New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM DG

Mookalafalas wrote in post #15192332
I'm not sure I follow this. Let's say reviewers agree the Sigma is "easily as good as the Canon", and it's "only" 25% cheaper, you still wouldn't buy it? For me, if it was 1% cheaper, I'd probably spring for it. Obviously I have a lot of confidence in Sigma

I think a lot of people have mental blocks about using third party lenses. Unless it has the name "zeiss" or "leica" on it, they assume it's rubbish.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15192353
I think a lot of people have mental blocks about using third party lenses. Unless it has the name "zeiss" or "leica" on it, they assume it's rubbish.

Unfortunately, as far as Sigma is concerned, it is completely self inflicted. There are way too many reports of people having to go through several copies of a lens to find one that focuses correctly. I am one of the lucky ones to loose repeatedly at the Sigma Lottery.

With specific products, sure, they have a bad reputation. But I think as a whole, they are pretty solid. They also make some damn fine lenses. It's not like all their lenses have issues with AF.

Sigma has had one key weakness, especially with the 50mm 1.4, and that is front or back focusing. Actually, I had to send in my 50 three times, and my 24 1.8 as well (I live in Taiwan, and they actually have a runner that goes to all the shops twice a week, and brinks back the recalibrated lens/body set 3 days later!). However, after they were calibrated, they were (are) golden. This new 35, with the firmware tweaker option, should (hopefully!) make that whole issue a thing of the past.

Plus I think they know with this new 35, if it's as good as anticipated, they'll have people itching for a new 50mm, which people will jump at once announced.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #15192332
I'm not sure I follow this. Let's say reviewers agree the Sigma is "easily as good as the Canon", and it's "only" 25% cheaper, you still wouldn't buy it? For me, if it was 1% cheaper, I'd probably spring for it. Obviously I have a lot of confidence in Sigma

It would be a tough decision to be perfectly honest. I don't mind spending the extra money and there are a couple of benefits to getting the Canon over the Sigma. Firstly, I don't particularly want to have to send the lens in due to problems (I know the QC issues are supposed to be fixed with these new lenses, but as an early adopter, I would only find out the truth in this after purchasing). Also, my local store is the only place that offers 10 months interest free payments and they can get Canon stock in a couple of days. They order Sigma lenses in when purchased and I've been told (by my fiancee who works there) that they usually take a month to arrive.

On a less important note, I am slowly building up my collection of lenses and there's something nice about having mostly Canon L lenses. I know this really isn't important, it's kind of stupid and it's definitely not as much of an issue as the points above, but it's still in the back of my mind all the same.

Yeah, that makes sense. If there are problems with the lens, it's the buyers of the first batch that are most likely to encounter them. And the bad point about the L is also a good point, in a way: it's a fairly old design. I'm sure they had any kinks ironed out long ago.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #15192756
Yeah, that makes sense. If there are problems with the lens, it's the buyers of the first batch that are most likely to encounter them. And the bad point about the L is also a good point, in a way: it's a fairly old design. I'm sure they had any kinks ironed out long ago.

That's my worry! I reckon the QC issues will most probably be fixed, but it's still a risk nonetheless..

I may have already bought the 35L if it hadn't been for conflicting reviews regarding the lens' sharpness. Some people say it's razor sharp in the centre when wide open whereas some seem to think it's generally slightly soft until stopped down. Although maybe they are referring to the corners without explicitly saying so? I've also read a few threads in the last week about the 35L where some can't praise it enough while many others had sold it on due to thinking it wasn't particularly outstanding.

Sharpness is my main concern and I can cope with CA to a degree (something which the Sigma is supposedly going to be excellent at controlling).

All (3) 35L's I have used/owned all appears to be the exact same sharpness wise... Sharp enough to be used wide open just fine. But you do get a much sharper image by f/2 or f/2.8. Not soft by any means at f/1.4... Maybe for some, though.

shep207 wrote in post #15192721
It would be a tough decision to be perfectly honest. I don't mind spending the extra money and there are a couple of benefits to getting the Canon over the Sigma. Firstly, I don't particularly want to have to send the lens in due to problems (I know the QC issues are supposed to be fixed with these new lenses, but as an early adopter, I would only find out the truth in this after purchasing). Also, my local store is the only place that offers 10 months interest free payments and they can get Canon stock in a couple of days. They order Sigma lenses in when purchased and I've been told (by my fiancee who works there) that they usually take a month to arrive.

On a less important note, I am slowly building up my collection of lenses and there's something nice about having mostly Canon L lenses. I know this really isn't important, it's kind of stupid and it's definitely not as much of an issue as the points above, but it's still in the back of my mind all the same.

This thing never came to my mind. I think you are either a serious photographer or a gear collector. If this is the first one, then you only care about a lens that will be the best for the job....

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15192790
This thing never came to my mind. I think you are either a serious photographer or a gear collector. If this is the first one, then you only care about a lens that will be the best for the job....

It depends what you mean by serious. I studied photography at college and university, I love taking photos and think I'm reasonably decent, but I've never really treated it as a profession. However, I will confess that I've always been a bit of a gear collector, and not just in photography.

As I said, if the Sigma was the better lens and no more expensive, I would get that. If it wasn't as good as, or only equal to the 35L, then I wouldn't mind spending the extra money too much (not just to have the L lens, but mainly because of the other reasons I mentioned).

Invertalon wrote in post #15192785
All (3) 35L's I have used/owned all appears to be the exact same sharpness wise... Sharp enough to be used wide open just fine. But you do get a much sharper image by f/2 or f/2.8. Not soft by any means at f/1.4... Maybe for some, though.

I just don't want to buy the 35L now and find out a month later that the Sigma is amazingly sharp wide open.. I will mostly be using this lens at 1.4 and often in low light.

Edit: Out of interest, why have you owned three 35Ls and why don't you have one currently?

Well the first one I bought used... I did not like the build quality (the covering shifted a little), so I sold it. So I got another which did the exact same thing (so it is common). So I was going to just live with it, but when I got my 5D3 the outer AF points were terrible with the 35L. I figured it was field curvature as others reported the same issue. So I sold that one. After a few months I missed it and figured I would deal with the goofy outer AF points and just use center AF if using wide open.

I bought my third brand new and it was void of any barrel movement and the outer AF points were spot on... So both issues I thought were normal before were not normal. But the 24-70 II came out like two weeks later so I went for that... I was happy with my decision but hope to get a 35 prime again one day for low light... Canon or Sigma depending on how the Sigma reviews look (and price).

But I still think the 35L renders some of the best colors out of any Canon lens I have used. Simply beautiful. All of mine were excellent wide open and never thought any were sharper than any other. I have been eyeballing the 24-70 in general and with the II getting such rave reviews I decided to sell both my 24-105 and 35L and get it. I am happy with the move. I do want that fast prime back though when I get the funds!

Fair enough, thanks for sharing.

Mookalafalas wrote in post #15192332
I'm not sure I follow this. Let's say reviewers agree the Sigma is "easily as good as the Canon", and it's "only" 25% cheaper, you still wouldn't buy it? For me, if it was 1% cheaper, I'd probably spring for it. Obviously I have a lot of confidence in Sigma

You should also consider the resale value, L glass holds it value better than Sigma lenses.