Conclusion

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM is a very capable, but big and pricey, moderately wide-angle prime lens that will appeal most to travel and reportage photographers looking for outstanding image quality.

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM's build quality is reassuringly excellent, and t makes a great match for a full-frame Canon DSLR like the EOS 5DS R that we tested it with. Auto-focusing is quiet and quick, with the ability to instantly manually override it via the focus ring if required proving a nice touch. The lens lacks image stabilisation, but the very fast maximum aperture of f/1.4 used in conjunction with a high-ISO monster like the EOS 5DS R is a low-light shooter's dream ticket, making it easy to hand-hold the camera and get the shot.

Image quality is outstanding. Chromatic aberrations are virtually non-existent thanks to the new Blue Spectrum Refractive Optics technology, geometric distortion is impressively low for a wide-angle lens, and the Sub-Wavelength Structure Coating (SWC) coatings successfully prevent contrast loss attributable to flare. The only real optical issues are some corner shading at the maximum aperture, something that every full-frame shooter has to put up with, especially when using wide angles, and a slight lack of critical edge sharpness between f/1.4-f/2.8 and f/16-f/22.

If you can afford the eye-watering price-tag and you can live with the size and weight of what is a big lens, we can certainly recommend the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM as the best Canon-branded 35mm lens in terms of image quality. If smaller size and less weight are more of a priority than optical and build quality, though, then we'd recommend the slower Canon EF 35mm f/2, which additionally boasts image stabilisation, especially as it's less than half the price of its "L" class sibling. If you're willing to venture off-brand, the popular Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM is the same price as Canon's more consumer-oriented f/2 offering whilst almost matching the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM for image and build quality.

Ratings (out of 5)
Design	4.5
Features	4.5
Ease-of-use	4.5
Image quality	5
Value for money	3.5