ShaneEngelking wrote:
Well, since the 30 sigma is only for crop camera's, I would not get that for reasons of compatability...I have the 35L, and whoever it was that decided to sell it was either broke or crazy.

Interesting comment. Very interesting. You charge someone/anyone for being possibly "crazy" for selling the 35L for the 30EX (after using both extensively), yet you've never used or touched the Sigma. Maybe this is even more "crazy".

I have tried and used most of the lenses discussed here: Canon 28/1.8, 35/2, 35L, and Sigma 30/1.4. The one that I still have is the Sigma 30/1.4, while the rest are gone. Note: I tend to shoot them all at wide open aperture since I work in low light mostly.

Comments:
28/1.8 - Good focal length on cropped body. However, at f/1.8 the shots had a bit of a "dreamy" look (maybe my copy?). Built fairly well too. But f/1.8 is still 2/3 stop slower than f/1.4.

35/2 - Very compact lens. The cheapest of the bunch. But I'm not a fan of the old design - small focus ring, and lack of USM (and FTM) were big turn-offs. It's also loud and buzzy! Sharp in the centre though, but f/2 is not at all "fast" compared to f/1.4.

35L - Many people love this lens. It's certainly built well. Sharpness was good, but didn't really blow me away (my copy?). Arguably the best lens of the bunch, but very expensive. At 3-4 times the cost of the others, it was not the best value.

Sigma 30/1.4 - Fast aperture at f/1.4. Good centre sharpness. I like the build and feel of it too (heavier than all but the 35L, but very compact). Good value, considering it can deliver quality similar to the 35L, but at a fraction of the cost.

I think small and super light weight are great assets in a prime... but some people don't care... seems crazy to me... but to each their own.

The 35L has better corner performance than the Sigma, so if that's
a big issue in your shooting style, I can see why, even on a crop body,
the 35L would be preferred.

The 35L also has less barrel distortion, but often this is not an issue
in real life shooting.

So, a great copy of the 35L should be all around better than a great
copy of the Sigma for many shooters. It's just that you pay a big
premium for the Canon, so for many of us the Sigma does just fine.

trumpet_guy wrote:
The 35L has better corner performance than the Sigma, so if that's
a big issue in your shooting style, I can see why, even on a crop body,
the 35L would be preferred.

The 35L also has less barrel distortion, but often this is not an issue
in real life shooting.

So, a great copy of the 35L should be all around better than a great
copy of the Sigma for many shooters. It's just that you pay a big
premium for the Canon, so for many of us the Sigma does just fine.

In looking at the Lightrules tests in the link provided on the 1st page of this thread that is not what his testing showed. I actually sold my 35L before I got the Sigma 30 1.4, so I have no test data to compare.

Don't undersell the Sigma because it is 1/3 less in cost. If you get a good copy, and admittedly QC is an issue, I think you will see the same kind of IQ as noted in the Lightrules testing. That was my experience.

Oh Sound Hound ---You miss out on a wonderful world of glass.Too right Sigma has QC problems but we all know that.Hence with a little care we can buy great lenses at great prices.The less I have to pay the happier I am.Caveat emptor!!!-------Buy sensibly.

tinke wrote:
trumpet_guy wrote:
The 35L has better corner performance than the Sigma, so if that's
a big issue in your shooting style, I can see why, even on a crop body,
the 35L would be preferred.

The 35L also has less barrel distortion, but often this is not an issue
in real life shooting.

So, a great copy of the 35L should be all around better than a great
copy of the Sigma for many shooters. It's just that you pay a big
premium for the Canon, so for many of us the Sigma does just fine.

In looking at the Lightrules tests in the link provided on the 1st page of this thread that is not what his testing showed. I actually sold my 35L before I got the Sigma 30 1.4, so I have no test data to compare.

Don't undersell the Sigma because it is 1/3 less in cost. If you get a good copy, and admittedly QC is an issue, I think you will see the same kind of IQ as noted in the Lightrules testing. That was my experience.



Yeah, I actually have the Sigma and I'm quite happy with it.
Still, I wish the corner performance were better wide open.
I'm not willing to pay 3x to get that.

Regards,
Tim

SoundHound wrote:Checkout the BuySell forum there's an active market in Canon glass at just under street prices. Where's the Sigma stuff if it's so good?

On their owner's cameras? The Sigma 15 and 30mms I have I am very happy with. Just as long as it's not one of their bargain bin lenses, it oughta do you nicely