Agreed that the new Sigma lens looks very good. Their past reputation related to their AF performance was not that stellar and yes, it came from the 50mm f/1.4. Based on what I could gather from Roger's info, Sigma seems to have step up their effort in providing better QC on their new lenses. So, the Sigma lens is very promising and I was surprised at the poor performance of the new Nikon 35mm f/1.4. Considering the age of the Canon 35mmL, it didn't do bad at all in that review. Too bad, they did not include the new Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS there. As I mentioned before, I am holding out to get a decent comparison between the two, I mean between the Sigma and the new f/2.0 IS before pulling the trigger.
Great timing as I'm looking for a 35mm prime... didn't know Canon's 35L was released in 98'! It's noted auto focus, Canon was the fastest. That's ranks very highly for me.. so still leaning towards 35L.
Interesting point made about designer.. balancing out sharpness and bokeh, "That’s how it is with lenses – the designer trades off one aspect for another. With this lens we have awesome sharpness at an excellent price, and perhaps at the expense of background blur."
Lensrentals seems to be for the Canon lens, for the most part. But Diglloyd just posted that the OOF areas are nicer, along with it being sharper with better colors and contrast than the Canon version.
The Lenstip review and photos look pretty impressive! The only area I see it really suffering is the terrible light fall-off (which I am not a fan of).
As with Joshua, I'd like to see comparison against the new Canon 35/2 IS.
First the Tamron 24-70 and now the Siggy. I'm loving how these third party lenses are performing so well. A nice kick in the groin against Canikon and their overpriced lenses.
I know in theory you buy lenses to be used and to be enjoyed for a long time. The reality though can be different than what you anticipate. Your need/preference changes fairly fast, or things do not work out for whatever reasons and before too long you are putting your "beloved" lens(es) for sale. I know buying lenses is also not an investment and I am not defending their outrageous, current pricing but let's face it, Canon or Nikon lenses retain their value better than their 3rd party counterparts.
I agree AGeoJO but until recently most third-party lenses fell short of their Canikon equivalents, either due to IQ, AF, build quality, random quirky issues, or some combination thereof. I think the 35L and 35G will take a hit in the used market from this Siggy.
Dec 12, 2012 at 03:18 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
AGeoJO wrote:
I know in theory you buy lenses to be used and to be enjoyed for a long time. The reality though can be different than what you anticipate. Your need/preference changes fairly fast, or things do not work out for whatever reasons and before too long you are putting your "beloved" lens(es) for sale. I know buying lenses is also not an investment and I am not defending their outrageous, current pricing but let's face it, Canon or Nikon lenses retain their value better than their 3rd party counterparts.
That's even better. Then we can buy a used Sigma 35/1,4 very cheap
The bigger factor with the price of equipment is the trust someone has in the manufacturer to deliver a working high quality product consistently.
Something Sigma had not done in the past, but over the past 3 years they have shown a change towards the positive. If Sigma can deliver a quality lens without too much sample variance (like in the case of the Sig 85), the price of the lens will not drop much.
Look at the dearth of 85Ls on the board right now...
vchowdhary wrote:
The bigger factor with the price of equipment is the trust someone has in the manufacturer to deliver a working high quality product consistently.
Good point but how much? 2x, 3x..? This applies across the board.. for bodies, $xxx get you "blank", for lens, $xxx or $xxxx gets you "blank". I'm not a pro so my paycheck doesn't rely on this.. so it comes down to what I can get at a certain price point and chance of getting a bad copy. Based on their Sigma's reputation, it's best to buy a Sigma from a source you can return?
FWIW - and this is still a pretty small sample size -- all 30 of the Sigma 35 f/1.4s we've received have been fine, with no outliers. We probably won't stock many more than that so I won't get better numbers. But so far that's pretty good.
sfcyclist wrote:
Good point but how much? 2x, 3x..? This applies across the board.. for bodies, $xxx get you "blank", for lens, $xxx or $xxxx gets you "blank". I'm not a pro so my paycheck doesn't rely on this.. so it comes down to what I can get at a certain price point and chance of getting a bad copy. Based on their Sigma's reputation, it's best to buy a Sigma from a source you can return?
I agree regarding buying from a source where its safe to return. Then again, the same applies for Canon equipment or Nikon. Returned 2 7d when they came out for poor noise performance, major difference when I got one that actually worked. Returned a couple of d800s to Amazon... so I dont think the issue is sigma only..
My new great deal 50 1.4 is -16 af to focus, but man is it a good lens.
No used Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is for sale.... yet but I saw a few Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC for sale already