Originally considered the 35L but picked up the siggy when it came out to some very favorable reviews. Focus is spot-on on my 5D MK III and the 5D Classic and it's amazingly sharp wide open. Price was a factor in the purchase. Convinced me to look at the 85 as well once they change over to the arts series.
Bokeh of new Sigma lens is nearly the same of Sigmas 85 & 50.
I meant that Sigma's fast lenses bokeh has it's own "style". Someone loves it, someone not.
Feb 05, 2013 at 08:23 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
3dmb wrote:
Bokeh of new Sigma lens is nearly the same of Sigmas 85 & 50.
I meant that Sigma's fast lenses bokeh has it's own "style". Someone loves it, someone not.
It's obvious that you never have used the new Sigma 35/1,4 lens. How many new wide angle lenses have the same bokeh as an 85mm tele lens ?
Of the three options, I am leaning towards the 35 IS for more handheld indoor stills. Instead of f1.4, 1/50s, and ISO 6400, I can do f2, 1/6s, and ISO 1600? Sounds amazing. Even more so when I want to stop down. I already have a 50/1.2 anyway for pure speed. Plus, by all accounts, corner sharpness is best in class, even with vignetting @f2.
However, I'm also kinda drawn in by the Zeiss 1.4 bokeh... I wish there were more 35 comparisons that included the ZE.
subjectochange wrote:
Of the three options, I am leaning towards the 35 IS for more handheld indoor stills. Instead of f1.4, 1/50s, and ISO 6400, I can do f2, 1/6s, and ISO 1600? Sounds amazing. Even more so when I want to stop down. I already have a 50/1.2 anyway for pure speed. Plus, by all accounts, corner sharpness is best in class, even with vignetting @f2.
However, I'm also kinda drawn in by the Zeiss 1.4 bokeh... I wish there were more 35 comparisons that included the ZE.
I understand your thinking and that is why I am considering the f2 IS as well but 1/6 second is not usable for anything other than static subjects where I want at least 1/30 shutter if not more. Then things change more in favor of the 1.4. Decisions, decisions...
I couldn't decide between the L or the Sigma. My first Sigma was way off so I got a 2nd copy - had both lenses and shot quite a bit with both for a week.
The Sigma shots, while vignetting much more wide open, had more of a "wow" factor that I just couldn't get from the Canon. The bokeh from the Canon seemed to "blend" more into the background while the Sigma shots really had that 3d effect.
I kept the Sigma and sold the Canon, but you can't go wrong either way.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's obvious that you never have used the new Sigma 35/1,4 lens. How many new wide angle lenses have the same bokeh as an 85mm tele lens ?
You don't get what I'm talking about. Sure it has not "the same" bokeh. Read what I wrote above.
And yes, I used new Sigma for a few days. Bokeh of it still "gaussian blur" for me.
I did test the 35 F/2 IS at the local camera shop, and it vignettes really heavily wide open. I certainly wouldn't shoot video with it @ F/2, which sort of nullifies the whole point of the lens for me. F/2.8 it seemed ok to me.
I'm curious what the statistic would be if the same pool of users were to test out a 35L
I don't know. If given a comparison between the Sigma and the "L"?
I'm not complaining about the "L". Or the Sigma either. I'm sure they are equal to (or likely better than) the 35 IS.
But I'm looking for a smaller lens with IS, and neither of those fit the bill for hand held work that is still capable of good tripod-mounted IQ for twilight and urban. It seems there is always some compromise.
I've got a Samyang 35/1.4 which is pretty decent, so I know what 1.4 looks like on a 35mm.
If I didn't have those reasons, I'd probably want to try the Sigma and to how it does. (Except that I love CPS too!)
Basically, I'm happy with the EF 35/2. If I could get smoother-faster-quieter AF, better edge and corner performance (especially f/4 to f/8), less CA, and added IS, I'd be a pretty happy camper! The old 35/2 has very good center sharpness, so it is pretty good for me even at f/2, but I'd like more of the above.
3dmb wrote:
Canon.
Sigma is a great lens, but I hate Sigma's fast lens (85 f1.4, 50 f1.4...) bokeh. It's like gaussian blur in photoshop.
You will see that it is very dangerous to say that here. Some people will be very angry and misquote you from now on. Especially those guys that claim they have used all possible 35-mm lenses.
Oh, I already see one of the bloodhounds is after you.
Digital Rev TV have done a test recently and their online poll favoured the Sigma.
Sigma have a tradition of giving the best IQ but at the expense of a superior build, quieter focussing as well as a tad better focusing from both Canon and Nikon where it competes.
Lloyd Chambers also confirmed this in his test with his Sigma in Canon mount. He got a new Sigma in Nikon mount yesterday and will test it on his 36-megapixel Nikon D800E. After his first test he write this,
" I just shot a number of series last night, and to sum it up: if only this sort of optical excellence were more common at such a low price."
gbee wrote:
Digital Rev TV have done a test recently and their online poll favoured the Sigma.
Sigma have a tradition of giving the best IQ but at the expense of a superior build, quieter focussing as well as a tad better focusing from both Canon and Nikon where it competes.
I think the 35 Sigma has a very nice solid build, and focuses just as quickly as the 35L. Might not have as high of accuracy rate, but when it gets it right it's amazing.
So it came down to having more "average" pictures vs. more "wow" shots. I chose the latter. Money wasn't a factor either as used 35L I bought was within $100 of the new Sigma price.
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.
Some people will be very angry and misquote you from now on. Especially those guys that claim they have used all possible 35-mm lenses. 
