lucas lumiere wrote:
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.
Pretty much my exact experience. There's a few things I like about the Canon version over Sigma's, reliability is one big factor.
stan23 wrote:
Not a piece of crap, but something better came along. The 35L is obviously still very good.
exactly - the 35L is just as reliable and good as it used to be, regardless of the siggy. The same story was told about the siggy 50/1.4 being the best 50 ever, and now after extensive use a more realistic appraisal can be had.
sharpness only means something if the thing you want in focus is the thing that is sharp...
Why not buy a used 35l and if a version 2 comes along you can trade up. This would allow you to take lots of good photos whilst you wait. I have a 35l and I love it.
Breitling65 wrote:
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 always chalked up my 35L + 1D3 mis-focusing issues to be all user error. Glad to hear it wasn't entirely my fault...
In my experience, the Sigma is a great lens, has fantastic IQ, and is built like a tank. If it had reliable AF, I would not hesitate to recommend it. Alas, it's AF sucks (from my own personal experience), so I would do what I did, get a clean used 35L. Same goes for the Sigma 50 f/1.4. Really, really wanted to like those lenses.
I was at Samy's camera and tried two Sigma 35 1.4's against my Canon 35L on a 5D3. Both of the Sigma's were sharper than my (sharp copy) 35L wide open, though with significantly more vignetting. But the deal breaker for me was the focusing inconsistency with the Sigma's. With the 35L/5D3 combo I get 80-90% keeper rate. Both Sigma's were under 50%.
Using the Sigma's made me feel like I was back shooting with the 5D2 again. Not a good feeling. The optics are great, AF is not.
I may purchase one refurbished, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.
Still waiting on a rebate (AMEX) from Canon, but that will aid in the purchase of a 100 F2.8L Macro. I have some important work that requires this lens and it really should be perfect for my needs.
Also debating the purchase of a longer telephoto and the 70-200 F4 IS L.
I wouldn't be afraid to buy a nice used 35L, especially of recent vintage (last five years or so).
I'm inclined toward the new 35/2 IS for my needs. I like the smaller size and would be seldom shooting wide open -- but, who knows, I might change my mind if I shot the 35/1.4L a while!
Either way, don't agonize over these two, or the anticipated version II. Just buy one and try it. You can always sell it later and buy a different model without much loss. You are missing photos right now that you aren't taking.
The 35L is an all around solid lens. I owned it for a brief period and absolutely loved it. However, I'm more of a zoom than prime guy. I definitely would buy it again if I could find a use for 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.
Lars, I understand the betterness in terms of wide open center sharpness. In your view how does the Sigma compare on: focus speed and accuracy; color; contrast. Any comments on low-light focus performance?
I'm trying to sort out choices among the 35L (my long-term workhorse, still on the inside track as a known performer), and the two upstarts, the Sigma and the Canon 35mm f/2 IS.
The application is mostly stage productions, often with low and dynamically variable light. Usually, wide open performance is only for the darkest of scenes, not for background blur. One frequent challenge is getting performers in sharp focus simultaneously when they are widely spread in the frame. So edges matter as much as the center. One thought has been that the new Canon's IS might let me push the f/stop smaller for better edge performance, even in low light (I understand the problem with subject motion). Any comments about the Sigma in that context appreciated.
joeisayo wrote:
I was at Samy's camera and tried two Sigma 35 1.4's against my Canon 35L on a 5D3. Both of the Sigma's were sharper than my (sharp copy) 35L wide open, though with significantly more vignetting. But the deal breaker for me was the focusing inconsistency with the Sigma's. With the 35L/5D3 combo I get 80-90% keeper rate. Both Sigma's were under 50%.
Using the Sigma's made me feel like I was back shooting with the 5D2 again. Not a good feeling. The optics are great, AF is not.
It depends what you want to use it for.
If manual focus astrophotography, landscape - I would get Zeiss 35 1.4.
If auto focus eg. not landscape, - i would get Canon 35 1.4 It focusses better. You won't notice the edges for people in the dark. But you will really notice out of focus.
The Sigma is best if you use live view focus but Zeiss is you do manual live view focus. Or are cost conscious.But then why not samyang 35 1.4.
They are all close but Canon is weakest at the edges. See photozone.de. It shows canon better at 1.4 in centre but worse than Sigma at edges. There is no zeiss 35 1.4 but the digitalpicture shows it being sharper at edges at 1.4
Vermiculations wrote:
Thanks to all that responded with useful information.
I think I'll look into purchasing a refurbished 35L.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I find this post quite offensive. All posters were responding to your question in good faith. Your arrogance and sense of entitlement is astounding.
Given that you were willing to forgo the 35L based on user reviews of it, it clearly doesn't sound like you really need it. I'd save your money.
Don't let it get you down. Arrogance and entitlement are common. Humility and gratitude are uncommon. Let the uncommon prevail!
