Disassembling a Canon 35/1.4 L mkii

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

I am Groot
Messages
10,036
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
Came across this article on the diss assembly of the new 35L mkii. It really is impressive stuff from Canon. From the construction's point of view, if one places value on construction and what you get for £1800. It seems the price tag is not just a Canon brand tax or all inflation or just charging more for new stuff. There are some serious engineering going on inside.

https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/

To quote a few lines from the article.

The mechanical construction is beyond impressive. This lens is massively over-engineered compared to any other prime we’ve ever disassembled. It’s built like a tank where it counts; on the inside.
Click to expand...

We take apart A LOT of lenses (we passed 20,000 in-house repairs some time ago) and this is the most impressively built prime I’ve seen. This is an engineer’s lens.
Click to expand...

If I had to summarize the mechanical design of this lens, I would say simply that no expense was spared, no corner was cut.

Sometimes things are expensive because they’re worth it. Sometimes they’re heavy because they’re so solidly constructed. This is one of those times.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting. When Canon launched the 35/1.4 Mk II, I got the impression their engineers had been tasked with making it the best 35/1.4 on the market, full stop, and money no object. And they certainly seem to have succeeded; but I can't help thinking that at £1800 it's way too expensive if they actually want people to buy the thing.
 
StewartR said:
Interesting. When Canon launched the 35/1.4 Mk II, I got the impression their engineers had been tasked with making it the best 35/1.4 on the market, full stop, and money no object. And they certainly seem to have succeeded; but I can't help thinking that at £1800 it's way too expensive if they actually want people to buy the thing.
Click to expand...

I think this lens is the best 35mm money can buy, Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc included.

What I find amazing is the lack of CA from all the tests that I've seen.
 
Canon is indebted to Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals for that strip-down. Without that insight, and his unique position of knowledge and authority through his day job, we'd never know. The 35mm f1.4 L Mk2 doesn't look or feel anything that special and all we've really got to go on is the MTF sharpness tests. It is extraordinarily sharp, and the new BR Optics really improve CA too, it's easily the best 35/1.4 available and also sharper than anything else I'm aware of this side of a £5k mega-tele-prime (and that includes Zeiss Otus). But the Sigma 35/1.4 Art runs it very close, at one third of the cost, and in the hand I'd say the Sigma actually feels better built - using all those subjective and ultimately misleading tactile clues like focus smoothness, the cold feel of a 'quality' metal barrel, sleek design etc. Fabulous lens from Canon though (y)
 
Last edited:
Personally, I can't see it...
I don't shoot wide open, I'm not all that particular about 1:1 IQ, I'm not all that concerned with bokeh characteristics, and I'm most concerned with what a lens allows me to do. Personally, I'd rather go through several 35/1.8 lenses and not worry about caring for them so much (I abuse my gear as it is)... actually, no I wouldn't, I'd rather have a zoom lens :D .
 
sk66 said:
Personally, I can't see it...
I don't shoot wide open, I'm not all that particular about 1:1 IQ, I'm not all that concerned with bokeh characteristics, and I'm most concerned with what a lens allows me to do. Personally, I'd rather go through several 35/1.8 lenses and not worry about caring for them so much (I abuse my gear as it is)... actually, no I wouldn't, I'd rather have a zoom lens :D .
Click to expand...

Maybe the Canon 35/1.4 Mk2 could take that abuse - that's the whole point of investing so much in the build with extra-robust components, long-life bearings, weather sealing an' all ;)

But really the raison d'être of lenses like that is the f/1.4 maximum aperture. And if you want what f/1.4 can do (and I do :)) then this is new version is very good indeed at full bore, best in class, and way better than the old Mk1 lens.

It takes all sorts Steven ;) You have an extremely expensive Nikon 400/2.8 and much as I'd love one too, at that opposite end of the scale, my money would go on a much more modest zoom - probably a Canon 100-400 Mk2 or maybe one of the Sigron 150-600s. And that Canon 35/1.4 Mk2, and a decent used car, and some change :D
 
sk66 said:
Personally, I can't see it...
I don't shoot wide open, I'm not all that particular about 1:1 IQ, I'm not all that concerned with bokeh characteristics, and I'm most concerned with what a lens allows me to do. Personally, I'd rather go through several 35/1.8 lenses and not worry about caring for them so much (I abuse my gear as it is)... actually, no I wouldn't, I'd rather have a zoom lens :D .
Click to expand...

Looking at my LR library, I would say 50% of any particular shoot is with my 35L, and I almost always shoot wide open, sometimes when I shouldn't.

This lens is perfect for my needs, the original 35L went on 17 years before they updated it and being well constructed hopefully means this one can last another 17 years.
 
HoppyUK said:
It takes all sorts Steven ;)
Click to expand...
That's why I said "personally."
It's surprising how much abuse more cheaply built lenses can actually take... although I did crack the plastic filter ring on my 28-70 (impact damage). But the reality is the difference in DOF between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is very minimal. And the differences in bokeh/CA will be highly situational and somewhat subjective... but if you're a pixel peeper that lens should make you happy.

I only own one f/1.x lens, the Zeiss 85/1.4, and it's my least used lens... I should probably sell it. BTW, I buy a lot of my gear used... I paid less than 50% for the 400/2.8.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Looking at my LR library, I would say 50% of any particular shoot is with my 35L
Click to expand...
I personally would have to put a caveat to that result... When you shoot with primes you tend to have a rather/somewhat limited selection of FL's to choose from. And IME, it's often the "lens you have" (with you/mounted) that is the one that is used.

But if it's worth it to you, then that's all that really matters.
 
sk66 said:
I personally would have to put a caveat to that result... When you shoot with primes you tend to have a rather/somewhat limited selection of FL's to choose from. And IME, it's often the "lens you have" (with you/mounted) that is the one that is used.

But if it's worth it to you, then that's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

I have 2 bodies, always shoot with 2 side by side, actually used to have 3 x 5D.

I also have in my kit, and available to me...

Canon 24/1.4 L Mkii
Canon 45/2.8 TSE
Sigma 50/1.4 A
Canon 85/1.2 L mk ii
Canon 100/2.8 L
Canon 135/2.0 L

Canon 16-35/2.8 L
Canon 24-70/2.8 L.

The caveat is with all these lenses, I choose the 35 and shoot with the 35 more than any other.

EBF69Bl.png


It is just my favourite focal length, and the old one is good, if this is "better", and I can continue to shoot like I have with the old one, it is money well spent. (no doubt I can shoot the same with the current one or the Sigma)

aituAwB.jpg


tEZuiCx.jpg


fG4Z7tr.jpg


SO0td4G.jpg


UFQMpIJ.jpg
 
Last edited:
I also take it on my travel, albeit the old one is shorter and lighter.

I guess what I am trying to say is, I think it might actually be worth it for me, seeing is my most used focal length so why not have the best. I bought the 35L in 2009 when it was the best, now the Canon is and if price is the only obstacle then that's something I just have to overcome.

ha5LC1F.jpg


wcWBMhS.jpg


7KxvFdY.jpg


FaK0DI7.jpg


mpOM8Qi.jpg


szmItkN.jpg


m74V5Xw.jpg
 
Last edited:
You will absolutely love the 35/1.4 Mk2 Raymond. Unless that is, you rather like the kind of dreamy look you get at f/1.4 with the old lens - there's none of that, the new one is sharp and punchy right from 1.4. The Sigma Art is also very sharp and you'll be hard pressed to see the Canon's advantage there (unless it's on a 5DSR, mirror-up etc) but you will notice the lack of CA and particularly LoCA to which so many fast lenses are prone (and can be hard to remove in post) (y)

I think Canon is making a point with a few key new lenses like this that really push to new standards - anything you can do on medium format, you can do on full-frame. Plus it's cheaper and far more versatile.

ps Looks like you'll be needing a new 16-35/2.8 Mk2 and 24-70/2.8 Mk2 as well ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
You will absolutely love the 35/1.4 Mk2 Raymond. Unless that is, you rather like the kind of dreamy look you get at f/1.4 with the old lens - there's none of that, the new one is sharp and punchy right from 1.4. The Sigma Art is also very sharp and you'll be hard pressed to see the Canon's advantage there (unless it's on a 5DSR, mirror-up etc) but you will notice the lack of CA and particularly LoCA to which so many fast lenses are prone (and can be hard to remove in post) (y)

I think Canon is making a point with a few key new lenses like this that really push to new standards - anything you can do on medium format, you can do on full-frame. Plus it's cheaper and far more versatile.

ps Looks like you'll be needing a new 16-35/2.8 Mk2 and 24-70/2.8 Mk2 as well ;)
Click to expand...

What I find most annoying more than anything in the 35L is the CA, every time I shoot into something white it is very evident. There have been many occasions where a photo is “ruined” by it, I either get a purple outline or a grey outline, ended up with a B&W photo because of this, frankly it was just unacceptable if It stayed as a colour photograph….the client may not have noticed but it just looks bad in my eyes. So the time saved fixing it in post in the new lens might even pay for itself due to the percentage of the shots in that focal length.


As for updating the zooms….I am predominantly a prime shooter, and have been for a good while now, I have thought about updating the 16-35 a lot but it only get used in a group shot scenario IF I am really right for space. TBH, I might just skip that and get the Sigma 14/1.8 when that’s out for wider.


The 24-70 is my spare lens, and seldom gets used outside formals and it’s sharp enough for that. I keep the zooms in case any of my Primes gets damaged and I have to have that focal length in a pinch. When pushed comes to shove, I could do a whole wedding with the 24-70, I like mk1 over the mk2 actually due to the lens zoom inside the hood, much safer.
 
Raymond Lin said:
What I find most annoying more than anything in the 35L is the CA, every time I shoot into something white it is very evident. There have been many occasions where a photo is “ruined” by it, I either get a purple outline or a grey outline, ended up with a B&W photo because of this, frankly it was just unacceptable if It stayed as a colour photograph….the client may not have noticed but it just looks bad in my eyes. So the time saved fixing it in post in the new lens might even pay for itself due to the percentage of the shots in that focal length.


As for updating the zooms….I am predominantly a prime shooter, and have been for a good while now, I have thought about updating the 16-35 a lot but it only get used in a group shot scenario IF I am really right for space. TBH, I might just skip that and get the Sigma 14/1.8 when that’s out for wider.


The 24-70 is my spare lens, and seldom gets used outside formals and it’s sharp enough for that. I keep the zooms in case any of my Primes gets damaged and I have to have that focal length in a pinch. When pushed comes to shove, I could do a whole wedding with the 24-70, I like mk1 over the mk2 actually due to the lens zoom inside the hood, much safer.
Click to expand...

The Canon 35/1.4 Mk1 is prone to LoCA (purple fringing) and is a very old design at the end of the day, but Canon has gone from bottom of the class to top with the Mk2. I hate CA too, even when some viewers don't even notice it, and while normal red/green CA is easy to remove, LoCA can be much more difficult. Sometimes it's just a single click with LightRoom, other times I can't get the image properly clean in all areas, or not without the dropper also picking out other thin reddish-purple details and wiping them out too. I've also had some strange pixelated artifacts with the defringe tool, notably on an old red post box I recall, very weird but rendered the defringe tool unusable. The Mk2 is not immune to LoCA, but vastly improved - must be down to that BR Optics layer (y)

I too miss the 'zooming' lens hood of the 24-70/2.8 Mk1, a cool feature also shared with the Nikon 24-70/2.8 Mk1 - both now gone with the Mk2s.
 
HoppyUK said:
I too miss the 'zooming' lens hood of the 24-70/2.8 Mk1, a cool feature also shared with the Nikon 24-70/2.8 Mk1 - both now gone with the Mk2s.
Click to expand...
That was weird, wasn't it. Surely one of the manufacturers must have copied the other's design?
 
HoppyUK said:
The Canon 35/1.4 Mk1 is prone to LoCA (purple fringing) and is a very old design at the end of the day, but Canon has gone from bottom of the class to top with the Mk2. I hate CA too, even when some viewers don't even notice it, and while normal red/green CA is easy to remove, LoCA can be much more difficult. Sometimes it's just a single click with LightRoom, other times I can't get the image properly clean in all areas, or not without the dropper also picking out other thin reddish-purple details and wiping them out too. I've also had some strange pixelated artifacts with the defringe tool, notably on an old red post box I recall, very weird but rendered the defringe tool unusable. The Mk2 is not immune to LoCA, but vastly improved - must be down to that BR Optics layer (y)

I too miss the 'zooming' lens hood of the 24-70/2.8 Mk1, a cool feature also shared with the Nikon 24-70/2.8 Mk1 - both now gone with the Mk2s.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I can get the same dreamy look, well, I'll find out.

The other reason is with the higher pixel count, it will show the shortcoming of this 17 year old lens design even more so if I'm going to make the most use out of my new 5D4, and if half the photos are on 35mm, it seems only logical to get the best out of the new body, is to have the best lens.

The best 35mm is the Canon, not the Sigma (not a distance 2nd but still 2nd).
 
Raymond Lin said:
I'm sure I can get the same dreamy look, well, I'll find out.

The other reason is with the higher pixel count, it will show the shortcoming of this 17 year old lens design even more so if I'm going to make the most use out of my new 5D4, and if half the photos are on 35mm, it seems only logical to get the best out of the new body, is to have the best lens.

The best 35mm is the Canon, not the Sigma (not a distance 2nd but still 2nd).
Click to expand...

A grubby old UV filter should do it ;)

Be interested to see how you get on with the new lens on the 5D4 vs old version on 5D3.

Also, when shooting into the light, the Mk2 is noticeably more resistant to flare, better than any zoom too. Good review :D with examples here https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-35mm-f1-4-ii
 
Last edited:
niko said:
:D:D that didnt take long, look forward to a report(y)
Click to expand...

Out of the box, it doesn't seem like it need calibrating to one of my body I tried, The AF motor is a smidgen louder than the old one, and travels for longer, probably due to the longer barrel. I like in a way it has 72mm filter ring, I can just use my old B+W filter i have, saving myself £50.

The texture feels like the 85L mk2 but with the 85L that feels like metal, this is plastic. It is heavier and front heavy. The lens hood in this is shorter, not sure how they did that, was the old one bigger for no reason? Same filter size, same FoV.

szoKf0O.jpg


4tPAH1J.jpg


NfGfElU.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
Out of the box, it doesn't seem like it need calibrating to one of my body I tried, The AF motor is a smidgen louder than the old one, and travels for longer, probably due to the longer barrel. I like in a way it has 72mm filter ring, I can just use my old B+W filter i have, saving myself £50.

The texture feels like the 85L mk2 but with the 85L that feels like metal, this is plastic. It is heavier and front heavy. The lens hood in this is shorter, not sure how they did that, was the old one bigger for no reason? Same filter size, same FoV.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Sweet (y)

The lens hood is a very precise size and shape - any larger, and it would protrude into the image, usually at closest focus and max aperture, though they've squared the ends off so it will stand upside-down. The critical measure is distance from the entrance pupil, rather than the front of the lens, and that can move around a bit according to optical design.

Focal length of the Mk2 is the tiniest smidgin longer than the Mk1, fraction of a mm (contrary to what DxO says).
 
35L mk2

Little to no CA (there are some but you have to really be picky). Focus fast, very sharp, and it pops!

7ef2vJk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top