Recent New Lenses: Canon 35mms

Bigger Big Dog: Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L II, just announced

Hard to believe, but Canon's justly famous EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L is nearly old enough to go to college. Although big and heavy in the he-man style of mainstream Japanese DSLR lenses—compare it to the 35mm ƒ/1.4's from Leica or Zeiss that you can mount with adapters on the Sony A7 series cameras for example—it was always a lovely lens that a lot of photographers swore by. My old friend Josh Hawkins would probably concur. I think his remains glued to his camera in most situations.

However, facing pressure from the popular and desired Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens—a lens that is admired not just for its advantageous price but also for price-no-object performance—Canon has announced a successor.

An oldie from the archives, taken with the original EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L

Not much wrong with that lens

The new Canon EF 35mm ƒ/1.4L II USM lens (available for pre-order, $1,799) will probably turn out to be not just very very good but very very very good, as it costs twice what the Sigma lens does and $320 more than what you can get the old one for. On the more-is-always-better side, it's even more he-man: it has 14 elements in 11 groups as opposed to 11/9 for the old lens, it's some 3/4ths of an inch longer, and it weighs a significant amount more—760 g vs. 580 g. That's like replacing a full-sized pickup with a super-duty extended-cab pickup.

Steals and luxuries
There is certainly no shortage of 35mm lenses for Canon DSLRs. Canon's 35mm ƒ/2 lens with image stabilization, which started out at $800, has come down to a much more reasonable $549. And if you liked the old old EF 35mm ƒ/2—one of the early lenses for the EOS film system, before the turn of the millennium—there's now a Chinese knock-off of it called a Yongnuo YN which is a steal at $121.99. You might think that you get what you pay for, and in some ways you probably do, but that was always a nice little lens. And it's more than a pound (605 g) lighter (!) than the just-announced Bigger Big Dog.

There are also several more specialized luxury options, like the beautiful metal Zeiss Distagon ZE manual-focus lenses in both ƒ/2 and ƒ/1.4 maximum apertures. (For purists who don't cotton to that newfangled autofocus nonsense.)

The new Tamron Goldilocks option, also just announced

Under the radar
Not to be outdone by all this—and as we've just seen, that's difficult—Tamron has just announced two very interesting new prime (!!) lenses in its SP series. The Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 Di VC USD—memorize that for the quiz—is loaded with interesting technologies, including image stabilization (Tamron calls it VC, for vibration compensation) and weather sealing. The Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 has very good close-focusing capability and appears to be optimized for the widest apertures. It will be available in Canon and Nikon mount at first, with a Sony A mount sans VC to follow (Sony offers in-body IS, so doesn't need in-lens stabilization).

There will also be a matching 45mm ƒ/1.8. Both lenses will start at $600.

You might well like the Big Dogs from Canikon, and I can understand why; the full-sized 35mm ƒ/1.4's from both companies are superlative lenses. The Bigger Big Dog will surely appeal to serious shooters.

Personally, I've also liked what I've seen of Tamron lenses; I've had good experiences with them over the years. (Not always the case with Sigma.) To tell you the truth, if I were searching for a 35mm for a Canon DSLR, I'd probably start my investigations with the new Tamron. Although a large lens compared to a classic 35mm, it seems to have the elusive Goldilocks quality when compared to a lot of the oversized and/or overpriced options on the market, not that there's anything wrong with those. Not too fast, not too slow; not too cheap, not too dear; not too small, not too...well, not too small; and with all the modern technologies you'd naturally want included in the mix. Perfect.

Well, maybe perfect. But I'd find out, if a 35mm for Canon (or Nikon) was what I needed.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Eric Erickson: "I don't get it. Photographers today are getting older not younger according to everything that I have seen, so why, if you are producing a new lens, would you make a larger one than before? It doesn't make sense to me. I just purchased a 12mm Olympus lens for my Micro 4/3 setup and it is terrific, and it weighs a fraction of this lens. 'Small is beautiful' as they say. I am not sure Canon and Nikon understand the demographics of the marketplace. We photogs are getting long in the tooth, and want less weight, not more, to carry on our photo outings."

Lynn: "There's another interesting alternative—the Canon EF 40mm ƒ/2.8 STM 'pancake.' It delivers way more than the modest price of $149 would suggest.

"In fact I'd suggest that at this price there's no excuse for not having one—it turns a Canon 6D into a (relatively) small, unobtrusive camera that will fit in a largish jacket pocket. Performance is very good—sharp with pleasant out-of-focus rendering. I'm very happy I bought one."

John Camp: "Actual questions: I'm not a lensee, so I don't know about this stuff, but is it possible that Canon produced a nearly perfect highly corrected lens so it could do stuff that all the other smaller lenses are correcting in software? And is there an advantage to hardware correction?"

Mike replies: The old 35mm ƒ/1.4L was highly corrected for late 1998 when it was introduced, but glass types, coatings, and aspherical element fabrication have moved on in the last 16+ years. The older lens leaves distinct room for improvement wide open and to a lesser extent when slightly stopped down. What you want shooting wide open with a fast lens on full frame is often generous blur or bokeh, in which case some corner softness might actually be advantageous for some images, but technically the older lens, which sported one hand-ground and -polished aspheric element (the new lens has two, likely machine-fabricated) was soft in the corners wide open, had a fairly high degree of vignetting, and left room for improvement in chromatic aberration.

There's also the appeal for Canon's engineers of putting the latest technology into play. The new lens is the very first to use Canon's BR Optics (blue spectrum refractive optics), about which Canon says:

Canon's proprietary Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics (BR Optics) incorporate a new organic optical material with unique anomalous dispersion characteristics for use in camera lenses. The molecular design of BR Optics refracts blue light (short wavelength spectrum) to a greater degree than other existing optical technologies including UD glass, Super UD glass and Fluorite, to control color fringing as effectively as possible. When placed between convex and concave lens elements made from conventional optical glass materials, BR Optics help to produce sharp images with outstanding contrast and color fidelity by thoroughly reducing axial chromatic aberration.

Finally, there are Canon's newest sensors to consider. The 50.6-megapixel sensor in the company's new 5DS and 5DS R cameras can likely show off the improved performance of a c. 2015 cutting-edge optical design. Put in short form: If I had a 5DS, I'd definitely want the bigger big dog rather than a legacy lens developed for film from the last millennium, no question about it.

Tech. Ed. Ctein adds: Expanding on what Mike said…

It's counterintuitive, but shorter focal length lenses need larger front elements if they want to avoid vignetting. That's because they're pulling in light rays from wider angles. Think of it like looking through a keyhole. Doesn't much matter if you only want to narrow field of view. Not so good for a larger one. In addition, digital cameras are more prone to certain kinds of falloff off-axis than film cameras. You want a higher degree of what's called "telecentrism" in a digital lens. Which means collecting even more off-axis rays and having more internal lens elements to see that they are distributed properly.

Another factor that makes the lens big (and expensive) is its unusually close focusing distance—a 1:5 magnification. I don't know if the old version could focus that close but if it did I would guess it wasn't very good there (Mike may know something about this [magnification on the old lens was .18X. —MJ]). Wide-angle lenses are primarily corrected for infinity because, so far as the lens is concerned, almost everything is very far away (three meters is nearly 100 focal lengths). At close focusing distance, your corrections start to go off the rails. Chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, and curvature of field get worse. Especially the latter two. Neither of those are correctable in software; you have to do it in the glass. If Canon wants this lens to be a good performer at such a close working distance, you're talking more elements, more weight, more expense.

There's also the "Blue Spectrum" correction they're building in. They're turning it into a kind of semi-super-apochromat. Again, because blue-violet fringing is a bigger problem with really good wide-angle lenses, because the images they produce are more likely to have lots of fine, high contrast details.

Marketing comes into play, but not in a bad way. This is an awfully specialized lens. They're not going to sell 1,000,000 of them. Some important fraction of people they will sell to will already own the older version. If you want them to trade up, you've got offer them major improvements, not modest ones. The size and the cost become less important than giving potential buyers a reason to be spending anything like that kind of money in the first place.

On your secondary question about whether there are advantages to hardware correction? Physically, no. Yes, there's a lot of opinion online about how evil software corrections are and how they're worse than doing stuff in glass. It's just plain wrong. It's an ignorant prejudice derived from simply not understanding how lens design and aberration correction works. (If someone wants to argue with me about this, I suggest you e-mail me privately. The comments column is not a place for long technical discussions.)

But, it is a prejudice that exists! If Canon corrects more of this stuff in glass (I don't know that they do), it's a selling point for certain subset of customers.

Robert Harshman: "The Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 Art is where you should start. It's a bargain. I have one. I've never been so impressed with a lens at the price point. The build is amazing and the IQ is almost too good to be true. Love it! The new Canon kinda looks like a Sigma art series, but not quite as refined a design."

Josh Hawkins: "I'm sure the new [Canon] lens will be more 'perfect,' but as with autotune, more perfect often makes for a less interesting/desirable/pleasing/fulfilling result. (I'm not sure how to say it, but the imperfections in a lens and a camera, like in a person, are what make them wonderful. It's just finding the right imperfections for you.)

"Back in my photojournalism days I think around 75% of my non-sports work was done with that lens. 20% was done with the 85L, and the rest with a 24L. That 35mm was always my baby, and still would be, but both my copies (funny story how you get two of those) are currently busted with the same autofocus problem. Shame preschool costs so much or I'd get it fixed in a heartbeat. I do love that lens. I'm always torn between that lens and early '80s 35mm Summicron. I need to get an A7R II so I can compare them. Really, that's why I need one."

Mike replies: Wait, "back" in your photojournalism days? What are you doing now? Don't tell me you've become a professional gambler.

Comments

[Carsten Bockermann]

"For purists who don't cotton to that newfangled autofocus nonsense"

Mike,

I just tried the new 35/2 by Meyer Optik Görlitz, an old German brand that currently gets revived. Available in both Canon and Nikon mounts it has no AF and no automatic aperture, i.e. you have to stop down manually before every shot. Optically it seems very nice with smooth bokeh. A few pictures can be seen here: http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.de/carsten-bockermann-zeitlose-reportage-mit-den-figmentum-objektiven/

Carsten

[Kenneth Tanaka]

The hail storm of new or reengineered 35mm lenses for DSLRs is a bit bewildering to me. I'm actually preparing to sell my "old" Canon 35mm F1.4 because, honestly, I just never use it. Even when my Canons were my primary cameras I tended to grab the F2 more often than the F1.4, which is just such a bulky brick of a lens. (Its Pain-Gain Ratio (PGR) = 1.83.) The much smaller, lighter F2 lens produced equally lovely images to my eye and has a PGR = 1.0.

[G Dan Mitchell]

I was a big fan of the old Canon EF 35mm f/2 lens — the one that some people didn't like because of the sound of the AF motors and because of an oddity of how it switched between AF and MF modes. But it was (and still is, if you can find one) a darned fine performer. It is very small and light, the image quality is truly excellent (with the minor exception of a tiny bit of softness in the furthest corners), and the sound of the lens really isn't _that_ loud!

[Dave]

I second the Canon 40mm Pancake. I love that lens. I use it with silent shutter mode on my 5D mk3. It's my street photography stealth assasin rig. And, even though it's not advertised as water proof, it survived a dunk in a lake last summer, so did my 5D3. Also, don't be scared off by the STM focus. Yes, it's not as fast as USM (all my other lenses are USM), but I have never missed a shot with it from slow focus. It works on my kids as well as running dogs, the two hardest things to photograph. Not bad for $125.

[Hernan Zenteno]

And for the Fuji users I think a lot of us want a compact f2 with f stops ring for the X cameras. Insatiable.

[Jeff]

Seems the new one, not the old, has weather sealing....big deal for some.

[hugh crawford]

"organic optical material"
AKA plastic, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Anyone seen the patent number for that ?

[Robert Hudyma]

I am in my early 60's and at this point in my life I want something that is lightweight and trouble-free.

I bought the Sony-Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2.8 for my Sony A7R. It is an excellent image maker and, at 120 grams, it weighs next to nothing. Sony-Zeiss recently introduced an ƒ/1.4 version and it weighs 630 grams. I have no interest in a lens this big and heavy. In the rare event that I need the extra speed, or more shallow DoF, I will dig out a 380 gram ƒ/1.4 Nikkor that I still have.

[Phil Service]

Perhaps I'm being heretical here, but what is the fascination of f/1.4 lenses? How often will most of the folks who buy this new Canon 35 mm actually shoot at f/1.4? I know next to nothing about lens design. However, it seems to me that it should be possible to make a highly corrected lens (better corrected than any of the available f/1.4's) that would be much smaller/lighter, and perhaps less expensive, provided that it had a much smaller maximum aperture, say f/2.8.

I suppose the obvious counter-argument is that such lenses wouldn't really be cheap, so few people would want to give away the extra speed of f/1.4 and shallow depth of field in exchange for smaller/lighter and (marginally?) better optics. I would. I don't even own any f/1.4 lenses any more.

[c.d.embrey]

I agree with Eric Erickson. The arthritis in my wrists and hands is getting to the point that I have problems unscrewing the cap from a soft drink bottle.

A Canon 5D3 and 90mm f/2.8 Tilt & Shift is way too BIG/heavy. So I've been experimenting with focus stacking. No reason that a 45mm lens on M4/3, or a 60mm on DX, can't deliver the needed results for full page Webb Press printing (magazines/catalogs).

From my seriously warped point of view, I'm seeing a replay of the switch from 4x5 to 35mm for PJs. CaNikon is playing the part of Graflex (BIGGER is better, and mirrorless is slowly finding an audience that appreciates small/light more than good enough cameras.

Have you seen the Cambo ACTUS mini view camera?? It works with cameras as small as M4/3 to as large as MFD backs. Yet still fits in the palm of your hand https://www.cambo.com/en/actus-mini/ For me, an ACTUS fitted with a Sony α6000 (tethered to Capture One) and a 50mm EL Nikkor f/2.8N lens would be the perfect table-top rig. Also seems like it would be good for landscape and fine-art photographers.

[JG]

If T.O.P.'s comments column isn't the place for a long technical discussion by Ctein about "how lens design and aberration correction works," then why not have him devote one of his now-irregular columns to this subject?

I certainly am interested in reading his thoughts about this, as will (I suspect) pretty much every other photographer who isn't an optical engineer, but has witnessed the surprisingly large negative effects upon image quality that simultaneously occur when some distortion corrections are done by software during the post-processing of RAW files.

I don't know about others, but I'd love to be disabused of my prejudice that favors lenses that "get it right in the glass," especially if this saves me money and opens doors that are (by personal choice) firmly closed to me.

[Charles Mason]

That looks like a damn teleeeephoto 35mm to me!

[DaveC]

I for one would love to hear Ctein explain why software corrections aren't worse than optical ones. I don't get into arguments about it but it's seems intuitive that optical would be better.

An article please.

Dave.

[Mani Sitaraman]

At what point does improved resolution begin to be irrelevant for the purposes of picture making?

Leaving aside the fact that such massive resolution requires that we have almost godlike perfection of technique to fully capture it, the following thoughts come to mind.

All that this lens, and the contemporary 50 megapixel Canon cameras let you do, is increase the limits of being able to frame loose and crop later. Pretty soon, we'll be taking pictures paying no heed to framing (and hence composition) or choice of focal length at the moment of image creation. I don't see how this is a positive development.

Other than that we are at the stage where using all the resolution that these cameras and lenses give us results in massive 6 foot wide pictures for display.

Print them any smaller, and we pointlessly throw away the increased detail that technological progress and additional expense have delivered.

Except for a very small number of artistic applications-such as the pictures of Andreas Gursky- I fail to see the practical utility of being able to print tack sharp 6 foot wide images. Few homes or other venues are big enough to display them at a reasonable viewing distance.

Usually you are so close, you get the field of view best achieved by a choice of longer focal length, scanning them with your eyes as if restricted by blinkers, a most unsatisfactory aesthetic experience.

Absent a creative revolution in photography that unlocks benefits from all this increased resolution, count me unimpressed.

[ctein]

Dear Dave & JG,

I'm not particularly interested in writing that at present, because it'll draw out exactly the same sorts of people that fact-based columns about depth of field, diffraction, and “film vs. digital” do. That is, people who are strong on opinions and short on knowledge. Sometimes I'm in the mood to argue with them in the hopes of enlightening them. Currently, not. It'd be more aggravation than enjoyment.

JG, you're experiencing sample bias, a logical fallacy. You've noticed the cases where this is done badly. You don't notice the cases (the majority) where it's done well. I can point to a whole lot of glass-corrected lenses that are pretty crappy in one respect or another. Which “proves” that glass correction is inferior, right?

In fact, I reviewed a lens where this was handled badly––the Olympus 12mm f/2 ( http://tinyurl.com/7cc9l8s ). There is so much undercorrected barrel distortion in this lens (5-6%? something like that) that fixing it in software introduces smearing that looks like undercorrected coma or spherical aberration. 1-2%? That you can correct invisibly in software, giving you close to a distortion-free, pixel-sharp lens. 5%? No way. Software correction is just a tool in the toolkit, like the choice of glass in the figure of a lens element. It's not a miracle worker. No tool is.

But… think about this. I was seeing those software artifacts because the lens designers made poor choices in glass. They were so fixated on optimizing other lens characteristics and minimizing other aberrations, that they let a huge amount of geometric distortion through. That's poor correction in glass, not in software. If they'd done a better job of balancing off the aberrations against each other ( and it is ALWAYS a balancing act) it would have been a much better lens.

That's really all I feel like saying on the subject.

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================

[Hugh]

The current 35/1.4L has been my favourite lens for about the last 10 years (since the original 5D) - I could just use that and the 135/2.0L for the rest of my life if I had to. Very little you can't photograph with a 5D3 and those two lenses.

Tried "little cameras" (OM-D EM-5, Sigma DP2M and DP3M) - just not as good. Not as responsive, not as transparent.

I'll be getting the 35mm/1.4L mark2 as soon as the UK price has dropped a bit.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Advantage to optical correction over software correction? Best corrected lens + all analogue workflow, of course. That said, I'm standing pat with my Zeiss Distagon 35/2.0 ZS, since I "don't cotton to that newfangled autofocus nonsense."

[John McMillin]

Size matters to me in these matters, and to me, it's a big turnoff. I suspect that the same folks who choose big cameras also favor large pickup trucks. They're big people, and I'm not. With small hands, I never appreciated Canon's jumbo lens mount. Maybe that allowed some impressive maximum apertures on some rare premium lenses, but it negated the goal of compact lenses at the outset.

I know that big cameras can impress the common folk, but they're generally a pain. If I wanted a bigger camera, I'd chose a Pentax 645D and get a much bigger VF and larger pixels and better ergonomics, too. A 35mm prime lens weighing a pound and a half is just ridiculous. I'd rather carry three or four Pentax Limiteds in my pocket and call it a system.

[lith]

This Pentaxian laughs at Eric Erickson's notion of "pancake"...