35L Mark II !?! - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1 2 3

5 6 end

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #1 · 35L Mark II !?!

forget 24-70L IS. waste of time and effort. Jeez, who needs IS at that focal length? Learn to handhold, for crying out loud.

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:08 PM

cineski
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #2 · 35L Mark II !?!

Hey Ed, why don't you come with me and shoot a low light, no flash allowed wedding in a huge Catholic church and see if ya have that opinion anymore?

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:24 PM

M Vers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #3 · 35L Mark II !?!

Ed Sawyer wrote:
forget 24-70L IS. waste of time and effort. Jeez, who needs IS at that focal length? Learn to handhold, for crying out loud.

Way to be ignorant

Besides the lower shutter speeds you can shoot at with IS implemented (think of times when a tripod is unavailable), there are plenty of people out there who do not have the ability to hold their cameras steady due to old age/ailments ect ect. Bedsides, would an IS version of any lens stop you from using a non-IS version? The same applies to those crying about the idea of IS in a WA--how wouldn't it be useful?

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:25 PM

gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #4 · 35L Mark II !?!

Actually, i'd be happy with a 24-70mm f2.8 IS L. it would give me a good reason to update from my sharp Sigma copy. I'm just hoping that Canon have nailed the QC issues with it.

As the the 35L II and 24L II, does this really surprise us all? Canon started with the 85mm II L and 14mm II L, then the 16-35mm II L (long over due) and now the 24-70mm (OK 'IS' mkI but effectively II). The 50mm f1.2 L is new. So what's left in the prime arena? 135L? If the optics doesn't need an update then it'll be AF, weatherproofing and optical coatings. It all sounds good to me.

I would also hazzard a guess that we'll see an update to the venerable 70-200mm f2.8 II soon too. Along with the 300mm f4 IS and 100-400mm IS L

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:47 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #5 · 35L Mark II !?!

IMHO the 20/2.8, 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 should get Mk II before the 35/1.4.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:56 PM

gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #6 · 35L Mark II !?!

I've just had a good look over the dutch leak site and there's no mention of a 24 II L, but they are listing a 35 II L and a 200mm f2.8 II L. In the case of the 35mm, they are listing both the mk I and mkII versions.

Sep 04, 2008 at 09:56 PM

Azrael
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #7 · 35L Mark II !?!

Well, the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 did drop about 200 euro's in price in the last year.
Then again, Konijnenberg is known (like other shops) to post rumors on their site, true or not.

Sep 04, 2008 at 10:08 PM

fraga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #8 · 35L Mark II !?!

David Baldwin wrote:
"Replacing core primes and zooms with higher resolution lenses more suitable for the newer 50-65MP FF sensors that are coming over the next few years.

Sep 04, 2008 at 10:08 PM

timnosenzo
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #9 · 35L Mark II !?!

gazzajagman wrote:
I've just had a good look over the dutch leak site and there's no mention of a 24 II L, but they are listing a 35 II L and a 200mm f2.8 II L. In the case of the 35mm, they are listing both the mk I and mkII versions.

200 f/2.8 L MKII is a current lens
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7315

Sep 04, 2008 at 10:51 PM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #10 · 35L Mark II !?!

timnosenzo wrote:
gazzajagman wrote:
I've just had a good look over the dutch leak site and there's no mention of a 24 II L, but they are listing a 35 II L and a 200mm f2.8 II L. In the case of the 35mm, they are listing both the mk I and mkII versions.

200 f/2.8 L MKII is a current lens
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=153&modelid=7315

Yes the 200/2,8 II has been out for more than 12 years

Sep 05, 2008 at 04:46 AM

eosfun
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #11 · 35L Mark II !?!

Then again, Konijnenberg is known (like other shops) to post rumors on their site, true or not.

Nonsense! You will gonn' eat crows mr Luursema! No EOSfun

Edited on Sep 05, 2008 at 06:06 AM

Sep 05, 2008 at 06:04 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #12 · 35L Mark II !?!

cineski wrote:
Hey Ed, why don't you come with me and shoot a low light, no flash allowed wedding in a huge Catholic church and see if ya have that opinion anymore?

Sep 05, 2008 at 01:46 PM

Daan B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #13 · 35L Mark II !?!

The current 35L can't be calibrated very precise because it misses a chip that allows for software calibration. Calibration has to be done by adjusting the actual hardware (in rudimental steps). So my guess is Canon will provide the 35L II with such a chip, maybe update its AF algorythms also and put a weather sealing on the mount. I doubt they will make any big optical changes. Lowering the CA's would be nice though

BTW The posted link is from a reseller in the Netherlands that seems to have a habit of including updated/new items months before their actual releases. They did it with the new 18-200mm.

Edited on Sep 05, 2008 at 03:30 PM

Sep 05, 2008 at 03:26 PM

Un Lee
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #14 · 35L Mark II !?!

It had CA problem at wide open.. and vignette was pretty harsh at wide open for FF.. It had no weather seal too..
So who knows..

Sep 05, 2008 at 04:09 PM

matsuib
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #15 · 35L Mark II !?!

I think the price will be interesting -- will they do what they did with the 85L, and jack the price up $200.

Sep 05, 2008 at 04:14 PM

Vivek
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #16 · 35L Mark II !?!

Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO the 20/2.8, 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 should get Mk II before the 35/1.4.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.

True, but then these would mean less sales of the L series and that I don't think would be appreciated by the Canon gods.

-- V

Sep 05, 2008 at 04:32 PM

Daan B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #17 · 35L Mark II !?!

matsuib wrote:
I think the price will be interesting -- will they do what they did with the 85L, and jack the price up $200.

I hope so... it will benefit the resale value of my current 35L

Sep 05, 2008 at 05:56 PM

michael49
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #18 · 35L Mark II !?!

Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO the 20/2.8, 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 should get Mk II before the 35/1.4.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I would much rather this than a 35L II.

Sep 05, 2008 at 06:32 PM

timnosenzo
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #19 · 35L Mark II !?!

Daan B wrote:BTW The posted link is from a reseller in the Netherlands that seems to have a habit of including updated/new items months before their actual releases. They did it with the new 18-200mm.

Just out of curiosity (I see you're from the Netherlands as well), what will this company say if you call them up and ask them about the 35 MKII on their site?

Sep 05, 2008 at 06:36 PM

timnosenzo
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.4 #20 · 35L Mark II !?!

Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO the 20/2.8, 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 should get Mk II before the 35/1.4.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I have to disagree about the 24L, IMO the 24L and 35L are kindred in every sense... neither in really any need of an update.

Sep 05, 2008 at 06:39 PM

M Vers
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #21 · 35L Mark II !?!

Ed Sawyer wrote:
cineski wrote:
Hey Ed, why don't you come with me and shoot a low light, no flash allowed wedding in a huge Catholic church and see if ya have that opinion anymore?

Sure, no problem. I wouldn't bother using a 24-70 in that case though. ;-)

IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do. The IS fanboys seem to think it's some sort of 'required' part of a lens. I could see it on 300mm+ focal length stuff, but shorter than that, not worth it, both from a cost/weight/quality loss perspective.

the 24-70 is already plenty large/complex/expensive. IS would only make it worse in those regards with little to no benefit.

all IMNSHO of course.

Well, IMNSHO of course, IS is as much a crutch as AF--I assume you don't use that either for sake of talent and all. As for "people got great shots back then", they sure did--but now they can get shots they missed, all without the use of a tripod--convenient, eh? As for additional weight, current IS systems are so light its hard to even notice the difference and if you do 3-4 stop gain makes it negligible..the same applies to additional cost. As for loss of quality--really? Are we still playing that card? Not even one of the sharpest zoom lenses (70-200 f/4 IS) ever produced could change your mind? Boy oh boy.

Edited on Sep 05, 2008 at 06:46 PM

Sep 05, 2008 at 06:45 PM

eosfun
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #22 · 35L Mark II !?!

what will this company say if you call them up and ask them about the 35 MKII on their site?

They will tell you you can pre-order if you wish and you get feedback as soon as delivery is expected and price is known.

Have EOSfun!

Sep 05, 2008 at 07:07 PM

joeisayo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #23 · 35L Mark II !?!

As soon Canon improves their AF accuracy, you'll see that neither the 24L or 35L need any improvements.

Sep 05, 2008 at 07:13 PM

Yohan Pamudji
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.4 #24 · 35L Mark II !?!

Ed Sawyer wrote:
IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do.

People got great shots in the 1800s too, which means every technological advance in photography since then would also be a crutch, following your logic.

I guess holding a camera very, very still while taking a photo is a talent of sorts, but when "talent" is mentioned in the context of photography I think more along the lines of composition, exposure, lighting, etc. In that sense, IS doesn't even influence any of those considerations except for allowing you to handhold at lower shutter speeds. Is that such a bad thing?

The way I see it, anything that helps me get a shot I would otherwise not get is a desirable feature. IS is one such feature. Nevermind putting IS in the 24-70L (which I think is a great idea); how about putting it into the 16-35L and/or 17-40L? If I want to shoot indoors in a dimly lit church, what better way to do that than to have a wide-angle with IS? And before you cry, "Tripod!" remember that a tripod isn't always convenient or even possible to use. Besides, if you can't get the shot handheld then a tripod is just a crutch anyway, right?

Sep 05, 2008 at 07:21 PM

Seth Tower
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.4 #25 · 35L Mark II !?!

Ed Sawyer wrote:

IS in general is a crutch for a lack of talent, IMNSHO. People got great shots back in the day w/o it, and still do. .

So, I'm assuming you don't us autofocus, auto metering, or a camera with a single electronic circuit in it? 100% manual, no battery. You're my hero.

Of course, if you use a any one of those, you're a hypocrite.

Sep 05, 2008 at 07:30 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 6 end