Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG; Impressed & Disappointed (but not with the Lens)

First it is important to note that I can be a bit pretentious and am totally okay about it. I write with a Dixon Ticonderoga or Pelikan 400 only, wear BB suits (ocassionally a Hickey Freeman, and never a Jos A Bank), Apple only since I was 5 (Apple e2), as of course I love me some Canon L Glass.

So with a baby on the way I wanted to try a wider focal length than I usually use. Thought I replace my 17-40L with a 35L. I never use the 17-40 anyway; I'm more of a prime only guy (obviously given my pretentious nature). After reading various reports it seemed the sigma 35 was better and cheaper than the Canon 35L. I figured I'd try it out, find out the AF was problematic or lens was sore wide open, then move to the 35L.

Unfortunately, the reviews are correct. This lens is amazing. AF is perfect, super sharp wide open, no complaints. Except for the lack of the red ring for my camera friends to envy... Ohh well, maybe I'll get some red paint out.

I wish I did not have AF issues with (2) copies I tried... The sharpness, build quality and optical performance was just incredible.

I may try once more though, eventually. I had AF issues in artificial light where the lens would require +10 MA, yet in daylight was perfect at 0. Was a pain

Although I like my 17-40 I think I'll rent the Sigma 35 this fall and see if I could give up the 17-40. I shoot mostly natural light so maybe I'll be happy with it like the ones here who are.

Invertalon wrote in post #16188755
I had AF issues in artificial light where the lens would require +10 MA, yet in daylight was perfect at 0. Was a pain

Well I guess I can hope for such problems in the future... j/k

2cruise wrote in post #16188784
Although I like my 17-40 I think I'll rent the Sigma 35 this fall and see if I could give up the 17-40. I shoot mostly natural light so maybe I'll be happy with it like the ones here who are.

I could not give up my 17-40 for the Sigma 35. I couldn't give up the 35 for the 17-40 either. IMO they are far too different.

Sirrith wrote in post #16188806
I could not give up my 17-40 for the Sigma 35. I couldn't give up the 35 for the 17-40 either. IMO they are far too different.

You are quite right about them being different, but remember...

mjHession wrote in post #16188747
...I'm more of a prime only guy (obviously given my pretentious nature).

The silver A on the lens is just as nice as the red ring for me. This lens is beautiful. My long 135L look like a remnant from the 80's when compared.

Earwax69 wrote in post #16189030
The silver A on the lens is just as nice as the red ring for me. This lens is beautiful. My long 135L look like a remnant from the 80's when compared.

I'll try to talk the silver A up a bit (albeit to myself). As for the 135L, I appreciate it's looks even if it looks dated... I'll call it classic. Anyway, how could anyone say anything bad about that lens; it's practically perfect in every way.

mjHession wrote in post #16190268
I'll try to talk the silver A up a bit (albeit to myself). As for the 135L, I appreciate it's looks even if it looks dated... I'll call it classic. Anyway, how could anyone say anything bad about that lens; it's practically perfect in every way.

Look at it this way, the silver A is metal (at least, I think it is), the red ring is plastic. Therefore the silver A must be better