WEDDING SEASON SALE! 30% Off Training Systems!

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Gear Rumors

Canon 35mm F/1.4L II Coming In 2015 | Rumor

By Anthony Thurston on November 15th 2014

Well, now that Canon has FINALLY updated the 100-400mm ‘White Unicorn’, it seems that they will turn their attention to another widely requested update, the 35mm F/1.4L.

New Rumor Says Canon 35mm f/1.4L II Coming In 2015

According to a new rumor report over on Canon Rumors, the 35mm F/1.4L II will be announced sometime following the official announcement/shipping of the rumored 11-24mm F/4L. If this rumor turns out to be legit, it would mean the end to a rumor that goes all the way back to 2008, when the 24mm F/1.4L was updated.

[REWIND: Canon Germany Leaks 11-24mm F/4L]

The rumor states that while the exact announcement date has not yet been set, the 35mm F/1.4L II is expected to be available in Q1 or Q2 of 2015. This should be received as wonderful news for you holdouts refusing to purchase the stellar Sigma 35mm F/1.4. It will be interesting to see how the new Canon matches up to the Sigma.

[via Canon Rumors]

This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

Anthony Thurston is a photographer based in the Salem, Oregon area specializing in Boudoir. He recently started a new project, Fiercely Boudoir to help support the growing boudoir community. Find him over on Instagram. You may also connect with him via Email.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Ben Young

    Please update the 35 1.4 and the 50 1.2, Canon.

    I was contemplating buying a 35 1.4 but before I intended on making the purchase I was fortunate enough to have one on loan for a couple of weeks.
    I was put off by the amount of chromatic aberration in my photos when using this lens. I don’t know if the results were respective of all examples of the 35 1.4 but I was not going to have anything to do with it.

    | |
  2. Jan De Ruiter

    I have noticed that many people rave about the Sigma 35 1.4, and correspondingly complain about the Canon equivalent. But the quality of a lens is not only decided by it’s optical formula, but crucially also by the quality of its autofocus. I agree that with manual focus, the Sigma is the superior lens, but as many users have found out the hard way, the Sigma has very unreliable AF. This is also a reason that for instance the Zeiss 135 2.0 is *not* better for portraits than the Canon 135 2.0L, simply because it is impossible to consistently nail the focus with the Zeiss as well as with the Canon. And I don’t have to tell this audience how detrimental imprecise focussing is for the IQ. So the reason I and many others still prefer the Canon 35 1.4L over the Sigma is that its (the Canon’s) AF is very fast, and very accurate. With regards to the optics: if you do not photograph test charts all the time, the results with the Canon are very pleasing.

    | |
  3. Kim Farrelly

    I’m interested to see how and if Canon answer Sigma’s recent designs, their new EF-S lenses seem to be a real step up in quality & I wonder if they have any magic to gift their new L lenses with.

    | |
    • adam sanford

      Many L lenses we *don’t* pick on are top of the heap from a performance and testing perspective — the super-teles, the tilt-shifts, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, etc. — so we just accept them as the best and justify their price in that regard.

      But there are L lenses which don’t stack up to Zeiss or Sigma in basic testing (35L and 50L for sure), but they have diehard proponents who claim there is a magic ‘something’ to them that cannot be quantified. Some try to explain it in the bokeh, color or draw of the lens, and others simply prefer the overall results the lenses deliver.

      No one is right, and no one is wrong.

      But a lot of people trust test data (alongside reviews, of course) to justify the price of a new lens. It’s hard to put a dollar figure on ‘magic’, so Canon needs to improve their technical game or fewer people will be willing to pay what now appears to be a comical premium over the Art lenses. The 35L currently costs *65% more* than the 35 Art, and that’s madness to me.

      | |
    • Kim Farrelly

      The 35mm L more that stacked up to Sigma in 1998 when it was launched. The trouble Canon are having now is that Sigma have simply out-marketed them, producing a very sharp good looking lens at a great price point. Canon will need to magic (or exceptional design tolerances or whatever..) up something very special and I’m really hoping they do just that.

      Without the challenge of the likes of Sigma we would have the same magic to shoot with. More please I say.

      | |
    • Stan Rogers

      The truth here is that “L” has changed over time. Back in the day (and I’m talking the FD-mount day), the “L” didn’t mean “the sharpest, highest-quality lens we make”, it meant that the lens provided at least one feature (usually speed, like f/2.8 rather than the more normal f/3.5 for a zoom, but it could also mean an unusual focal length or long — more than 2X — zoom range) that most photographers really didn’t need and weren’t going to pay for. That feature was a luxury (thus the “L”), and it was going to cost you — both in terms of price, and often in terms of ultimate image quality. That carried on into the EF lenses — the 50mm/1.0 might have let you shoot in available darkness, but the el cheapo f/1.8 could mop the floor with it except at apertures wider than f/1.8. And yes, because they were super-expensive, they were better-built (try explaining to a photographer than their $2000 lens is a disposable, when charging $2100 and building it like a tank is an option). But something weird happened along the way — digital, APS-C (and the concomitant increase in DoF that came with shorter lenses for the same field of view), well-heeled amateurs (who in the film days would have been shooting medium format) and an apparent addiction to razor-thin DoF for everything, all of the time, came together to make the “L” more desirable. And there’s an expectation that “more expensive” and “better” are somehow synonymous (when it was actually the case that “more expensive” simply meant “more expensive”, both because it was more expensive to make and because the economies of scale were lost). Canon is refreshing the line (perhaps a little too slowly for some tastes, and maybe with a bit of third-party nudging they weren’t expecting) to make the product match the expectation — but they didn’t create the expectation.

      | |
  4. adam sanford

    Canon has it’s work cut out for it. Sigma trounced the 35L with their Art lens in the metric everyone fawns over — sharpness. There’s much more to a lens than that, of course, but it’s hard to put numbers to draw, bokeh, etc.

    So this is Canon’s first lens to come out in the same FL as an Art lens — their first ‘response’ to the Art lenses, if you will. They are hoping to re-establish the L brand as top dog in this FL. Outperforming the Sigma at a sharpness level will be quite difficult, as Sigma is nearly at Otus sharpness levels already.

    So I imagine that Canon will try to compete at a *feature* level and offer things like weather-sealing (a certainty) and IS (a possibilty but no certainty).

    But even with weather-sealing and IS, if the sharpness does not improve — especially in the FF corners on the f/1.4 to f/2 end — they will have a really hard time asking for big dollars above the Sigma.

    Photozone data here for perspective on what the sharpness/value obsessives often talk about:

    | |