35L vs Sigma 30mm f1.4

will the sigma work on a 1d3 body?

It will be less sharp in the corners and vignette a lot more, but I don't think it will be black in the corners. It mounts and focuses just fine.

LightRules wrote in post #9119116
If you want a great lens, get either one.

If you want the much better value, get the Sigma.

If you want to spend more money, get the Canon.

That's all I have to say

I agree 100%. Also, if you are going to shoot full frame, get the Canon. The Sigma is soooo good though.

Gliderparentntn wrote in post #9119339
will the sigma work on a 1d3 body?

It will mount and AF of course and you can use it but the more you stop it down, the more it vignettes. It would recommend using it only between 1.4 and 2.8...

For really low light on a crop.. get the Sigma for best price/performance ratio, the extra IQ and sharpness of the 35L will not be noticable under those circumstances.
When light is very poor you will have to use 1.4 a lot, than you will not notice the extra corner sharpness since it will probably be out of focus anyway.
Low shutter speeds, hand holding will even make the difference smaller.

For showing off, shooting under better light and to get rid of the itchy feeling you have when considering a top of the bill L prime, get the 35L.

I wonder if the autofocus with the Canon will be much better, that would be a reason to spend the extra money.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9119849
I agree 100%. Also, if you are going to shoot full frame, get the Canon. The Sigma is soooo good though.

But on FF, the equivalent FOV is 48mm, so really you should get the canon or Sigma 50mm f1.4. The 35L is a wide angle on FF, so I can't see it being the FF replacement

hennie wrote in post #9119926
For really low light on a crop.. get the Sigma for best price/performance ratio, the extra IQ and sharpness of the 35L will not be noticable under those circumstances.
When light is very poor you will have to use 1.4 a lot, than you will not notice the extra corner sharpness since it will probably be out of focus anyway.
Low shutter speeds, hand holding will even make the difference smaller.

Excellent point. You are rarely getting tack sharp shots in low light regardless - because the lighting lacks contrast and focusing is more of a challenge.

But if you are shooting under good light, you can also just get some very decent zooms that cover 35mm stopped down, and nobody will be the wiser. The 35L is not sharper than many zooms at slower apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2

The only reason it is better is that it is less prone to bad copy syndrome. If you have a nice working copy (like most do), then Sigma HSM and Canon USM are about the same.

I've shot with both and found the 35L to be sharper and to have less CA when wide open I prefer it in all ways and it was worth the extra $$$ to me. The 35L is my work horse. Any lens should preform well at 5.6 but the real challenge is how can it preform at 1.4. If you don't shoot in situations where you need the speed then maybe it is a waist but when you need it its worth every nickel.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9120901
I've shot with both and found the 35L to be sharper and to have less CA when wide open I prefer it in all ways and it was worth the extra $$$ to me. The 35L is my work horse. Any lens should preform well at 5.6 but the real challenge is how can it preform at 1.4. If you don't shoot in situations where you need the speed then maybe it is a waist but when you need it its worth every nickel.

Most users report the Sigma 30 to work VERY well at f1.4. I know mine does.

I think almost everyone in the world would pick the 35L over the 30mm f1.4 if they were both $400. But they are not. So I look at this way. Do you want 99% of the lens for 1/3 of the money? Then get the Sigma. Do you want the absolute best and every last fraction of performance is important to you? Get the 35L.

I'd rather have a 30mm f1.4, 85 f1.8 and a UWA for the same money, though, instead of just the one 35L. That is going to make more difference to my images than an extra fraction of corner sharpness that nobody will even notice.

cloose wrote in post #9116744
Enjoy

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …6&SampleComp=0&​Camera=396

That's a startling difference but I think the price difference is even more startling.

35L.

The 30 had horrible focus issues. i would take the 28mm f/1.8 over the 30 (and did ).

Or you could try the MF Zeiss 35mm ZE. Costwise somewhere inbetween if you can deal with MF.

LightRules wrote in post #9119116
If you want a great lens, get either one.

If you want the much better value, get the Sigma.

If you want to spend more money, get the Canon.

That's all I have to say

Caveat: if you want to be 99.9% sure you'll get a great lens on the first try, get the Canon.

EDIT: I'm not a Canon fanboi and I venture freely into the alternative lenses world, but we're talking about Sigma 30mm vs Canon 35L on this thread.

L_F_L wrote in post #9122335
Caveat: if you want to be 99.9% sure you'll get a great lens on the first try, get the Canon.

I only wish it were 99.9%. Far from it. I've had my share of Canon duds and my share ( 50 1.4 and 120-300 ) of Sigma stars to know I must keep my eyes and options open and not just buy Canon for the red stripe.

L_F_L wrote in post #9122335
Caveat: if you want to be 99.9% sure you'll get a great lens on the first try, get the Canon.

Factually completely untrue however probably 99.9% true based on your experiences

Sure, Canon has their shares of issues with their lenses, but we're speaking of the 35L and vs Sigma 30mm. The threads above ours posted varying experiences of Sigma 30mm being inconsistent. I didn't hit jackpot with my copy of 35L being excellent -- it's just what one would get from the actual samples of the 35L out there. I'm not a Canon fanboi and I venture freely into the alternative lenses world, but we're talking about Sigma 30mm vs Canon 35L on this thread

Yes, I'm overstating the facts and the statistics, but you get my drift.

L_F_L wrote in post #9122533
Sure, Canon has their shares of issues with their lenses, but we're speaking of the 35L and vs Sigma 30mm. The threads above ours posted varying experiences of Sigma 30mm being inconsistent. I didn't hit jackpot with my copy of 35L being excellent -- it's just what one would get from the actual samples of the 35L out there.

Yes, I'm overstating the facts and the statistics, but you get my drift.

I hear you. I've gone through two 30mm 1.4's in my years of switching formats and they'be been perfect. My current 35L is very bad, requiring +13 on my Mark III to work. +13 wide open is a lot. pbase.com/lightrules His lens test 30 vs 35 shows some 35L focusing issues.
It's not a knock against anything or anyone I just think it's important to always put out there that dud lenses happen from any company. Nowadays it's an easy fix with MA in camera. Pick the lens you feel comfortable with! If it doesn't work, get it calibrated