Sigma 35/F1.4 *really* worth it?

Selling my 70-300L to fund it. The money would get me the Sigma *and* a 1.4 extender so I won't lose that much reach while gaining a very nice, low light prime. But is this Sigma really as good as the hype suggests? Or better options for my 5DIII (in same price range)?

It is that good.

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yes.

Y.E.S.

I was a Sigma-hater, but I gave the S35 a chance, and it turned me into a Sigma-lover.

It is a solid performer and is notably sharper than the 35L.

Yep, and it is so good that I am planning to sell my Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. The Sigma is just sharper wide open and slightly sharper period. I think the Sigma 35 is an absolute breakthrough - best in class for less cost.

Is it worth it? In my opinion it would be "worth it" at twice the cost! Yes, it's that good.

Ok ordering it now.

Well I went with the 35L, been reading too many focusing issues with the siggy in different lighting conditions with some trying out 3-4 copies to get a decent one, although it seems many in this thread are happy..
I need reliability more so than performance and CPS will sort out any issues if there are any but I would like to try one and compare with the 35L side by side..

I refused to buy sigma due to all the issues I had read about. After trying out the sigma 35 I bought it and it hasn't left my camera since. Great lens.

Where can i find a comparison in real life pics which shows this?
So no test charts with lines or something.

Ginga wrote in post #15940348
notably sharper than the 35L.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #15941134
Where can i find a comparison in real life pics which shows this?
So no test charts with lines or something.

You're not going to see all that much difference in real-life shots, but here's some examples (first one google gave me):
http://fstoppers.com …on-l-and-sigma-comparison

And here's another in Korean. Take a look at the f/16 shots with bright light. Spectacular difference in favor of the Sigma here in my opinion.
http://lcap.tistory.co​m …m-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

Well, buyer just picked up my 70-300L... so

murkeywaters wrote in post #15940902
Well I went with the 35L, been reading too many focusing issues with the siggy in different lighting conditions with some trying out 3-4 copies to get a decent one, although it seems many in this thread are happy..

Ah, so Sigma are still hopeless at consistency and quality control then?

Have been burned twice by Sigma lenses and won't risk them again. They can be awesome if you get a good one but they are incapable of producing them with any consistency.

Vertigo1 wrote in post #15941864
Ah, so Sigma are still hopeless at consistency and quality control then?

Have been burned twice by Sigma lenses and won't risk them again. They can be awesome if you get a good one but they are incapable of producing them with any consistency.

I was apprehensive towards the lens at first, having got burned by the sgima 50 1.4 before....but went ahead and pulled the trigger to try it out myself before passing judgement.

Tested the lens rather extensively in focal. MA adjust and AF consistency indoors with incadencent light, indoors with window lighting, and outdoors. Also tested the 50L and 85L in as controls.

The results?

Sigma 35 focuses more consistently than the 85L and 50L. MA calculations (+3) were identical in all three types of lighting. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm glad I gave the lens a shot before ruling it out altogether.

It's optically better than the 35L, IMO (which I've rented on several occasion). All of the technical reviews I've read concur.

It's cheaper and optically at LEAST equal to the 35L. Of course it's worth it!