Canon announces 35mm f/1.4L II and EOS M3 coming to NA

Long awaited new 35 f/1.4 (the old one was awful) - will it be as good as the Sigma that costs less than half?
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/953054 ... ive-optics

Canon re-enters the North American mirrorless market
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/563311 ... omes-to-us

Canon just couldn't leave the mirrorless market to the other makers...these half hearted attempts with the M series may be a precursor to actually begin to be serious.

Are we ever going to see any wide angle fast primes for Canon's APS-C cameras? Maybe a few to go with the M3?

Cheers,

Jim

Pretty stunning improvement from the previous model but the previous model was not a great lens. the new one looks like it should be excellent:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/08/ef-3 ... omparison/

For those who are interested: Roger Cicala of lensrentals just tested the new Canon 35mm/f1.4 II vs the Sigma Art and the Zeiss for resolution. The Canon seems to be the best but just by a whisker compared to the Sigma - at almost double the price, though:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/09 ... mm-f1-4l-i

Wolfgang

Yes, like most recent Canon L lens introductions, this new lens is a stellar performer on a number of tests but, as stated, very expensive. Not sure that the price difference would be worth it given that you would likely never see any differences in real world photography.

Great news for many Canon fans, but for me there is little excitement here. From now on, I am only ever going to use my Canon gear for wildlife and there too, for distant animals, birds or fast action. I don't know how others  would use a 35mm, but my use of it will mainly be for landscapes, street and travel photography for which I now prefer the Sony system with its own set of great lenses  - its 35 1.4 is probably equally good.

Now the Canon mirrorless would be an interesting item, if they can come up with same sensor and feature set of the Sony, but somehow I doubt that will happen any time soon. By the time they do, Sony would have leapfrogged ahead again.

Pradeep

It's the best 35mm lens on the market but only marginally better than the Sigma (in ways you would never actually see) and at 2.5 times the price:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/11 ... 4l-ii-lens

E.J. Peiker wrote:It's the best 35mm lens on the market but only marginally better than the Sigma (in ways you would never actually see) and at 2.5 times the price:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/11 ... 4l-ii-lens

Is the material used in the Canon lens more expensive? Or does the minor difference make manufacturing so much more expensive? Or does Canon just charge so much because enough people will pay for it?
Or maybe all of those combined?

But good to see that Canon is improving their primes. 


Markus

Mostly because people will pay for it. There is still a wide-held belief that lenses from Nikon and Canon are superior to those from a company like Sigma because that was actually true for many decades and so they are willing to pay a premium. But in the last few years, with the introduction of the Art line, Sigma lenses are more often than not better. On the Nikon side, no Nikon lens is anywhere near as good as the Sigma Art equivalent. It isn't even close. Canon has stepped up the game though and their newer lenses are very very good but also very expensive. And if you look at build quality, the Sigma Art lenses (and Sport) are built and finished extremely well.

Nikon first and foremost was known as an optical company...they seem to be noticeably lacking lately in that regard (at least in internet pundits thinking). Canon is putting out very expensive lenses and improving their previous lacking WA lineup. Sony inherited Minolta's factory and personnel and is all over the map in design and QC with ZA and G lenses put out which are either top of the line or just branded to increase sales. Then the cheap alternative (Sigma and Tamron) are finally releasing lenses that are top drawer because of the huge vacuum created by the overpricing of OEM. The camera industry is in a major upheaval.

Mike in O wrote:Nikon first and foremost was known as an optical company...they seem to be noticeably lacking lately in that regard (at least in internet pundits thinking).  Canon is putting out very expensive lenses and improving their previous lacking WA lineup.  Sony inherited Minolta's factory and personnel and is all over the map in design and QC with ZA and G lenses put out which are either top of the line or just branded to increase sales.  Then the cheap alternative (Sigma and Tamron) are finally releasing lenses that are top drawer because of the huge vacuum created by the overpricing of OEM.  The camera industry is in a major upheaval.

It's not just punditry, take a Nikon 35 f/1.4 that costs about $1700 and the Sigma Art that costs about $900 (and can usually be had cheaper) and shoot with it at f/2.8 or wider.  The difference is absolutely mind bobbling and it isn't just in the corners either.  Same goes for the Nikon 24 f/1.4 vs the Art and the Nikon 50 f/1.4 and even the really expensive Nikon 58 f/1.4 is lacking at the larger apertures compared to the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art.