalink

That is a "bokeh showdown" without really challenging either lens too hard. Like a race on the way to the supermarket in a heavy traffic.

Try something like this (Sigma):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/

Or this, Sigma again: http://www.lukaspiatek.com/blog/hochzeitsfotograf-muelheim

Nov 27, 2015*permalink

zacharry

Why do we never seem to see any astrophotography in your f1.4 lens sample galleries?

Nov 26, 2015permalink

(A test of) Canon gear looks curious.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Nice lens. Of course, it's Nikon equivalent blows it out of the water.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Lens Rentals says you are not quite right.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

I don't rent lenses. I own and use them; quite.

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

And, surprisingly, I do the same. With MANY brands.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Mmm. Just sold my last two non-Nikkors... the 1.4/35 and /85 Zeiss in C/Y mount, along with two RTSIII bodies.

The Nikkors (all primes, 1.4G's, a lot of Ai's and AiS's) serve me well.

To be brutally honest, I think this Canon 35 is a truly good lens, which I'd certainly want, if I had a ff Canon DSLR!

Nov 25, 2015permalink

They should (serve you well) because those are very good lenses as well. If you are interested, Canon DSLRs are different from Nikon DSLRs mainly because of interface philosophy (and some marketing / specific performance levers pulled either up or down, regardless of the brand), but the lenses are more or less in the same league - so the end result for the skilled photographer is rather hard to differentiate (when you PRINT the work, I mean).

Nov 25, 2015permalink

What are you shooting in the water?

Nov 26, 2015permalink

Little sailing boats that my kids push to and fro in the pond. I'm still looking for a suitable cannon.

Nov 26, 2015permalink

I am pretty sure that a cannon would blow your Nikon out of the water.

Nov 26, 2015permalink

Linds789

I still can't decide between the Sigma or the Canon.. Just not sure the Canon is worth almost double the cost. Would love to see a comparison from anyone who owns both!

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Both are awesome, Canon has WS as a plus, but for a price. Your call.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

If budget is not an issue, WS is definitely a must. I didn't think WS was a big deal until I went to Slot Canyons. My equipment and I were literally covered in sand when I came out. Sigma is a great performer; the one I had was great, but I read some reviews where focusing might be an issue on certain systems...

Nov 26, 2015permalink

pahountisg

as the mk1 owner, I love the mk2 files :)
At some point I will definitely pick up one

Nov 25, 2015permalink

chewdoggydog

I really think that the "PP" in 4 is soooooooo big and bulging.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Ross Murphy

Nice Beer shot : )

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Carey Rose

As an FYI, some additional samples have been added from the 1D-X.

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

Bjrn SWE

That 5DS R resolution is amazing! Lens seem mighty good as well.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

watson076

Superb. The lens is stunning, definitely up there with the very best of the best.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Wild Light

Lens is okish. The rendering looks harsh as hell compared with Leica and Zeiss.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Yes, but nothing (really) compares with Leica.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Bronze Age Man

Poor set of pictures to evaluate the lens really! The marina shots show lots of colour fringing and not great focus wide open, even in the middle. Stopped down to f4 the focus improves significantly in the middle but the fringing remains, not even just at the edges.
Not impressed!

Nov 25, 2015permalink

adengappasami

CA looks very well controlled. Looks extremely good but again the comparison with the Art is always going to be there and that Art is one tough lens to beat for the price.

I dont see any reason except being Canon fanatic to argue Sigma is Bad to buy this lens. I agree if you say i love canon and hence i think Canon is better?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

desaint

There's so much to say for the canon..focus-waterproof-service(CPS) etc..i tried the sigma and i wan't really to like it but the focus was so inconstant...i heard it's beter with nikon than with Canon(i don't no why?)i bought the Canon and it's superb..

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

Like I've said in a previous post, both lenses are awesome, but you will have to decide if you need WS. Then, if yes, it will cost you far more, but the product is near* perfect.
* = Leica still has the upper hand in aesthetics.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Digimat

i guess you wont see differences in terms of sharpness between the 35 1.4 L II and the sigma 35 1.4 ART - they are both excellent even wide open.

bokeh, CA and color fringing are the things that should be compared between the two :)

Nov 25, 2015permalink

chopsteeks

The gallery did not impress me to run to buy one.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Konstantin Mineev

Gallery has the style like film: "A Walk Among the Tombstones".
(Nice photos, I did not say that I do not like it).

Canon 35/1.4 is too expensive for me, that because I ordered Voigtlander 40mm/1.4.
Its field of view is slightly narrower then 35mm.
it will not be so sharp as new Canon.

but:
Price is several times smaller.
It weighs considerably less,
It also has very nice bokeh.
Sony A7 allows convenient manual focus.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

tedufre

we tested already two of the new 35mm lenses in our studio, both had the same problem, they are not sharp on the last 30% of the image ( on the right side).
you have to close the aperture to f5.6
the objectiv is not good enough for the price!

Nov 25, 2015permalink

moga

This copy of lens has clearly litle centering defects... They can be seen at http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3367774683
http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3367774683

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

Eric Hensel

those are links to the gallery. Try opening the jpg in a new tab:
http://1.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS5792x8688~sample_galleries/3367774683/9392763366.jpg

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Its probably the angle. I don't see decentering bokeh on all the images. In fact most of the images have a centered bokeh disc.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

ozturert

Nice lens. In fact looks very good.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Paul JM

What disturbs me is the fact that this lens, and its predecessor which I own and love, are not on the list of recommended lenses for the 5dsr
http://www.slrlounge.com/canon-announces-new-list-of-recommended-lenses-for-new-5ds/
but the non-L f2 35mm is ! What is going on Canon ? Do they really feel that the non L has better optical characteristics then the 1.4 ? Do they really NOT recommend this new L series lens on their new high quality 50MP sensor ? Do I sell my 35mmL and 'upgrade' to the f2 lens ?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

hwzjerry

The list came out before the lens was released. If the 35/2 IS is there, the 35LII should be there.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Paul JM

Yes, but they didn't list the 35 1.4 series i either. Surely they rate that lens higher than the 35 f2
Nor the 15mm L prime. Nor the 300 f4 L prime. Difficult to reconcile L series prime lenses not being on the list

Nov 25, 2015permalink

I also notice that the 50mm f/1.8 STM is not on the list either. DXO gave the 50 f1.8 the highest rating among the Canon 50's. I own the 35mm f2 IS and the IQ is quite good, especially with the IS..shutter speed went all the way to 1/4 sec handheld...decent bokeh...took really nice pix at extremely low light condition at f/4 & 1/15 ISO at 12800.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Tim Gander

Paul JM, it's possible they didn't list the MKI 35mm f/1.4 because they knew it wouldn't have the required resolving power for the new chips. They didn't list the MKII because it wasn't out yet. Maybe they'll update the list soon. I have the MKI version, and it's definitely a nicer lens on my 5D than it is on my 5D MKIII.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

RedFox88

They didn't list the 35 f/1.4 so people looking at a slightly old list wouldn't go looking for the "old" version after the mark II came out. It's really that simple.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Bronze Age Man

The 35mm f2 is seriously good right from f2. The 35mm II is closer to f1.7 so yes upgrade to the 35mm f2 and save some weight.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

photomedium

JM do you really need that kind of supervision from canon?
About you try things out and buy what you think is best?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Tim Gander

Photomedium, this is also true, though it's not a bad idea for Canon to post some kind of compatibility list. I discovered not long after getting the 5DMKII that my 16-35 f/2.8 (mki) was useless on that camera below f/8. Now I have the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII I see it's not recommended with the 5Ds. Luckily, I have no need for the 5Ds so will stick with what I have for now (5DMKIII).

Really what would help would be a list compiled by an independent person who would also highlight why certain lenses aren't recommended (focus accuracy at wide apertures, resolution or whatever) so people can decide for themselves.

Interestingly the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is listed - I have one and it's a cracking little lens on my 5DIII.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I think photomedium is correct about lists. although I find Photozone.de, while uncompromising in their reviews are pretty much on target in helping users weed out the stinkers. LensRentals can be painfully honest too.

As for the 16-35/2.8 lenses and the 17-40, they have their fans but it has long been known they are nothing to write home about. And there's no reason to think a lens that's mediocre on a 20mp camera will improve on a 50mp one.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Tim Gander

"And there's no reason to think a lens that's mediocre on a 20mp camera will improve on a 50mp one." - indeed, quite the opposite.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Paul JM

Photomedium, that is not helpful advice. We all to some degree rely on advice from others about camera gear, and there is no shame in that. If you dont believe in listening to advice from others, then you are really wasting your time participating in these forums at all. But specifically in relation to your advice, things are not so simple. Just buying the camera, then trying it out with a pile of lenses, is expensive and time consuming. To be frank, if the resolution of Canon sensors now out resolves my current lens collection, then I would probably not buy the 5dsr at all, but given the expense of changing both body and lenses, may look at other options, e.g. the Pentax 645. It is not a matter of supervision by Canon at all, but exploring other options.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Fog Maker

I checked image 25 and CA is present. And what about all that (almost banding like) noise? What on earth did they do to those cameras?

I will get this lens

Nov 24, 2015permalink

desaint

it' not the camera..it's the PP..the raw files look great.
When you let the radius slider on 1 when you sharpning a file you get a lot of noise..thats what's happening here,the should set the slider to 0.5,dpreview is great at testing cams but very bad in PP

Nov 24, 2015permalink

Samuel Spencer

@desaint: FYI, when doing sample galleries we are instructed in our gallery protocol to leave sharpening and NR at their ACR default. Just realize our "bad PP" might be standardized parameters we are allowed to work within.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

John C Tharp

ACR defaults can range from a little rough to outright useless...

One certainly has to be able to adjust sharpening based on noise, as suggested above; at worst, you can just turn it off!

Nov 25, 2015permalink

garyknrd

I have to agree with @desaint. IMO not good.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

desaint

@Samuel-I can understand that but when the default is not good..why use it..make a new preset that do the camera's right..it was the same with the sony files...lot off people blaming the cams of much noise at base iso..it have nothing to do with the cams..so it gives a totally wrong idee of what the cams capable of..there must be a way to do it beter..

Nov 25, 2015permalink

BattleBrat

Hmm... I'll stick with my Zeiss ZE 35mm f/1.4

Nov 24, 2015permalink

straylightrun

Ill stick with my $1600 made in Thailand lens*

Nov 25, 2015permalink

RedFox88

Got autofocus with that lens on a Canon body?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

BattleBrat

$1,900, I paid full tilt. It was made in Japan by Cosina, and it never bothered me, it's a tank. All my cameras have split prism viewfinders, my 6D has a cross prism viewfinder, focusing is a breeze.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

BattleBrat

straylightrun , digging through your gear I see you own a Sony Zeiss lens, that is not a Zeiss lens, it is more Zeiss certified similar to the Panasonic Leica branded Micro 4/3 Lenses, except the PanaLeicas are made in Japan as well, your Sony Zeiss must have been made in Thailand. The Zeiss ZE and ZF lenses are truer Zeiss lenses but made by Cosina in Japan (I knew this before I bought any of them) they are also all metal and glass, hold one and youll understand. Zeiss contracted Cosina to make the lenses for them. Cosina licenses the Voightlander name and designs and builds lenses under it. OTUS lenses are true Zeiss lenses.

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

TomasJacko

Snowman photographed at last

Nov 24, 2015permalink

RedFox88

Where? Looked through them all didn't see one.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Thesun

Canon QC strikes again. Like most of my L-glass, this lens also suffers from serious decentering. The sailboats at f1,4, almost 50% of the picture is unsharp. The whole right side of the picture is blurry! Great!!!

Nov 24, 2015permalink

Timbukto

Agreed, I believe its possible to get a better copy, the right side weakens a bit on both the boat scene and the bacon wall shot. However what is clear is that a 'centered' copy is pretty damn amazing and quite possibly will take full advantage of the 50MP 5DS resolution which is really amazing. My 35mm f2 IS USM is well centered but no way in hell does it achieve pixel sharpness on a 6D wide open on the borders like this one can.

Also if you hate Canon QC, go ahead and try other brands. If anything empirically Canon does quite well in copy to copy variation testing done by LensRentals as a whole.

Nov 24, 2015*permalink

Tons o Glass 0 Class

It looks like it could be decentered, doesn't it. It could be one lens element, maybe a corrective one.

Nov 24, 2015permalink

kewlguy

Yes, it's badly decentered - and it's a prime lens with no IS. My 70-200 II is slightly decentered (just found out after a year so not too bad), but I had to go through 5 samples of 24-70 L II to get a decent one. So much for an L lens...

Nov 24, 2015permalink

Angrymagpie

How did you guys test that out? Pixel peeping at photos of flat surface at f1.4?

Nov 24, 2015permalink

Timbukto

After you become well aware of common lens defects its actually easier to detect centering on a 3 dimensional landscape shot like the boats than it is to look at a brick wall. But it takes some experience of understanding field curvature, DOF, and what to really expect (i.e. what your standards should be). For the money this falls a bit behind what I would consider acceptable. I just took a look at a pre-owned 24-105L and took a pass cause of decentering on the tele side. I don't expect perfection however especially in zooms, but I do pay attention to if there are obvious flaws that take more than a stop down or two to remedy (if it has defects requiring you to stop down, save money and get a slower lens that isn't defective or shoot a smaller sensor IMO).

Nov 24, 2015*permalink

kewlguy

No need for flat surface if the subject is far away. the difference of sharpness between left and right frame is too extreme. Check out the sailboats shot and the jeep shot at f/1.4. In case of the jeep shot, the left part is blurrier (check the left and right tyres) suggesting tilted focus plane. It's best to check for decentering at infinity focus, though.

Nov 24, 2015permalink

MayaTlab0

Joining the choir here, it looks suspicious indeed. Imaging Resource's sample also looks a little weird on the right hand side as well I think.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Angrymagpie

@kewlguy the left does look a little blurry in case of the jeep shot @f/1.4, but the sailboat shot @f1.4 seems to have a blurrier right. Surely the lens de-centreing can't change from left to right depending on focus distance?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

kewlguy

@Angrymagpie - it doesn't matter left or right is blurry, it just shows that the focus plane is tilted. You just need to know which side is going front/back. The jeep shot shows the left part has sharp focus at the back and the right at the front. The sailboats, is sharp on the left meaning that the right part is basically bokeh because the focus is way closer to the camera.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

to test for decentering. You should refer to here.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/testing-for-a-decentered-lens-an-old-technique-gets-a-makeover

I look at the out of focus bokeh disc. I dont think this copy is decentered, at least i dont see the effect through out the gallery.

Nov 26, 2015permalink

Would like to see a direct comparison with Sigma Art 35mm…

Nov 24, 2015permalink

mclaren777

I own them both and the new Canon is far better.

Easily worth the additional cost.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4L-II-USM-review-New-benchmark-for-open-aperture-performance/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4L-II-USM-versus-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-35mm-f-1.4-ZE-Canon-versus-Sigma-35mm-F1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-Excellent-performance-wide-open

In which way, may I ask? Art 35mm was already so much better than practically anything (excepting Leica glass) before it, that "far better" is hard to imagine, would defy the laws of physics. Starting to sound like an audiophool forum…

I am not saying it can not be better, but "far"?...

Nov 25, 2015permalink

David2553

According to Dxomark, not really.

Nov 25, 2015permalink

If new Canon is "far better" how come it lost to both Sigma and Zeiss in overall picture quality? Maybe mclaren777 is better expert than DxoMark?

Nov 25, 2015permalink

Zdman

Canon is sharper wide open and has less CA. Sigma is sharper stopped down to F8 (which is what you buy a 1.4 lens for isn't it;) Maybe DxoMark got a bad copy or maybe they're a little bias against Canon (just saying). Take your time and look at other reputable web sites and see if they come to the same conclusion. Good place to start would be lens rentals who've used an optical bench to get their MTF's and tested a representative sample.

Nov 25, 2015*permalink

Zdman

Looked it up and Dxo lowered Canon score because they averaged in the F22 shots (Sigma only goes to F16). That's a joke. In fact if you type in "Dxo a joke" you get quite a few hits on Google. Try it with other sites and not so much.

Nov 25, 2015permalink