p.1 #2 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
I passed on the 35 ART... Went from a 35L mark I to a 40mm ART on a one-day BH sale.
35L has great colors and rendering, but CA is substantial and the lens needs to be about f/2 before it gets REALLY sharp. Nice background blur, though aspherical onion ringing on specular highlights. Some notable astigmatism that shows up as busier bokeh on background corners. Nice size and comfortable build. No weather sealing. $700 ish.
35 ART samples seem to be flat... I’m not a fan of the bokeh/rendering. Onion rings in highlights seem possible. Sharpness is supposed to be decent at f/1.4. I don’t think there’s any weather sealing. $500ish.
40 ART is optical perfection for about $200-$300 more than the 35L used price, $900-$950ish. Drawing/rendering is very nice under most conditions, and flare performance is almost perfect. Sharpness is perfect corner to corner at f/1.4. Best performing midrange lens for Canon bodies, bar none, when it comes to image quality. Bokeh is quite good, especially up close. Coma is quite low, and onion ringing is low because the aspherical elements are very smooth. Focus is a little slower than the 35L mark I and very slightly slower than the 35L mark II. Bigger and heavier, but lots of metal and actually weather sealed. Keeps me from needing a 50mm, and microcontrast is phenomenal. Due to optical correction, midrange bokeh (IE shots that shouldn’t be taken be wide open, say a tree halfway down a street) can be a little harsh. Never an issue for me in practice. May supplement or replace with a 28-70mm if I can afford one someday, but I like my 40mm ART a lot. I’ve tried the 35ii through CPS, and I didn’t like its images any better than the 40 ART. YMMV.
Important questions:
What body are you shooting on?
What do you like to shoot?
What is your budget?
p.1 #3 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
Speaking very much not from experience, the 35 | Art is a technical upgrade from the 35L I, but with a different 'character' that some appreciate and others seem not to.
The body being used would also make a difference. Neither lens seems to be known as exceptionally accurate in terms of autofocus unless they just happen to match up well to a particular DSLR, and using a mirrorless camera would probably make that point non-relevant.
RE: the 40/1.4 | Art... that's a downright enviable lens, but it's larger, twice the cost, and twice the weight. Somewhat in a class all its own, in my opinion, and I do mean that as all praise -- it just might not be what the OP is looking for.
p.1 #4 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
Drimer,
Thank you for the very detailed break down of both lenses. I am actually a Nikon Z6 M1 shooter that is adapting Canon glass. I have recently picked up the 135mm f2 L and enjoy it. I have been looking at adding a 35mm, I know Nikon makes one for the Z mount but also want to see what Canon has to offer. I buy what suits my needs before anyone says “go with Nikon or switch to Canon”.
p.1 #5 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
johnctharp wrote:
RE: the 40/1.4 | Art... that's a downright enviable lens, but it's larger, twice the cost, and twice the weight. Somewhat in a class all its own, in my opinion, and I do mean that as all praise -- it just might not be what the OP is looking for.
I agree with that assessment. While the OP mentioned wanting a 35mm, I mentioned the 40mm ART in case it might fit OP's needs. It may well be nothing like what the OP is looking for. It is more natively available for Nikon, if that improves Z6 performance. I struggle to find 40mm samples anywhere, so I have included a few.
Processing is generally minimal on these. I've tried to include as much variety as I could for one post. Not a perfect lens, and certainly not perfect photos, but here for you to consider. Will add a few of my 35L images in another post.
p.1 #6 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
gnet158 wrote:
Drimer,
Thank you for the very detailed break down of both lenses. I am actually a Nikon Z6 M1 shooter that is adapting Canon glass. I have recently picked up the 135mm f2 L and enjoy it. I have been looking at adding a 35mm, I know Nikon makes one for the Z mount but also want to see what Canon has to offer. I buy what suits my needs before anyone says “go with Nikon or switch to Canon”.
35L is a fantastic lens. Some samples, though I did not have it as long as I've used the 40mm and I think my photos have improved some since...
Worst case CA, slight misfocus wide open into sunny branches
p.1 #7 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. So now the Sigma 40mm and the Canon 35mm L are on my list, either will require an adapter to work on my Nikon. Thankfully I have both. I’ll update the thread when I have made a purchase. Thanks again everyone.
p.1 #8 · Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4
I will say one thing: I definitely like what I'm seeing from the 40/1.4 | Art versus what I've seen from the 35/1.4L II.
The 35mm lens is certainly sharp and well-corrected, but man does it have some aggressively noisy background rendering. The 40 is performing great even with challenging backgrounds, and there's a whole lot to like about that, thanks for sharing samples!
