35L vs Sigma 30mm f1.4

+13 is a lot, and definitely agree that any company have put out duds. I've had my share of 17-55 going back for IS surgery.

As the OP's making his/her decision, I hope I haven't made it more difficult. The good thing about either lens, they are both on high demand in the used market if priced accordingly. Someone posted about Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE, which I would consider as well if MF suits your shooting style and needs (and if you don't mind stop down metering, there's even a lot more 35mm FL options with older MF lenses).

sigma 30mm.

Thanks for all input. I'm sad to say that the decision has yet to have be made. But depending on the way things are going, I'm gonna have an easier time explaning to "whom must be obeyed" on the cost justification I guess. Haha.

The sigma's price point is certainly better knowing that I missed the boat on the 35L as the prices has rose since last year. (it was at one time arnd 1.2k usd)

The 7d has MA but for the life of me, haven't been able to figure out how to see the diffences on my 2current L.

myjunk wrote in post #9123090
Thanks for all input. I'm sad to say that the decision has yet to have be made. But depending on the way things are going, I'm gonna have an easier time explaning to "whom must be obeyed" on the cost justification I guess. Haha.

The sigma's price point is certainly better knowing that I missed the boat on the 35L as the prices has rose since last year. (it was at one time arnd 1.2k usd)

The 7d has MA but for the life of me, haven't been able to figure out how to see the diffences on my 2current L.

Here is the first pic taken with mine (2nd copy sold the first for the 35L)-a snapshot after I opened the box. Taken at my cabin on Lake Martin, poor lighting-don't even think I adjusted the white balance.

Wide open, straight from camera no processing.

f 1.4

Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

channel_49 wrote in post #9132164
Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

This has to be a joke, right?

Amateurs? P&S?

tkbslc wrote in post #9121224
I think almost everyone in the world would pick the 35L over the 30mm f1.4 if they were both $400.

Limited to use on a crop body, I would still take the Sigma over the L for even money. In that scenerio the Sigma still has a sizable, err, size advantage over the L (which is clearly larger than my ego). I found it hard enough to justify mounting the 35L on a FF camera, let alone butchered as a "50mm f2.2" lens on crop!

channel_49 wrote in post #9132164
Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

Your opinion is duly noted.....

Have you shot with the Sigma? There is NOTHING amateur about it! It is about the furthest thing from cr*p I can think of....

Funny you mention "P&S", when I want to travel light, I bring my Xsi+30/1.4

channel_49 wrote in post #9132164
Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

Wow...I've seen a lot of professionals /respectable members on this board that use sigma.

obvious troll post is obvious

ive just bagged the sigma and cant wait for it to arrive tomorrow

Enjoy the lens! It's probably my favorite

I have had the Sigma 30 1.4 for a 3 years now.

No focusing issues with my copy. Sharp wide open, great color etc.
Took thousands of pics with it. It focuses very well, also under dim light,
looking back at oof pics mostly were due to user error: the DOF at 1.4 is very thin and the camera can decide to lock on say, the corner of the nose just because it had a bit more contrast and render an eye blurry, just an example. It happens with other lenses as well, but it is more pronounced at f1.4.

I recently took it outside, stopped down to f7 it is amazingly sharp, so it could be pretty good for landscape if you don't mind the angle. On FF, i am not sure i would use the 35mm much, and if i go FF i'd probably get a 50mm 1.4 to replace the sigma.

Focusing is pretty fast, not like my 17-40L, but it has a lot of glass that has to be moved and stopped accurately, I didn't test the 35L so I can't comment how they fair in comparison first hand, but Lightrules' reviews go a long way in my book. I think the EF50mm 1.4 focused faster, but it is smaller lighter lens with less glass to move around.

The build quality is nice and the finish is pretty good. L lenses are more rugged and have (usually) weather sealing. My experience with Sigma is that they are not very rugged so if you make your money of it, just invest in a sturdier tool regardless the what seems to be marginal IQ differences.

Erez

channel_49 wrote in post #9132164
Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

My troll radar is picking something up on its sensors..

I've had the sigma 30 and I loved it. The only reason I got rid of it is because I wanted a longer fixed focal lens (sold it for the canon 85 1.8). Personally, if buying an L prime, I'd go with 85 or 135.

channel_49 wrote in post #9132164
Well, 35L kills the sigma if you know what you're doing.
In fact its sharper wide than L zooms at 2 8, if you have a properly aligned copy.
There's only the 85L and 135L that are better in IQ. For sure kills 70-200 2 8 IS...
all except corners due to wide-angle.

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

Why bother using a DSLR with crap glass, just go with a P&S and stop worrying about IQ.

Only the amateurs would go with the sigma.

Or might it be that the amateurs who think they look professional with a red ringed lens go with the 35L