If I were buying a 35 MM lens today, I'd get the Canon 35F2 IS. I already have the old Canon 35F2. For my current use, it is fine.
I don't really need wider than F2, and I'd like the IS and USM AF of the new Canon.
My current camera bodies don't microadjust, and so I don't see a need to gamble on an F1.4 lens at this focal length.
I tend to prefer Canon color rendition, and I would certainly want to wait for more reviews before considering any new lenses. All of these lenses are expensive, and I am not in a hurry.
Frankly, most "popular" or "liked" doesn't always mean "best." More people like big Macs than the food in fine restaurants, so I don't make my choices of camera gear on the basis of what is popular. I tend to decide in terms of my photographic wants.
Jan 19, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
didierv wrote:
I think it is still interesting to see that half the people on a Canon gearhead forum, where you would expect extremely strong brand loyalty, would pick the Siggie over the 2 Canon lenses.
I am not a huge Sigma fan, but I have to admit it speaks volume for Sigma.
I never shot the Sigma or the 35/2IS, or even the 35/2, but the 35L has proven to be just as reliable as my 70-200/2.8ISII. Reliability is a difficult thing to use as a critrium, because one can never know how reliable the other lens would have been. That said, I think I will never sell my 35/1.4. Don't need IS. Don't need a sharper lens. Fantastic colours.
I don't have the Sigma or the Canon 35mmF2 IS. I do have, and can report, that the Canon 35mm 1.4L is an incredible lens. Focus speed, build quality, image quality...all top notch.
Don't take my word for it though. Look up 'The White House' as a contact on Flickr and you will find that the 35L is Pete Souza's most used lens. I think its safe to say that his photos are fairly important and historical. He trusts the quality of the 35L.
didierv wrote:
I think I want:
The weight and the IS of the Canon 35 2.0
The sharpness of the Sigma
And the reliability and reputation of the Canon 1.4
Well said..
Since it's a wish list, might as well add in at price of the IS since Sigma is close?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
The Sigma is sharper wide open. It's also more easy to get perfect focus with. But no lens can beat the Zeiss when it comes to bokeh
Do you have bokeh comparison examples? I know Bryan at TDP did a brief 35mm specular highlight bokeh comparison -- sans Zeiss entries -- and the Sigma looked decent, though bested by the 35 IS. Of course there is more to bokeh than just specular highlights. I'd love to see where the Zeiss falls in the 35 lineup.
Jan 21, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Do you have bokeh comparison examples? I know Bryan at TDP did a brief 35mm specular highlight bokeh comparison -- sans Zeiss entries -- and the Sigma looked decent, though bested by the 35 IS. Of course there is more to bokeh than just specular highlights. I'd love to see where the Zeiss falls in the 35 lineup.
I'm abroad in Bangkok Thailand so I can't show any bokeh comparisons.
So, 7% difference is very close poll considering IS lens lovers votes took some people away. I am sure Sig is great lens as well as some other they do. But I have bad feelings in following and that is why I would probably never buy this lens.
- Bad af reputation for other Sig lenses. Personally returned 85mm prime for such issue.
- Not as great build and finish as L's.
- Much worse resale in compare to L's, sold two other 35L very quick.
- I believe no complementary lens adjustments as Canon does in Jamesburg. Small thing but I love it.
- Still overpriced even cheaper than L's.
- Canon will eventually distroy it with mk II, but minor to me since it will be huge price tag.
Breitling65 wrote:
So, 7% difference is very close poll considering IS lens lovers votes took some people away. I am sure Sig is great lens as well as some other they do. But I have bad feelings in following and that is why I would probably never buy this lens.
- Bad af reputation for other Sig lenses. Personally returned 85mm prime for such issue.
- Not as great build and finish as L's.
- Much worse resale in compare to L's, sold two other 35L very quick.
- I believe no complementary lens adjustments as Canon does in Jamesburg. Small thing but I love it.
- Still overpriced even cheaper than L's.
- Canon will eventually distroy it with mk II, but minor to me since it will be huge price tag....Show more →
I just got the Siggie today, I am giving it a try.
Too early to give a verdict.
But I already know on one point you are wrong. Build and finish is a LOT nicer than Canon. This is one solid beautifully crafted lens ! Will it deliver ? time will tell, but fit and finish no worries there.
didierv wrote:
I just got the Siggie today, I am giving it a try.
Too early to give a verdict.
But I already know on one point you are wrong. Build and finish is a LOT nicer than Canon. This is one solid beautifully crafted lens ! Will it deliver ? time will tell, but fit and finish no worries there.
+1
Yes the build and finish is great on the new lens. More like the Zeiss/Sony lenses style than the old Sigma style. Funny when people that never have used or seen the lens complain about the build/finish, because they belive it's the same as the old Sigma style
You will love the IQ also
Breitling65 wrote:
So, 7% difference is very close poll considering IS lens lovers votes took some people away. I am sure Sig is great lens as well as some other they do. But I have bad feelings in following and that is why I would probably never buy this lens.
- Bad af reputation for other Sig lenses. Personally returned 85mm prime for such issue.
- Not as great build and finish as L's.
- Much worse resale in compare to L's, sold two other 35L very quick.
- I believe no complementary lens adjustments as Canon does in Jamesburg. Small thing but I love it.
- Still overpriced even cheaper than L's.
- Canon will eventually distroy it with mk II, but minor to me since it will be huge price tag....Show more →
In addition to the point above about build quality, I don't think the resale of the L is much better at this moment. The 35L was a hit because it was one of the few options for a fast 35 prime. Only real altenative the much more expensive zeiss 35/1.4 which also doesn't have AF.
Now the can choose between the canon L or the (better build, better optically and much cheaper) Sigma I think the L doesn't have such an advantage over the sigma.
About the mk2 to destroy it optically, I doubt it. Canon neither does that with the 50mm.
On topic, having to choose between the three my pick would be the sigma, trough the canon 35/2 IS would be tempting for its smaller size.
But really I would pick the zeiss 35/1.4 ZE any day.
