Sigma 35 1.4 vs Canon 35L 1.4

I use to be a big Sigma fan but they do need MF adjustment! I'm sure they are better nowadays but one thing I worry about is the copy yield will drop as the demand increases!

I'm sorry if you took offence! If I had the choice now I would actually go for the Sigma! Their offices are in my town and you can drop it in for adjustment!

Tony Parenti wrote in post #15346078
This is true, the Canon does have more CA, but that is easily correctable in Adobe Camera Raw to a degree. Can't really get rid of that bokeh effect though. For someone like me whose 35 basically lives on the camera its a pretty big deal.

Autofocus speed is great, accuracy is great, success rate is great. It's a great lens no doubt. FOR ME, the bokeh is the hinderance. Build quality is better than the 35L.

Sigma sharper wide open, not by a big margin though (I may just have a really good copy of the 35L). Better in the corners too.

Yeah, but for nervous blur there is also the gaussian blur.
On the QC side, they have a new method to manage that and each lens is now tested.
One thing I find cool is the upcoming USB adapter that will let you tweak the characteristics of the lens - focus speed vs accuracy, focus limiting, calibration, etc.

I haven't seen any side-by-side comparisons on the AF speed though so if that is important you may want to dig deeper. Also, if AF point activation is important to you, you may want to dig in as well. It is likely that on a camera like the 5D3, there are diagonal cross points that may not be activated by the Sigma that would be with the Canon. I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR SURE. I am saying that if it is important, you will want to dig up that info.

norbelthomas wrote in post #15348084
You can read the review here
http://lcap.tistory.co​m …m-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

The sigma even has a better bokeh.

Great link. I agree - the Sigma has slightly more pleasing bokeh.

Sigma said you can can dock the 35mm via usb somehow and update firmaware and maybe even do MA. I did not have a dock come with mine.

Photogaz wrote in post #15349972
I use to be a big Sigma fan but they do need MF adjustment! I'm sure they are better nowadays but one thing I worry about is the copy yield will drop as the demand increases!

I'm sorry if you took offence! If I had the choice now I would actually go for the Sigma! Their offices are in my town and you can drop it in for adjustment!

Pit wrote in post #15496382
Sigma said you can can dock the 35mm via usb somehow and update firmaware and maybe even do MA. I did not have a dock come with mine.

you have to buy it separately

Pit wrote in post #15496382
Sigma said you can can dock the 35mm via usb somehow and update firmaware and maybe even do MA. I did not have a dock come with mine.

The dock is not included. It's going to be a separate item that you can buy for it. The three new release sigma lenses have the ability to use the USB dock, and I'm sure the vast majority, if not all, of sigmas future relates will be able to use the dock

But the dock has not been released yet and the price is unknown.

The dock, IMO, is just a cool gadget for sigma to sell to consumers that we shouldn't have to use.

The kind of calibration required for most lenses that need adjustment is not simple linear -20 to +20 microadjustment but auto-focus calibration at different focusing distances. It simply is too much work for us end users. We shouldn't have to pay sigma to do their work!

The other features like focus limit adjustment, speed vs accuracy, etc are just bells and whistles. Why limit your focus range? Any properly functioning lens ahould focus fast AND accurately. We never needed this in the past and we shouldn't need it now.

Oh come on, Sigma bokeh is better and it's not nervous bokeh, if you want to see nervous bokeh checkout Nikon lenses.

Tony Parenti wrote in post #15346146
Oh come on, the bokeh is definitely worse. I'll give you all the other points but the bokeh is worse no doubt.

DarthVader wrote in post #15499650
Oh come on, Sigma bokeh is better and it's not nervous bokeh, if you want to see nervous bokeh checkout Nikon lenses.

I have to agree here. Canon has red ring, and that may be a serious factor in getting canon (the implication of professionalism). On a positive note, the 35L has definitely taken a hit on resale. Not sure if it's because of sigma or not, but prices are definitely the lowest I've seen on craigslist.

edit: aside from that, nervous bokeh can be blurred, soft photos are cant always be brought up to a really sharp photo. If you're printing large, you're probably doing and noticing these touchups.

I have to say, some of the sample images are very impressive (for example, Ed's shots here (link) are awesome!).. it got me wanting to test out my 35L.

I think a lot of people just have out of whack 35L's.. I've owned 3 of them, and finally settled on this one, which, coincidentally came back from Canon service (in Canada) before I purchased it. I like to think this is one is pretty spot on, and is pretty sharp for 1.4.

@1.4 (ISO 200), pushed about 1 stop in LR. Focus obviously on the nose.

Full image

Brandon - I think you're spot on. I've been through two 35L's and neither had great performance before F/2 or F/2.8. Watching for QC on Sigma and feedback from the early adopters, but it does seem to be a better performing lens, and certainly a better value.

va_rider wrote in post #15349223
That's not at all it, and this whole "try the Sigma Luck" this is utter BS.

I have the Canon. I bought the Sigma. I prefer the Sigma. The Canon is for sale. ... Look at the gear in my Sig. I couldn't possibly care less about the price difference. I prefer the Sigma.

Time will tell regarding AF consistency.

Sure the internet amplifies issues with copy variances but I've mentioned before my friend operates a shop and finds the Sigma to have massive amounts of returns due to brand new out of the box AF issues. Personally speaking I can truly attest with the couple dozen Sigma primes having AF issues or sketchy inconsistencies.

What I dont get about the Sigma docking station is how will it fix the random misses I've found in my personal Sigma primes. Majority of camera's now have MA. Doubt the docking station can eliminate the random occurrences in different lighting situations.

The only good experience I've ever had with sigma was the 18-50 f/2.8 macro I purchased for my old crop camera. The primes however have been giving me inconsistent random misses while running and gunning events. In scientific tests they fared well but was never as consistent like my red ring lenses.

I hope the Sigma drives the 35L used prices down. This way people will have a killer redring in the used market

The 35Lmk2 will be ridiculously expensive but very likely it will be easily on par with the sigma. Spending more money sometimes isn't the issue. The issue is landing/capturing memorable, once in a lifetime events with pure confidence. You cant put a price tag on your responsibility in documenting a monumental event. "oops my lens decided to misfocus due to lighting" LOL!!! At this moment in time this new Sigma 35 will hopefully break the Sigma lottery trend.

Photogs are extremely critical of bokeh but on the other hand a very high percentage of clients/family members only look at the facial expressions and story capabilities of the photo. This is where getting deeper into this topic the crucial factor is landing the shot accurately and consistently. So far my 35L has never failed me.

I can see alot of people NOT owning a 35mm on the fence regarding which lens to buy. For me putting loyalties aside I will have much more faith in grabbing a redring 35mm for landing the shots. I've never had any issues in ultra tack sharp wideopen shots from my 35L. Now that I've purchased a 24Lmk2 I only notice lack of micro contrast "look" in sharpness with my 35L. However the 1998 design still is impressive for a old technology design.

Another thing is by sensor design and megapixels camera bodies seem to be giving the raw files a different "look" compared to an older camera even upto a 50D. The Sigma's sharpness is killer impressive but like most new lenses gives a micro contrast sharpness very digital looking. This is another topic probably but I can almost tell on my IPS panel if I used a 24Lmk2 vs my 35L due to the digital almost artificial sharp look of a new design 24Lmk2.

My 85L (at f/2.8) has a different "sharp" look compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 set to 85mm. The rendition is different on an IPS panel when post processing. Perhaps on print it makes less of an impact. 85L is smoother? a tad more organic? hard to describe.

So as for the Sigma 35mm it may look more contrasty digital looking. Not a bad thing but its different to a ultra tack sharp 35L with less micro contrast. The 35Lmk2 will have that more digital look it BET!!

BrandonSi wrote in post #15499978
I have to say, some of the sample images are very impressive (for example, Ed's shots here (link) are awesome!).. it got me wanting to test out my 35L.

I think a lot of people just have out of whack 35L's.. I've owned 3 of them, and finally settled on this one, which, coincidentally came back from Canon service (in Canada) before I purchased it. I like to think this is one is pretty spot on, and is pretty sharp for
1

I think it's entirely possible (and been stated a few times by reputable people) that the Sigma is sharper.. I'm just not sold on QC at the moment. I guess time will tell.

Lol do you see the irony here? A lot of people have wonky 35Ls, but you're worried about SIGMA qc! Lol. Apparently Canon is the one with the issues!

drzenitram wrote in post #15500513
Lol do you see the irony here? A lot of people have wonky 35Ls, but you're worried about SIGMA qc! Lol. Apparently Canon is the one with the issues!

I think what Alan is saying is that not that sharp at f1.4 (35L) is one thing while sharper at f1.4 (Sigma) but having AF issues at different distances and lighting conditions if another (and more serious) thing.

drzenitram wrote in post #15500513
Lol do you see the irony here? A lot of people have wonky 35Ls, but you're worried about SIGMA qc! Lol. Apparently Canon is the one with the issues!

The irony wasn't lost on me.. I've gone through plenty of Canon's, but very rarely have I replaced the same lens over and over again. In more instances than not, the Canon lenses are fine out of the box (needing some MA, still). I have several experiences having to test multiple copies of the same lens on Sigma.

I'm not saying Canon is better. I'm just saying from my experience, neither is perfect, but Canon seems to be more consistent. I have no experience with their new ART or whatever lenses, so I'm hoping it's better, but we'll see over time.

bobbyz wrote in post #15500559
I think what Alan is saying is that not that sharp at f1.4 (35L) is one thing while sharper at f1.4 (Sigma) but having AF issues at different distances and lighting conditions if another (and more serious) thing.

I definitely agree with that. AF consistency is really my main issue with Sigma, not sharpness.