PetKal wrote:
Leonid, my current 35L copy performs well beyond my expectations on 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII (and 40D as well).....in fact I am so pleased with it that I will not be updating to 35L MkII whenever that comes out.
But you will get the mk II eventually, as we all well know Peter
Pixel Perfect wrote:
But you will get the mk II eventually, as we all well know Peter
No, Whayne, I will not....and my record proves it.
I own not: 85L MkII, 24L MkII and 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII.
One possible exception: since I do not have 24-70L any longer, I might get the MkII eventually if its performance turns out to be aligned with its most likely inflated price. If not, I'll continue to shoot happily with my old 28-70L and 28-80L.
PetKal wrote:
No, Whayne, I will not....and my record proves it.
I own not: 85L MkII, 24L MkII and 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII.
One possible exception: since I do not have 24-70L any longer, I might get the MkII eventually if its performance turns out to be aligned with its most likely inflated price. If not, I'll continue to shoot happily with my old 28-70L and 28-80L.
With the 70-200 MarkII being so sharp and good overall, i think that 200 F2.8 has become obsolete. A 200 F2.8 or F3.5 macro with HIS on the other hand.. would be a nice addition to the line-up.
Although i'd love to see a 135 F1.4IS . It could be a 85L on steroids with fast enough AF to keep up with sports events and without all the CA
Orestis.Ch wrote:
With the 70-200 MarkII being so sharp and good overall, i think that 200 F2.8 has become obsolete. A 200 F2.8 or F3.5 macro with HIS on the other hand.. would be a nice addition to the line-up.
Although i'd love to see a 135 F1.4IS . It could be a 85L on steroids with fast enough AF to keep up with sports events and without all the CA
I think at best we'd see a 135 f/1.8L IS. Even this would cost $2K. An f/1.4 version would weigh 1.4-1.5kg and be closer to $3K IMO.
why the heck would Canon make a mk II of the 35L? It already excels and doesn't need any upgrades IMO. Never had any issues with it on 5D's or 1Ds' series.
However, a 135 IS would definitely be a great addition.
TehKimchi wrote:
why the heck would Canon make a mk II of the 35L? It already excels and doesn't need any upgrades IMO. Never had any issues with it on 5D's or 1Ds' series.
Much the same could be said about the EF 300/2.8L IS and 400/2.8L IS. By all measures, they already excel...and yet, Mark II upgrades were recently announced at about a 50% increase in price.
Besides, the EF 35/1.4L could be improved optically--there is always room for improvement. Better corner performance wide open (i.e. reduce comatic aberration), and more flare resistance, are two things I can think of off the top of my head.
I don't understand the point of this poll. We're supposed to guess the future? I'm sorry, my crystal ball rolled of the table and broke last night while I was predicting todays stock prices.
PetKal wrote:
Leonid, my current 35L copy performs well beyond my expectations on 1DMkIIN and 1DsMkII (and 40D as well).....in fact I am so pleased with it that I will not be updating to 35L MkII whenever that comes out.
Problem with 35L sharpness starts on mk III and reported by most owners including myself. MA doesn't help or needed huge numbers with min effect. Same time 24L mk II worked amazingly good on same mk III, to me it is clear that 35L having certain design limitations on newer bodies since many people report same even on mk IV. Yes, it works great on 5D/5D2, not sure why but that is another story
quicksilver33 wrote:
It would be big trouble for Canon if Nikon were to release a version that one-ups them so they should go ahead and update this one to keep Nikon playing catch-up.
Actually, I feel that Canon is waiting for Nikon to release something competitive and only then will they do a update. They seem to prefer this mode of operation.
I have both the 35mmL and the 135mm L, and the 35 needs updating the most. This means that they will likely update something out of left field that is a specialty lens rather than a popular one.
Breitling65 wrote:
Problem 35L sharpness starts on mk III and reported by most owners including myself. MA doesn't help or needed huge numbers with min effect. Same time 24L mk II worked amazingly good on same mk III, to me it is clear that 35L having certain design limitations on newer bodies since many people report same even on mk IV. Yes, it works great on 5D/5D2, not sure why but that is another story
By most owners? I have never heard of this issue...ever. How many samples of the 35L did you test before coming to the conclusion that it has "design limitations on newer bodies"?
M Vers wrote:
By most owners? I have never heard of this issue...ever. How many samples of the 35L did you test before coming to the conclusion that it has "design limitations on newer bodies"?
Just search on google, not my fault that you don't know something. Quick examples:
I must have received a copy without the "design limitation" then, because mine works perfectly on my MKIII, no MA needed. And btw, if you want to make grand statements like those above, at least back it up with multiple sources rather than just one from DPR where a couple people complain. That is hardly representative of "most owners". You also never mentioned how many lens samples you tested before coming to the conclusion you did.
As others have mentioned, my 35mmL is really a gem and it performs like a champ. There is a good chance I will not be upgrading that to the new version when it comes out. Although the optical design of the 135mm is really great, if Canon somehow could manage to increase the speed somewhat to f/1.8 and put in a 4-stop IS, they would be able to charge double the price and would be able to sell tons of it. So, the 135mm gets my vote!
AGeoJO wrote:
As others have mentioned, my 35mmL is really a gem and it performs like a champ. There is a good chance I will not be upgrading that to the new version when it comes out. Although the optical design of the 135mm is really great, if Canon somehow could manage to increase the speed somewhat to f/1.8 and put in a 4-stop IS, they would be able to charge double the price and would be able to sell tons of it. So, the 135mm gets my vote!
I agree, Joshua, the 35L is indeed a fantastic lens but I think we'll agree that it does have its shortcomings and room for improvement is definitely present. An increase in sharpness across the frame at f/1.4 and alteration of elements to rid the lens of LoCA (green/magenta fringing) would be fantastic. As for the 135, I'd suspect even an improved IS version would fetch somewhere in the $1500-2000 range. The addition of IS alone almost guarantees at least a $300-400 increase. If the lens was to be updated with f/1.8 you can bet to see it easily above the $2500 mark. Obviously it's all speculation, but it doesn't hurt to guess every now and then
M Vers wrote:
I must have received a copy without the "design limitation" then, because mine works perfectly on my MKIII, no MA needed. And btw, if you want to make grand statements like those above, at least back it up with multiple sources rather than just one from DPR where a couple people complain. That is hardly representative of "most owners". You also never mentioned how many lens samples you tested before coming to the conclusion you did.
I personally own two 35L's both great on 5D/5D2 and bad on mk III. Sold both. I am sure FM is bigger comunity of mk III/35L owners but how would it change problem that exist for other people and not for you
As I said you migh don't know many other things, that is why google helps lot.
$2k for that lens ? Try $4k. 