Photozone review of the sigma 35mm

this is the review photozone did on the 35S and they confirm what most of us knew before... it's better then the canon 35L

http://www.photozone.d​e …os_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff

And the point of the post?

Thorrulz wrote in post #16331987
And the point of the post?

entertainment value. nothing like a good sigma 35 vs canon 35 thread to get the blood pumping

gnome chompski wrote in post #16331990
entertainment value. nothing like a good sigma 35 vs canon 35 thread to get the blood pumping

Kind of what I figured the post was about.

Thank you for posting this. I was not aware it was done. I really trust photozone mtf numbers as it matches my experience with my prior lenses.

Yes. The sigma is sharp as crap

Thorrulz wrote in post #16331987
And the point of the post?

It's not like its the first time a photozone review notification thread was started.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16331987
And the point of the post?

Let people know the Sigma is a great lens and yet another site agrees. Is that hard to comprehend?

Hogloff wrote in post #16332131
Let people know the Sigma is a great lens and yet another site agrees. Is that hard to comprehend?

I think he was being sarcastic. (is that hard to comprehend?)

Interesting that the Canon mount is a bit sharper at 1.4 in the center but the Nikon mount seems to maintain sharpness towards the edges. Probably of little to no significance in real world applications though.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16331987
And the point of the post?

Just to let people know it's out, I know many people including myself find their results very reliable.
The entertainment factor is nice too... just kidding....kinda

I'm actually on the verge of ordering one of these right now. . . . of course if I buy it I'll be buying the dock as well. . . .

Canon 35 f/2 IS is a better buy though in that focal length. Cheaper, better OOF specular highlights, has IS and is sharp as heck.

What it isn't is f/1.4 nor does it potentially need a separate purchase of a dock to dial in up to 4 separate distances to achieve correct focus.

There's my review comparison for Hogloff. All others can take my sarcasm fwiw, which like Hoggy's sense of humor isn't much.

I thought that's a known fact since the day the Sigma was released?

Thorrulz wrote in post #16332229
Canon 35 f/2 IS is a better buy though in that focal length. Cheaper, better OOF specular highlights, has IS and is sharp as heck.

What it isn't is f/1.4 nor does it potentially need a separate purchase of a dock to dial in up to 4 separate distances to achieve correct focus.

There's my review comparison for Hogloff. All others can take my sarcasm fwiw, which like Hoggy's sense of humor isn't much.

Not sure if you owned 35is before but i did. And honestly i am not sure if Canon did it intentionally or not but the lens color rendition is just subpar. Sharp but cinical and lifeless lens. The color is definetely not at L standard.

vaflower wrote in post #16332333
Not sure if you owned 35is before but i did. And honestly i am not sure if Canon did it intentionally or not but the lens color rendition is just subpar. Sharp but cinical and lifeless lens. The color is definetely not at L standard.

interesting... I haven't heard that before
Anyone else had the same experience?

Nope. Color is typical Canon, with sharp photos and good contrast. People used to describe the old MF Sigma 50 macro in the same terms. The 35IS is not an L, but it is a fine lens. I do not know what "clinical" means.