Vermiculations wrote:
Like I said before, I won't be buying a Sigma product. I'll take these comments as advice to wait for version II.
Then you don't need one, or you are not really interested in buying a 35mm lens. You don't even know if their will be a mkII version. And if there is, it will maybe take 5 or 10 years before it arrive.
The mkIII will probably be even better............
tuantran wrote:
For people who have used both Sigma 35mm and Canon L, how many switched and how many stayed?
For me, the 35mm is darn good and I'm staying with it.
I used the 35L before. And then switched to the Sigma 35/1,4. The 35L is ok but the Sigma is much better.
The good thing with that upgrade is that not only did I get a much better lens. It didn't cost anything either. Normally an upgrade cost me a lot of money.
Vermiculations wrote:
Like I said before, I won't be buying a Sigma product. I'll take these comments as advice to wait for version II.
I suspect that you don't need a wider angle lens too much. I shoot the 35L at everything from indoor sports in dark gyms, to landscapes, to macro style closeups. Any incremental "improvement" in the mythical next version will not be worth the significantly higher price. Don't know anything about the Sigma, but the Canon version is a superb bit of gear.
I don't see the next 35L getting that much better. Sure, they will improve the IQ and make some minor changes, but that's it. The only major change would be adding IS. I wouldn't expect the upgrade to be worth the price they would charge, given their current history with upgrades as of late.
When I'm ready for a 35L replacement, I'm looking toward Sigma.
Optically according to all the reports, yes. That doesn't change the fact that canon lenses on canon bodies will always be better focusing and supported by in-camera profiles. They are also better serviced by someone who uses canon CLS for repairs etc. This outweighs any minor IQ differences. In real world use lens differences between similar spec optics are relatively minor.
saneproduction wrote:
Optically according to all the reports, yes. That doesn't change the fact that canon lenses on canon bodies will always be better focusing and supported by in-camera profiles. They are also better serviced by someone who uses canon CLS for repairs etc. This outweighs any minor IQ differences. In real world use lens differences between similar spec optics are relatively minor.
Agree, even I had issues with 35L on my former 1d3 - I am in love with it on 5d/5d2/5d3 bodies and I don't like Sigma as a brand and that is my right to do.
I briefly tried the new 35 F2 IS, the 35L and the sigma. I bought the 35L, I liked the overall feel, the focus speed and the colour. I also like the in-camera profiles and the proven track record. I did find the sigma a little bit sharper, but in my view, that is only one factor, and in this case, not the determining one.
