Breitling65 wrote:
I own 3 copies of 35L and I know all weak points of this lens, but I prefer to stay with it until we will test 35LII and see possible differences. I am not sure why I would jump on such old lens with critics now. It is as it is and millions of sharp and great shots made with it by many people already printed and sold This Sigma lens cost about same as I paid for my first 35L 7 years ago, so?
Canon is not reading these threads and will release new one as soon as they will think it is good for them, not because of some Sigma lens or that you like it so much. Any new lenses Canon releasing is way better than old, just wait or shot with new but squeaking Sigma. ...Show more →
I didn't say the Canon was bad. I stated that it wasn't beyond the realm of reason to suggest that a newer offering by a 3rd party, may be better.
Breitling65 wrote:
As I said, we probably should call this forum Canon SLR's for Sigma lovers ...
While making idiotic arguments about why the two lenses you can buy shouldn't be compared by someone who wants to buy one now, and not sometime off in the future, maybe?
You know, actually USE a lens, rather than sit around dreaming about what Canon might or might not release at some point, while ignoring whether it could even be afforded when it happens?
I've tested three different Sigma 35 1.4's and each one was sharper than my 35L wide open. The Sigma's did have significantly more vignetting at 1.4 which is not a factor for what I shoot. My problem lies with the AF. Non of the lenses I tested had AF as fast, and more importantly as accurate as the Canon. This is a deal breaker for me.
miccullen wrote:
While making idiotic arguments about why the two lenses you can buy shouldn't be compared by someone who wants to buy one now, and not sometime off in the future, maybe?
You know, actually USE a lens, rather than sit around dreaming about what Canon might or might not release at some point, while ignoring whether it could even be afforded when it happens?
Talk about ignorant fanboyism.
This thread about something is making noise in new Sigma lens, it is for sure idiotic to change this talk to the Canon 35L which was introduced 1998 and never squeaked single time since. Fanboyism to Canon on Canon forum? Another nonsense ...
miccullen wrote:
While making idiotic arguments about why the two lenses you can buy shouldn't be compared by someone who wants to buy one now, and not sometime off in the future, maybe?
You know, actually USE a lens, rather than sit around dreaming about what Canon might or might not release at some point, while ignoring whether it could even be afforded when it happens?
PetKal wrote:
That reminds me of the Jaguar motorcar experience a few decades ago. "Excellent build" using the finest British workmanship, and yet, the vehicles had very high failure rate, from the electrical systems onward.
Older Jags are well known for being built rather badly! We had a used XJ6 of some early 80's vintage. The speedometer didn't work, the radio didn't work, the electric windows didn't work, the fuel pump for the second tank didn't work. Other than that it was great and went like stink
Back to the Sigma 35mm... Friend of mine just got his yesterday in Nikon mount. Works great on the D800, focus accuracy is all over the place on his D4, build quality does not quite match the 35L (he used to shoot Canon so he knows), other than it's great
Oh yes, and it doesn't have a field mouse inside, it's quiet as a church mouse.
** edit: he just told me he heard the lens "chirp" yesterday... but nothing since.
Breitling65 wrote:
This thread about something is making noise in new Sigma lens, it is for sure idiotic to change this talk to the Canon 35L which was introduced 1998 and never squeaked single time since. Fanboyism to Canon on Canon forum? Another nonsense ...
You went off topic, why chastise this guy for it?
While off-topic, your statement of "no squeaking since 1998" is ridiculous as I am certain that there have been mechanical faults in the canon offering. I've owned a pile of canon lenses, and quite a few needed helped out by canon.
RobertLynn wrote:
While off-topic, your statement of "no squeaking since 1998" is ridiculous as I am certain that there have been mechanical faults in the canon offering. I've owned a pile of canon lenses, and quite a few needed helped out by canon.
No, no! Every Canon lens is perfect! (Well, maybe excepting the 24-70 I'm sending to CPS this morning. Apart from that one.)
May 05, 2013 at 05:59 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
RobertLynn wrote:
You went off topic, why chastise this guy for it?
While off-topic, your statement of "no squeaking since 1998" is ridiculous as I am certain that there have been mechanical faults in the canon offering. I've owned a pile of canon lenses, and quite a few needed helped out by canon.
Very recently the people that bought the Canon 5D3 have to send in their 800/5,6 L and 200/2 L lenses to Canon. Because they squeaked a lot I own both those aqueaking lenses, so don't tell me Canon lenses/cameras are perfect
I am the original poster on this thread and I am surprised at the volatility here on my topic. My intent was to find out if anyone else had this problem. The Sigma is a fine lens and worthy of a second copy in my opinion, The Canon has always been a fine lens and I wouldn't mind having that lens either. My intent was not to compare them. I think Sigma is improving their lens quality and this entry is stellar minus the squeak....I think Sigma is making strides towards making a very fine product. Quality control seems to be somewhat of an issue on this lens and Canon sometimes has the same problem. I have sent my Sigma back now and I think I'll try one more time because this is one sharp lens and it is offered at a more reasonable price than the Canon...Long term, Canon's really hold resale better than Sigma but Canon has some definite competition here and will lose some sales to the new kid on the block. Both companies have had their problems in the past and this will hold true in the future. Let's keep the comments civil. This forum has been the best thing I have ever joined and I thank Fred Miranda for this. I'm sure my squeaking comments have not helped Sigma sales but my goal is to get them to have better quality control and if this helps, we Canon users will all benefit. This is a really good lens with a minor flaw in my opinion. The Canon is a classic and almost everyone loves it.....I've noticed that used ones are coming down in price becasue of the new kid(sigma) and it's great reviews......Friends on FM...please keep this thread a bit more positive..thanks to all for a great forum.
miccullen wrote:
While making idiotic arguments about why the two lenses you can buy shouldn't be compared by someone who wants to buy one now, and not sometime off in the future, maybe?
You know, actually USE a lens, rather than sit around dreaming about what Canon might or might not release at some point, while ignoring whether it could even be afforded when it happens?
This Sigma lens cost about same as I paid for my first 35L 7 years ago, so? 
