35mm lenses flare performance

I'm looking for a new ~35mm lens, and have a few requirements I thought you could help me with. Planning to use it for portraits, group shots etc. It's replacing my Canon 28mm f/1.8, and probably also a lot of use my 24-105 now gets. The 28mm 1.8 is a great lens, but not really suited for shooting with a backlight. Even with the hood on, it flares like crazy and CA when shooting on white is quite bad. It's also a little on the wide side for the purpose.

Here's what I would like in a new lens (sorted by importance descending).
- Aperture of f/2 or bigger (1.4 being the obvious target but don't wanna rule out based on that alone).
- Needs to be very flare resistant. Preferably in the ballpark of how the 17-40 behaves.
- Low CA (for on-white portraits and window shots. CA can ruin those in the hair and contrary to popular belief, this is not always easy to clean up when it's purple shining through hairs).
- AF and auto aperture (I love manual lenses but NOT for this kind of work).
- Contrasty and sharp in the center.

Here's what not so important:
- Corner to corner sharpness wide open.
- Having the fastest AF on the planet.

Right off the bat, there's currently the Canon 35L, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the Canon 35mm f/2 IS.
The first one has been the de facto option for years and years, but since I do a lot of strobist-style work with strong backlights, flare resistance and lack of CA are very important to me.

Any experiences / opinions on the 35mm f/2 IS's flare and CA performance compared to the 35L, and the same question for the Sigma.

Other recommendations are also appreciated

I can only speak to the 35L. It's probably the best lens I have ever owned--better than my 35 Summilux for my Leica and equal to the 50 Summicron. Color, contrast, sharpness cannot be better. Reviews I've read indicate the 35 f/2.0 is not as sharp or contrasty as the 35L. If you can afford it, don't compromise.

Are you sure you want a 35/1.4 lens for portraits? Sure, subject isolation is necessary but you're going to be close to your subject and this will render a very thin DoF which may make much of your subject oof. You may find that f/2.8 or f/4 are more usable. This would point me at the new 28/2.8 IS.

Another factor to consider would be the degree of focus shift as the aperture is changed. Many fast lenses are diabolical in this regard.

Your requirement for autofocus kills my suggestion of the ZE 1.4/35.... it's a wonderful portrait lens - the bokeh seems to be the smoothest I've seen. There's a caveat in that the design exhibits residual chromatic aberration - perhaps it's spherochromatism - which is important when the lens is wide open. I mention this just because the lens can be difficult to focus accurately however, monochromes images are a whole lot more tolerant of edge fringing.

noisejammer wrote in post #15571154
Are you sure you want a 35/1.4 lens for portraits? Sure, subject isolation is necessary but you're going to be close to your subject and this will render a very thin DoF which may make much of your subject oof. You may find that f/2.8 or f/4 are more usable. This would point me at the new 28/2.8 IS.

Another factor to consider would be the degree of focus shift as the aperture is changed. Many fast lenses are diabolical in this regard.

Your requirement for autofocus kills my suggestion of the ZE 1.4/35.... it's a wonderful portrait lens - the bokeh seems to be the smoothest I've seen. There's a caveat in that the design exhibits residual chromatic aberration - perhaps it's spherochromatism - which is important when the lens is wide open. I mention this just because the lens can be difficult to focus accurately however, monochromes images are a whole lot more tolerant of edge fringing.

I may not always use f/1.4 or f/2 for portraits, but I like having the option. Currently I'm usually reaching for the 24-105 at those focal lengths, which I like a lot.
When I'm shooting in direct (flash) light, the 17-40 behaves a bit better with flare though. As in - it's barely affected by it, even if the flash is in the frame.

From what I've seen, not many of the fast lenses are as good with flare resistance, but I haven't read any flare reports on the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/2 IS.

Currently I'm still leaning towards the 35L, but a major difference in flare resistance could win it for the sigma or f/2 IS.

It might seem that I'm putting too much emphasis on the flare, but it's something I come across quite a bit with my strobist-style shots, and many of those are around 35mm.
Here's a couple of shots that show the style: http://www.flickr.com …p/sets/72157628​036161554/

Michael, are you speaking of flare from the sun or a strobe reflection scattering inside a lens? This may well be a measure of the coating technology rather than the optical design. You may get some insight into this by looking for night images shot with the various lenses.

It doesn't address flare directly but there is a detailed comparison of the 35L vs the 35/1.4 Sigma at diglloyd.com under the "DAP" banner. Having studied this comparison, I judge the Sigma is considerably better than the 35L in all significant respects and the equal of the Zeiss 1.4/35 in most. I'm particularly impressed at the lack of colour fringing - even when it's wide open. Unfortunately, the site requires a subscription but I find the author's insight to be good value.

The Sigma has less CA than the 35L I believe. I haven't done any tests on flare performance, but I have taken shots at night with strong lights in the frame, here they are and you can have a look for yourself to see if they answer your questions . There was no cloning out of any flare spots during editing.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​318565800/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noobography/8​317505987/

When I had 17-40L I never used it for portraits. Same with 24-105mm f4 IS, never liked it. Here is my 35L. Like all wide primes there is CA at wider apertures but I dont care that much.

noisejammer wrote in post #15572739
Michael, are you speaking of flare from the sun or a strobe reflection scattering inside a lens? This may well be a measure of the coating technology rather than the optical design. You may get some insight into this by looking for night images shot with the various lenses.

Yes, mostly the flare from a strobe that's just outside the frame (or inside the frame) or when shooting on white, where a strong contrast between the white background (+2 stops usually) and a subject can cause some issues.

I agree with the fact that night shots should give a decent look into how a lens will act, and it's very likely that both the 35L and the Sigma behave properly.

I'll check out a few more reviews on the Sigma, but they've lost all my trust with some of their earlier lenses (dreadful 30mm 1.4 build quality and focus inconsistencies, 150-500 paint falling apart, 50-150 focusing every other attempt, 400mm no longer supported on newer bodies etc).
Probably going to look for a used 35L, or otherwise make sure the Sigma has a good warranty and return policy

Thanks so far guys. I hope to come across someone who has both these lenses and is willing to test with a bright lightsource in the frame.