I've been trying to find opinions on the differences between the two lenses for a while but haven't really found any so I decided to make this thread.
Basically my question is as the title states. I am an owner of the original Canon 35mm f/2 and I love the lens due to it's size, focus distance, and ability in low light (fast focusing, sharp, clear, with decent bokeh on my 5Dc). It had served me well when I went abroad for half a year last year, never leaving my body and producing some of my favorite shots ever. I grew to love the length over my old 50 since it was wider allowing for more space, eventually leading to me selling it.
I am typically a one lenser, and the 35 length fits most of my needs so I am trying to figure if the Sigma is worth the extra few hundred dollars. I do also have a 24-105 f/4L, but the satisfaction I get from shooting it is pretty mixed, I only use it outdoors in the daylight.
It might be a bit of a gear lust for something new, but with the f/1.4 for the low light and possibly better bokeh I am highly intrigued. I thought about the 35L but reading so many comparisons and reviews it seems the Sigma is the clear winner for image quality and value, if you end up getting one without focusing issues.
So what are some thoughts? I would say that I am an advanced enthusiast, minimalist in gear and my goal is to just get the best results from what I have.
Is it worth an upgrade? I just want opinions from those who've used or owned both and of course it would be even better if you shoot them on FF
Thanks in advance!