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 speculation 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?
Nov 27, 2020 at 04:46 PM
Previous versions of drimer's message #15417016 « Canon 35mm f1.4L (v1) vs. Sigma Art 35mm f1.4 »
