Upload & Sell: On
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Do you like it wide open ? Is it sharp enough wide open compared to other f/1,4 lenses
Lars, yes, I like the lens, even at wide open aperture. I didn't do any direct comparison between the Sigma and Canon 35mmL. I sold my 35mmL in September of last year after I bought a 24-70mm Mark II. At 35mm and wide open the zoom lens was good and although the 35mmL may have performed better at f/2.8 but the difference in my opinion is negligible. Yes, of course, I could use the 35mmL at wider apertures but somehow at wide open aperture my 35mmL performed "OK" for lack of a more descriptive adjective. To me the difference in speed between f/2.0 of the 35mmL and f/2.8 of the zoom lens was not a big deal, not that it wasn't there. This is my personal opinion and you don't have to agree with me. When I had my 24-105mm lens, the difference between f/4.0 of the zoom and f/2.0 of the 35mmL was definitely more pronounced. That's why I used my 35mmL until the 24-70mm Mark II came about.
Why did I buy the Sigma 35mm then? Because from what I could see, the performance of that lens at aperture wider than f/2.0 seems to excellent. So far, this lens has impressed me and I do not hesitate to use it at wide open aperture. It was more the AF consistency that bothered me before, like I mentioned before.
To answer your "actual" question , Lars, whether the Sigma performs better at f/1.4 than the 35mmL? I would say, yes, but it was based more on memory and not on a direct comparison.