Would you give up your Canon 35L MK1 for a Sigma 35mm ART?

What would you do? Personally Im looking for low light IQ focusing accuracy/speed. The Canon does fine but seeing if something a bit newer like the sigma would up it a tad. Low light performance seems to be good but a concern that I dont like about the Canon is that it frequently misses focus on subjects if they are tiny (will focus to the background instead).

I am sure there are plenty of people happy with their Sigma, but I returned two copies due to AF consistency issues. The dock couldn't fix it either. Maybe I could have sent in the body+lens to sigma, but that wasn't worth it to me. Went back to Canon 35 (first the F2 IS, then the L ii)

I will say that when it did hit, the Sigma 35 was incredible for sharpness and also liked the contrast and overall rendering just fine. But it would just miss more shots than I am used to with other lens and it bugged me too much.

sigma sells the dock for a reason. sigma will never focus as accurately or consistently as a canon. that said, the art is sharp wide open and the canon at F2. if I were in the market for a 35mm prime i'd get either the 35L II or the 35 f2 IS. that would make the art my third choice and the 35L dead last.

Had too many focusing issues with my multiple copies of Sigma.

35L is still a gorgeous lens.

Add me to the list of people who played the Sigma lottery and lost. There is a reason why you see so many Sigma 35A's on ebay.

Except at the moment (based on a very cursory search) there are 5 "used" Sigma 35 Arts on ebay and 11 "used" Canon 35 1.4's...

I'm happy with my 35 Art, love the rendering and the overall look and feel of the lens itself, no AF issues.

ed rader wrote in post #18013318
sigma sells the dock for a reason.

Yes, instead of copping out and telling people to adjust for the most used FL and distance , they did what no one else was willing to do - they gave us means to adjust the lens at all of the combinations. They are quite a ways ahead of Canon and Nikon in that respect

Ive had both lenses and currently use the Canon. The sigma art was a beautiful lens and never had any issues on any of my bodies. The 35L has some serious green and purple fringing issues, the Chromatic aberration is bad but its still a great lens. Would I give mine up? Not now, i sold the sigma, a few months later when to buy one again but it was out of stock to ended up with the 35L

ouch, doesnt look good for sigma. Guess im holding onto my canon!

My 35 art was rock solid. Never missed period

Sold my 35 art and went a couple of mm wider to a 24mm/1.4 II. Wouldn't trust it's spotty AF with paid gigs.

I did, the Art is the better one in all circumstances, you won't regret, and it's a newer lens, more valuable if you want to sell later
It doesn't sound good for buyers if you sell a 10yo lens or older...

If the chances of missing AF scares you on the 35L, you'll want to be nowhere near the Sigma 35.

kaitanium wrote in post #18013288
...but a concern that I dont like about the Canon is that it frequently misses focus on subjects if they are tiny (will focus to the background instead).

I'm not so sure this is necessarily a function of the lens. Other than this scenario, how do you like the mkI?

mk1 is great. I see no advantages to the higher price of the mkII.

i guess im holding onto the mk1!