I owned the 35L for many years. Nice lens, and one of my most used ones, by far on FF. But I found the f1.4 - f2 apertures of less practical use (DOF challenges - which eye would you like to have in focus?), and I do appreciate the IS in the new Canon lenses. Also Minimum Focusing distance (MFD) is much better with the new 35mm f2 IS than the L.
IS is more important to me that f/1.4, smaller size/weight is nice too.
I plan to buy Canon 35 mm 2.0 IS as soon as the price will go down a bit. But it wasn't an easy choice against Sigma 35 mm
35L. Or maybe wait for 35L II. I need such a lens for speed in both aperture and AF. I don't trust (future) compatibility between Canon and Sigma lenses.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
But I found the f1.4 - f2 apertures of less practical use (DOF challenges - which eye would you like to have in focus?)
What DOF challenges How close are you if you are getting one eye in focus at 35mm? The 35mm focal length (on FF that is) is best used for full body shots and groupshots IMO. If used like that, the subject is in focus, while the BG is not. It would be the last lens I use for tight 'one eye in focus' portraiture. Of course YMMV
didierv wrote:
If you were to buy a 35 mm prime today which one would you get ?
That would depend on how I intended to use the prime. I could imagine getting either of the Canon primes if I needed such a lens, though their strengths and weaknesses might lie is somewhat different areas. For my use, probably the Canon f/2 IS...
Daan B wrote:
What DOF challenges How close are you if you are getting one eye in focus at 35mm? The 35mm focal length (on FF that is) is best used for full body shots and groupshots IMO. If used like that, the subject is in focus, while the BG is not. It would be the last lens I use for tight 'one eye in focus' portraiture. Of course YMMV
Daan -- I think what he's saying is that he seldom needs shallow DOF of f/1.4 and shoots at smaller apertures to secure adequate sharpness.
I will be going with this new 35 IS once prices drop to around $650-700 at retail. Selling my Samyang and EF 35/2 will nearly pay for it, and I'll find it more useful and productive than either of those (or the Sigma).
If I had to start all over, I'd go for the Sigma off the bat, but would want to know how it compared to the 35L in terms of AF speed and accuracy, especially in low light.
Interesting to see, that so far the Sigma totals more votes than the 2 Canon combined.
I am almost done recomposing my lens collection.
All I am missing now is a fast wide angle prime, to compliment my zooms (16-35 & 24-105) I am very much undecided...
What's wrong with the original 35mm f/2? It's old, has pretty average construction, and buzzes like an insect while focussing, but the IQ is pretty solid, it's cheap and it's smaller than every other 35mm lens here...
35 f2 IS for me, relatively small and light, close focusing, and with IS, for, as Monito suggests, taking pictures by yak fat lamps during my up-coming trip to Nepal. Timing may mean I take my old f2 which I've been pretty happy with.
Having purchased the Canon 35mm f/1.4L recently (but before the Sigma announcement), I obviously voted for it. Excellent lens. This does highlight the problem with any poll like this: how many people voting here have actually used all 3 lenses? Anyone? I also wonder just how much real world difference there is between the 3. Yes, the f/2.0 gives up a stop and gains IS. Will that allow image captures that wouldn't be possible with the other two? As for DOF with f/1.4, I've not found that to be an issue unless trying to get very close to something, but I don't think that is what the lens was designed for.
Robert
Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The new Sigma is an incredible lens. Absolutely fantastic considering it has a much lower price than any of those Canon lenses. And the best wide open performance of any fast wide angle lens that I have used. I have used both the Sigma and Canon f/1,4 lenses. And it's a huge difference in favor of the Sigma
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Sigma, much better than the 35L f/1,4
You are off base, if you are referring to the AF (speed and) accuracy. There are reports of AF inaccuracies under artificial lighting conditions of the Sigma. Although I do not own the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 but I experienced that first hand using the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Optically, it may be or actually, is better than the Canon counterpart, which is a 14-year old design.
How close are you if you are getting one eye in focus at 35mm? The 35mm focal length (on FF that is) is best used for full body shots and groupshots IMO. If used like that, the subject is in focus, while the BG is not. It would be the last lens I use for tight 'one eye in focus' portraiture. Of course YMMV 