I have the Sigma 50 1.4. Love it. Awesome bokeh, fast, great colours, AF is slick. Looking forward to adding this 35mm into the stable.

If you read the full text of the review, the Sigma and Canon lenses test equal up by f/2.8. The Sigma is only better at f/1.4 and f/2.0.

Huge differences among the MSPR and "street" prices are pretty typical of Sigma.

Canon has a tiny dealer profit margin (MSRP-wholesale) and consistent prices as a result. Apparently Sigma's dealer pricing is variable.

How about the typical yellow cast of sigma glass..is it gone?

I haven't had that yellow cast in any of my current or past Sigma lenses, is that still a concern?

Vox Sciurorum wrote:
If you read the full text of the review, the Sigma and Canon lenses test equal up by f/2.8. The Sigma is only better at f/1.4 and f/2.0.

Huge differences among the MSPR and "street" prices are pretty typical of Sigma.

Canon has a tiny dealer profit margin (MSRP-wholesale) and consistent prices as a result. Apparently Sigma's dealer pricing is variable.

"Only" better at 1.4 and 2.0? Well, heck.. I guess I won't buy it then, because I *never* ever shoot at 1.4 or 2.0 with fast primes...

Vox Sciurorum wrote:
If you read the full text of the review, the Sigma and Canon lenses test equal up by f/2.8. The Sigma is only better at f/1.4 and f/2.0.


They equal up but only against Roger's copy of the very best Canon 35L he has tested (out of 100 copies of lens or so). Or did I read this wrong?

Roger wrote:
Stopped down to f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, the Sigma responds with 900/770/560 and 1000/870/770 mtf50 values (center/average/corner). The Canon ‘best copy’ returned 840/740/520 and 1000/840/740 numbers. It’s probably worth mentioning the Sigma has slightly less distortion at 1%, too.


I wonder if my 35L even goes to f/2.8? Never tried that one before...

They equal up but only against Roger's copy of the very best Canon 35L he has tested (out of 100 copies of lens or so). Or did I read this wrong?

You're right. The one Sigma tests equal to the best Canon at f/2.8.

Pardon the ignorance, but what do people shoot with a 35 mm?

Romy, they definitely DON'T shoot the ISS as it orbits 400km above Earth...

Anyone tried that lens on the FX format yet??

mitesh wrote:
Romy, they definitely DON'T shoot the ISS as it orbits 400km above Earth...

Thanks. My wallet is safe then from what seems to be an amazing piece of very short glass.

luke0622 wrote:
Anyone tried that lens on the FX format yet??

Roger did use it with the 5D mk2, so his take is using a 35mm sensor.

Liquidstone wrote:
Pardon the ignorance, but what do people shoot with a 35 mm?

You know, test charts, rulers, FoCal targets... Stuff like that.

http://www.dchome.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1161389&extra=page%3D1

Dunno if I can post link here but this is from a HK user who test his new Sigma 35 on a 1DX, if you are interested. With 100% crop as well.

If link is not allowed please del, thanks

I now have high expectations for the new 120-300.

vsg28 wrote:
I haven't had that yellow cast in any of my current or past Sigma lenses, is that still a concern?

Maybe when we shot film and it was hard to get rid of, But I have not seen it in any of my 4 Sigma lenses.

Any word if it's weather sealed? That could be a big Canon 35L advantage for some.

Not sealed.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I now have high expectations for the new 120-300.

Same here for a new Sigmonster with OS and focus limiter.

sounds interesting
if i ever get the money to dedicate to such a lens this just may be the one (and hopefully sigma will make it easier to get the money, would also sell my 50mm 1.4)