wiseguy010 wrote:
Yes, a great test with exactly one picture.
A lot better than the two boring bokeh pics you showed in the alt forum. When telling all people that your Zeiss f/2 lens was the best in the world
They didn't have to "steal" the pics on internet and from other FM members either. Like you did. And post them without permission.
and they actually had and used all the lenses they talked about. Which you didn't
bambi73 wrote:
i have canon 35l (which i really like) ,and i thought about selling it and buy the new sigma.
from the reviews, i know the sigma is sharper, has less CA etc.
having said that, if i was looking for a new 35mm today, i dont think i would buy the L - i couldnt justify the price different between the L and the two other lens.
i probably would choose the canon 35is
The AF question could of course always be discussed and having different opinions on. But your other 3 complains are just ridicilous
1 How do you know about this lens durability? It has only been out for two months, and it takes years to know that. It has a good build and is very different from other Sigma lenses.
2 It doesn't get more dust than any other lens
3 You complain that it only have twice as long warranty as the Canon lenses!! And it has 5 and 10 years warranty in other countries. So it's different. So whatever country you buy it in, the warranty is much longer than any Canon lens. How can that be negative??
Lasse Eriksson - you are right, i know nothing about the durability of the SIgma, but i know that my 35l is very durable. so thats the reason im not switching my 35L with the sigma...
BUT if i had to pick a new lens now, i would have buy the SIgma or the 35is.
anyway, i didnt like the fact that there are visible electronic elements in the Sigma lens.
and about the warranty - i have 3 years for the canon, 2 years for the sigma.
from lenstip (which have great review on the Sigma): What’s very strange, the new Sigma 1.4/35 comes with just a two-year warranty, with a possibility to prolong it by another year. Such are the conditions you get buying the cheapest Sigma instruments. It is not perhaps the best move when it comes to the image of the company; it suggests that you deal here with something worse and less durable than in the case of the EX 1.4/50 and the EX 1.4/85.
i thinks the all sigma-canon 35 1.4 debate is because of the price difference.
if, for example, canon will come with 35L 1.4 mark 2, with price of 2000$ - im sure i wont buy it, even if it will be much better than the sigma and the canon 35l 1.4.
but the sigma is much cheaper, and if i was in the market today for 35mm, i couldnt justify the price difference from the canon.
Yes here it is. Sigma was the winner with the best bokeh. Nikon number 2 and Canon 35L ended at last place
First of all the guy in the review drives me nuts, I have a difficult time making it through any of his reviews. Second the Sigma tends to underexpose by a third to sixth of a stop. The background is darker. OOF highlights are very much affected by the light...how much and how it is hitting the background. If you darken the background it will be more pleasing since the range of light is lower and their is less a risk of unwanted reflections.
I believe we are all splitting hairs here folks.
bambi73 wrote:
i have canon 35l (which i really like) ,and i thought about selling it and buy the new sigma.
from the reviews, i know the sigma is sharper, has less CA etc.
having said that, if i was looking for a new 35mm today, i dont think i would buy the L - i couldnt justify the price different between the L and the two other lens.
I am the one who about 3 weeks ago posted the same post as yours.
I went with the Sigma over the 35 L.
I was tempted by the 35 IS, but having already an OMD with a 14 mm 2.5, I already had that set up, so I went for the fast Sigma lens.
The autofocus is spot on, lens is sharp, no regrets so far !
Interesting poll results so far. I think there are two ways to look at it.
First way is to say it is amazing that on this fairly hard-core canon group, a Sigma lens is getting more votes than a very well liked canon lens. Says a lot about the reputation of the new sigma lens.
The second (glass half empty ) way is to say it is surprising that despite the sigma being much cheaper and optically superior in almost all aspects, there are still a large number of users who will go for the canon. That seems partly a result of Sigma's AF reputation and partly because some people will simply always prefer to buy canon.
Interesting poll results so far. I think there are two ways to look at it.
First way is to say it is amazing that on this fairly hard-core canon group, a Sigma lens is getting more votes than a very well liked high grade canon lens. Says a lot about the reputation of the new sigma lens.
The second (glass half empty ) way is to say it is surprising that despite the sigma being much cheaper and optically superior in almost all aspects, there are still a large number of users who will go for the canon. That seems partly a result of Sigma's AF reputation and partly because some people will simply always prefer to buy canon.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
A lot better than the two boring bokeh pics you showed in the alt forum. When telling all people that your Zeiss f/2 lens was the best in the world
They didn't have to "steal" the pics on internet and from other FM members either. Like you did. And post them without permission.
and they actually had and used all the lenses they talked about. Which you didn't
Instead of talking gossip about me you could better talk about the qualities of the lens. That's what this forum is about.
I actually showed 5 pictures with, in my opinion, bad bokeh of the Sigma. These were all taken by FM members. I removed these pictures from my post after I understood that the way I presented them was not entirely correct (I should have posted links I think). That was my mistake. After that I saw some new pictures (here and on other forums) that showed the same kind of nervous bokeh. Some other FM members also talked about that bokeh, so I am not the only one seeing it. I think that this can be valuable information for people considering this lens. I certainly agree that for sharpness and CA-control the Sigma is more than excellent. But every lens has a flaw somewhere, and I think with the Sigma it is the bokeh in certain situations (and AF). I don't understand why you (and one or two others) are so upset by that.
I never said that the Zeiss f/2 was the best in the world. Where did you read that? I said that the 2 Zeiss counterparts have a more pleasing bokeh than the Sigma with the Zeiss 35/1.4 as the best one there. All my opinion. If you can show me otherwise I am certainly prepared to accept that, but you didn't show any pictures (and I have not seen it elsewhere either). So for now I stick with this conclusion. I can't tell about the Canon-counterparts because I didn't look into that.
Yes, I do have the Zeiss f/2, but every time a new 35-mm lens comes out I check on forums and with reviews if that lens has the potential to justify the extra cost to replace my f/2. Up to now my decision was that I could better stay with my f/2 because the newer lenses also have one or more flaws (Zeiss 35/1.4 with bad CA up to f/4 and some curvature of field and now the Sigma with its bokeh and AF-issues). So I kept my money in the pocket. Besides that the Zeiss f/2 is more than excellent in my opinion (with of course its own flaws, such as a little bit more than average CA), so it is possible I will never replace it.
Now I am looking forward to your pictures. But that can take a long time I think.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
A lot better than the two boring bokeh pics you showed in the alt forum. When telling all people that your Zeiss f/2 lens was the best in the world
They didn't have to "steal" the pics on internet and from other FM members either. Like you did. And post them without permission.
and they actually had and used all the lenses they talked about. Which you didn't
+100
Agree with everything you write in this post Lasse. "Wiseguy" have been whining and trying to downtalk the Sigma lens in every thread here and in the alt forum. And after doing more than ten posts about how bad it is. He admitted that he had never even used the lens He is just a troll
twistedlim wrote:
First of all the guy in the review drives me nuts, I have a difficult time making it through any of his reviews. Second the Sigma tends to underexpose by a third to sixth of a stop. The background is darker. OOF highlights are very much affected by the light...how much and how it is hitting the background. If you darken the background it will be more pleasing since the range of light is lower and their is less a risk of unwanted reflections.
I believe we are all splitting hairs here folks.
I agree about the guy in the review. He drives me nuts also But he came to the same conclusion as all the other reviews about the Sigma lens that I have been reading. It's a great lens with fantastic sharpness and IQ. All reviews also say that. I have been reading nearly ten both from internet sites and magazines
Neither, I love my Rokinon and also enjoy the $500 that I can spend on other things. I don't know which I would pick between Canon or sigma though, reading the reviews, would make me think Sigma, but I've never been happy with their lenses.
Feb 06, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
For subscribers diglloyd (Lloyd chambers) have a new comparison/test with the Sigma lens today. Testing on the Nikon D 800E body for best resolution and highest sharpness. It's the Sigma 35/1,4-- Nikon 35/1.4G--Zeiss ZF 35/1,4.
He did a test against the Canon 35L before (Sigma was a lot better) Here it beats both the Nikon and Zeiss lenses. Especially wide open. And remember that diglloyd is a huge Zeiss fan, so nearly no lenses have been better than Zeiss, when I have looked before. The test shows pics from all 3 lenses at all apertures also
Let's see what Ken Rockwell has to say about this; he's known to have been on a crusade against Sigma (sometimes with rather preposterous justifications).
Agree with everything you write in this post Lasse. "Wiseguy" have been whining and trying to downtalk the Sigma lens in every thread here and in the alt forum. And after doing more than ten posts about how bad it is. He admitted that he had never even used the lens He is just a troll
Obviously you and your +100 friend lack the skills to discuss in a mature way. Too bad.
Shield, there are tons of people that don't mind manually focusing a lens and many actually prefer it for video and also stills. There are many wonderful images all manually focused b4 AF became popular in the late 80's/early 90's. Might not work for everyone, but then nothing does. Try some time to create a photograph instead of just capturing time. Manually focusing will help you slow down and think a bit more.
