35mm f1.4L mk2, way better minimum focusing distance in practice

The manual states that the minimum focusing distance of this lens is 0.92 feet, which works out to approximately 11 inches.

I've been pleasantly surprised to learn that this is not the case in practice. I can't say that my experience is typical, obviously, but I'm consistently achieving focus at about 5 inches, which is dramatically different/better.

I'm not a professional lens-tester, but I know how to read a measuring tape.

Focusing about 5 inches away with the Canon 35mm f1.4L mk2

Focusing on my ring, a little under 5 inches away.

Focusing on ring at Canon's stipulated minimum focusing distance of ~11 inches.

So, that's a huge difference in terms of aesthetic possibilities. I called up Canon Professional Services and they suggested that this might be caused by the lens filter I'm using, but I've since reshot without the filter on and I'm getting the same results.
This is so far outside of Canon's mfd spec that it blows my mind. I was already loving the new lens, but this is a lovely surprise. Obviously, ymmv, but if you've got the lens, test this capability out!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If there, do there." -my lovely wife
http://adamwcohenphotography.com

The minimum focusing distance is measured from the front of the *sensor*, not from the front of the lens.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that, when you measure the distance from the front of your sensor (estimate it) to the front of the lens, you'll get about 6 inches.

I actually asked the Canon rep to clarify what mfd means and he was unequivocal about it being from the front of the lens and not the sensor.
Still, it's impossible to ignore that your suggestion makes more sense than my copy of this lens having superpowers.   
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If there, do there." -my lovely wife
http://adamwcohenphotography.com

I actually asked the Canon rep to clarify what mfd means and he was unequivocal about it being from the front of the lens and not the sensor.
Still, it's impossible to ignore that your suggestion makes more sense than my copy of this lens having superpowers.   
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If there, do there." -my lovely wife
http://adamwcohenphotography.com

I believe you proved the rep wrong.
--
Lee Jay

Lee Jay wrote:

I actually asked the Canon rep to clarify what mfd means and he was unequivocal about it being from the front of the lens and not the sensor.
Still, it's impossible to ignore that your suggestion makes more sense than my copy of this lens having superpowers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If there, do there." -my lovely wife
http://adamwcohenphotography.com

I believe you proved the rep wrong.
--
Lee Jay

Hey Lee, can we just keep this between the two of us? I'd really appreciate it.

Gah. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If there, do there." -my lovely wife
http://adamwcohenphotography.com

salamander1 wrote:

AdamWCohenVisuals wrote:

I actually asked the Canon rep to clarify what mfd means and he was unequivocal about it being from the front of the lens and not the sensor.

unequivocal? the guy was ignorant, didn't know what he was talking about. canon reps are not geniuses. distance is always measured from the sensor - always. that's precisely the reason why you're getting these "supernatural" 6 inches focusing distance from the front of the lens.

As much as I'd love to dump this brain fart entirely on the doorstep of the Canon rep, I'm the one who enthusiastically believed his incredulity about the "extraordinary" performance of my copy of this lens and eschewed thinking clearly about it before posting here.
Sorry for wasting your time, forum people. 
MFD is measured from the sensor. Period. And humiliation is measured from here to infinity and beyond.