The RF is very noticeably the darkest of the bunch, not just due to the obviously smaller maximum aperture, but also because of the vignette profile. That is, unfortunately, a common weakness with every RF lens released so far. The other f/1.4 options aren't just two thirds of a stop faster; across the majority of the frame they're between a full stop and a stop and a half brighter. None of them are vignette-free, either, but the RF is simply that much worse. A very tiny center spot is about t/2.1, but most of the frame is around t/3.5, and the corners and edges are around t/6.8. Even Canon's own correction profile can't fully brighten it at f/1.8 and base ISO.
I also found the autofocus to be terrible in my copy. Loud, stuttering, slow, and inconsistent. (Yes, despite the much-lauded consistency of mirrorless focus.)
Its IS is very effective (though, weirdly, it was more effective on the R than it was on the R5 in combination with IBIS), and in terms of technical quality the optics are... fine.
I haven't touched the Tamron or the original 35L, so I won't comment on those.
The Sigma Art is still very hard to beat. Everything about it holds up well and the price has only become more and more reasonable. That's probably my #1 pick for most people and situations. It's one of only two 35mm lenses I've not had any complaints about.
The 35L II is an absolutely superb optic in every way, and easily my choice if 35mm is the only or by far main focal length someone will use. I just never really got enough use out of it to justify the cost and size; I've always leaned more towards 50mm, anyway. My only hesitation about recommending it now is that it is inevitable Canon will make an RF version in the near future, so someone might either want to wait and get the RF, or at least wait for the RF release to force down the price of the EF.
I feel I should mention the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, which is like the RF 35mm f/1.8, except you're swapping close focus and a little bit of IS for faster focus and less vignetting; the EF version actually produces a brighter frame overall than the ''faster'' RF lens. If anyone doesn't need f/1.4, I recommend the EF lens over the Sigma Art.
TL;DR:
35mm f/1.4L II if you don't want to wait, don't care about size & weight, have money to burn, and will use it to death.
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 if you really want f/1.4 but the EF II is too much in any way.
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM if you don't actually need f/1.4
Wait for the RF 35L to knock prices down, or if you want what will inevitably be the very, very best.
sebjmatthews wrote:
I also found the autofocus to be terrible in my copy. Loud, stuttering, slow, and inconsistent. (Yes, despite the much-lauded consistency of mirrorless focus.)
This is my biggest issue with it and why I'm selling it soon. There's some field curvature from roughly f2.8-f5.6 and because Canon cameras typically focus partially stopped down it's a gamble whether or not the final photo will have the focus in the correct spot. It's a shame because the size and focal length would be a great casual lens for me but the focus issues are a deal breaker.
CelesteForza wrote:
The canon 35’s will simply AF better,more accurately, than 3rd party lenses. Keep that in mind when you’re shooting fast paced events.
Actually my Tamron 1.4 seems to focus better/faster than my Canon RF 1.8.
This debate is a large part of why I keep leaving Canon RF. There's simply not a reasonable option in native RF mount 35 primes. You either get the 1.8 with unit autofocus from the 80s, or you are adapting ef glass.
sebjmatthews wrote:
The RF is very noticeably the darkest of the bunch, not just due to the obviously smaller maximum aperture, but also because of the vignette profile. That is, unfortunately, a common weakness with every RF lens released so far. The other f/1.4 options aren't just two thirds of a stop faster; across the majority of the frame they're between a full stop and a stop and a half brighter. None of them are vignette-free, either, but the RF is simply that much worse. A very tiny center spot is about t/2.1, but most of the frame is around t/3.5, and the corners and edges are around t/6.8. Even Canon's own correction profile can't fully brighten it at f/1.8 and base ISO.
I also found the autofocus to be terrible in my copy. Loud, stuttering, slow, and inconsistent. (Yes, despite the much-lauded consistency of mirrorless focus.)
Its IS is very effective (though, weirdly, it was more effective on the R than it was on the R5 in combination with IBIS), and in terms of technical quality the optics are... fine.
I haven't touched the Tamron or the original 35L, so I won't comment on those.
The Sigma Art is still very hard to beat. Everything about it holds up well and the price has only become more and more reasonable. That's probably my #1 pick for most people and situations. It's one of only two 35mm lenses I've not had any complaints about.
The 35L II is an absolutely superb optic in every way, and easily my choice if 35mm is the only or by far main focal length someone will use. I just never really got enough use out of it to justify the cost and size; I've always leaned more towards 50mm, anyway. My only hesitation about recommending it now is that it is inevitable Canon will make an RF version in the near future, so someone might either want to wait and get the RF, or at least wait for the RF release to force down the price of the EF.
I feel I should mention the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, which is like the RF 35mm f/1.8, except you're swapping close focus and a little bit of IS for faster focus and less vignetting; the EF version actually produces a brighter frame overall than the ''faster'' RF lens. If anyone doesn't need f/1.4, I recommend the EF lens over the Sigma Art.
TL;DR:
35mm f/1.4L II if you don't want to wait, don't care about size & weight, have money to burn, and will use it to death.
Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 if you really want f/1.4 but the EF II is too much in any way.
EF 35mm f/2 IS USM if you don't actually need f/1.4
Wait for the RF 35L to knock prices down, or if you want what will inevitably be the very, very best....Show more →
Update the RF 35 1.8
In my R5 my non is 35 (sigma 35 and tamron 35 1.4) also were better stabilised than my rf 35. Then I updated the rf 35 and now for real IS and IBIS are working together and it’s the best.
I bought the EF 35mm F/1.4L (preferred over EF 35mm F/1.4L II) for its ‘look’. YMMV.
The EF 35mm F/1.4L is not the sharpest lens in the class but it lives up to my expectations. When sharpness is important, I use my EF 24-70mm F/2.8L II.
My expectations from a prime lens are very high. I would not try a non-L prime anymore (whether ‘RF’ or ‘EF’).
I have the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art for Canon EF. It focuses as well as any EF lens on my EOS R, which is to say, very well. It doesn't hunt. It's a great lens! My only complaint is that it's fairly large, especially with the adapter.
A headshot is probably not the best use for the lens, but this is wide open. It's sharp and you can see the bokeh.
I've had my Canon 35mm f/1.4L for almost 9 years now. My copy is pretty sharp wide open and I really love the rendering and bokeh. It has more character than the newer fast 35mm lenses. The colors and contrast are excellent and match all of the other Canon L lenses. AF is fast and fairly accurate and it is well built. The only changed I'd want is weather-sealing but it's not a deal breaker.
This thread reminds me of the time someone on here hilariously cried that “no one likes busy bokeh.” Clearly, everyone has different tastes when it comes to lens rendering, particularly when it comes to bokeh and character lenses. I’m also a fan of the 35 L v1 and all of its bokeh “flaws.”
comotionfilms wrote:
This thread reminds me of the time someone on here hilariously cried that “no one likes busy bokeh.” Clearly, everyone has different tastes when it comes to lens rendering, particularly when it comes to bokeh and character lenses. I’m also a fan of the 35 L v1 and all of its bokeh “flaws.”
The second lens, 35/1.4L II, has significantly busier bokeh. So does the Tamron 35/1.4 as evidenced above; in general, 35mm lenses just seem to sit in that focal range spot where there's just enough background blur in common compositions to accentuate 'busyness' in the background.
Frankly, the sharper / more well-corrected a photography lens is, the likelier that 'busy bokeh' will be noticed. It's only when you get to cinema lens unit costs that things like busyness of background rendering really seems to get development focus for now.
johnctharp wrote:
The second lens, 35/1.4L II, has significantly busier bokeh. So does the Tamron 35/1.4 as evidenced above; in general, 35mm lenses just seem to sit in that focal range spot where there's just enough background blur in common compositions to accentuate 'busyness' in the background.
Frankly, the sharper / more well-corrected a photography lens is, the likelier that 'busy bokeh' will be noticed. It's only when you get to cinema lens unit costs that things like busyness of background rendering really seems to get development focus for now.
You think? I have a lot of 35s and the 35 L v1 has the busiest, weirdest bokeh of the bunch, by far. I can instantly recognize one of its images when scrolling through my library, particularly if there are trees in the background. The Tamron 1.4 is much sharper, and lovely, but lacks any bokeh weirdness.
I think the best bet is the Tamron, I also think the 35 f2 IS is very good. The original 35/1.4L was once considered amongst the best 35s, but now apparently it isn't. Probably it is not old enough to be "vintage" (i.e really good/special) and too old to be considered "modern sharp".
comotionfilms wrote:
You think? I have a lot of 35s and the 35 L v1 has the busiest, weirdest bokeh of the bunch, by far. I can instantly recognize one of its images when scrolling through my library, particularly if there are trees in the background. The Tamron 1.4 is much sharper, and lovely, but lacks any bokeh weirdness.
We're probably looking at different sets of 35s. And if you look at even just the Tamron shot above, the busy bokeh is instantly noticeable.
c102690 wrote:
I'm in the market for a 35mm fast lens. I'm trying to decide between Canon EF 35mm 1.4 v1, Canon RF 35mm 1.8 and possibly even Tamron SP 35mm f1.4.
I do have an EF 24-70 2.8 II but looking to gradually build some prime lenses.
Ultimately, will invest in L RF lenses but those are out of my budget right now. I see the macro capability as a plus for the RF 1.8. However, after watching very slow STM autofocus compared to some EF lens, I am having a second thought on the RF 35mm 1.8.
This is going to be used for even photography...most times low light indoor event but outdoor as well. Will eventually invest in 50mm and 85.
It's also important I get a lens I can sell for about the same purchase price 6-12months from now.
Any suggestions and the why? Better if you've used either of these lenses on eos R6. ...Show more →
I'd get a used 35STM until you are ready to pony up for the newest RF-35L. You won't lose much in resale as they are very fairly priced when either used or refurbs direct from Canon.
I used the EF35L (paired with a 5D2, 7D, and 5D3) for several wedding seasons and currently own the 35STM on the R5. I would not shy away from the 35stm based on AF speed alone. Even at f/1.8 or 1.4, you have some room for focusing error because of the wider focal length. With that said, I don't find the STM to be all that slow. Build quality is much better than you would expect at this price point.
Now, in regards to the EF35L...I was never all that impressed, especially considering the price. My copy had a focus shift around f/2.4 and I never considered it a cracking sharp lens. Color rendering was classic Canon L-quality. Bokeh was indeed nice, but there are so many variables affecting bokeh that unless it's really bad, I dont pay much attention to a len's bokeh quality. People will argue it produces a unique "magical" look under the right conditions, but under the right conditions most lenses will do "magical" things.
I'll admit that my experience is a bit different - to my eyes, that looks 'normal' for a fast 35. Even above average when considering lenses produced after the 35/1.4L I, in my opinion. Personally I think that the Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, even with its imperfections as an early Art effort for Sigma, probably hits the happiest medium all around.
johnctharp wrote:
I'll admit that my experience is a bit different - to my eyes, that looks 'normal' for a fast 35. Even above average when considering lenses produced after the 35/1.4L I, in my opinion. Personally I think that the Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, even with its imperfections as an early Art effort for Sigma, probably hits the happiest medium all around.
I'd very much agree with this statement regarding the Sigma. I didn't mention the Sigma because the OP didn't say he was considering a 3rd party lens, but the Sigma 35Art was my most used lens for weddings and events, particularly in low-light. I do feel that the USB dock is a must if you are buying the lens. Prior to me calibrating on my camera, I was not happy with the AF accuracy. After the calibration, it was spot on at all distances and apertures.
MMP wrote:
I'd very much agree with this statement regarding the Sigma. I didn't mention the Sigma because the OP didn't say he was considering a 3rd party lens, but the Sigma 35Art was my most used lens for weddings and events, particularly in low-light. I do feel that the USB dock is a must if you are buying the lens. Prior to me calibrating on my camera, I was not happy with the AF accuracy. After the calibration, it was spot on at all distances and apertures.
Biggest concern I noted that others mentioned with the Sigma Art lenses, at least in the first few years of EF-mount releases, was that focus inconsistency could vary by color temperature as well.
But now that we're using on-sensor phase detection that by definition works at the focal plane, thus eliminating at least two variables that we had to contend with on DSLRs - that being that the AF sensor was separate, so 'distance' between the AF sensor and image sensor could vary, and that the AF sensor could potentially be fooled by things like third-party lenses that have different color transmission - well, now we generally don't have to worry.
So personally, a Sigma Art lens is by most accounts mechanically equal to a Canon L lens in terms of focus functionality and so on; so they adapt just as well as EF lenses do to Canon's RF and now fading EF-M mounts.
johnctharp wrote:
I'll admit that my experience is a bit different - to my eyes, that looks 'normal' for a fast 35. Even above average when considering lenses produced after the 35/1.4L I, in my opinion. Personally I think that the Sigma 35/1.4 | Art, even with its imperfections as an early Art effort for Sigma, probably hits the happiest medium all around.
Honestly I can’t imagine looking at this image, particularly the bokeh, and thinking it looks like a modern 35mm. The way then bokeh sort of explodes from the center, the bright outlines, it’s just wild looking, and I love it. Here’s the same tree, captured with a modern 35mm. Much smoother bokeh. Also lovely, just different look.
