Help me chose 35 f/2 IS vs Sigma 35 f/1.4

So I'm back in the market for a 35mm lens. I just aquired a 6D and am wondering which I should get. Do I really need f/1.4? IDK. Do I really need IS? IDK either.

The Canon is $300+ cheaper. It is lighter/smaller.
The Siggy is amazing if you get a good copy.

It would help to know what type of shots you usually take.

If you don't mind the weight the sigma is an awesome lens.

Sigma definitely... But I haven't used the canon

WOuld be used as a 90% on camera lens. Low light mostly.

jjaenagle wrote in post #16483780
Sigma definitely... But I haven't used the canon

...

F/2 and IS work just fine for me plus there's Canons overall quality. Also the price difference was a no, no for me.

I've been looking at these two. The Canon seems to be the perfect lens for video with its IS. And also for shooting non-moving subjects on low light. There's also the significant cost savings.

Heya,

I struggled between both Sigma and Canon for a new prime. I went Sigma first. Optics are top notch. Problem was autofocus was messed up. Went through the dance with the USB dock. Still didn't get it quite right. Had to send it back. Lost the Sigma gamble. Went with the new 35mm f2 IS from Canon. Focuses every time. Looks just as sharp to me.

The EF 35mm is sharp at F2, which is wide open for that lens. The IS is useful in low light and I have tested it and it really does help (for me).

In my mind it comes down to the aperture. Do you need f1.4? If so, then there's no option, you get the one with f1.4. But if you know you're going to be shooting real world closer to F2 or F2.2, then I really would say get the Canon.

Good luck with your copy and autofocus, if you get the Sigma.

Very best,

Jerobean wrote in post #16483829
...

I hear you but this is POTN . I rented both and bought the canon, but it was close and before the big price drop.

frugivore wrote in post #16483938
I've been looking at these two. The Canon seems to be the perfect lens for video with its IS. And also for shooting non-moving subjects on low light. There's also the significant cost savings.

you can shoot moving objects with an F2 lens, especially with today's sensors. I would have thought you knew that.

ed rader wrote in post #16484017
you can shoot moving objects with an F2 lens, especially with today's sensors. I would have thought you knew that.

I was referring to the ability to shoot well below a user's hand-holdable shutter speed (e.g. 1/2s or 1s). You can do that with the Canon but not with the Sigma.

But I agree with your point. The one stop difference can be made up with a higher ISO if you need a faster shutter speed.

I was on the fence, but went with the Sigma. No problems with AF even in low light, and I doubt you can beat the sharpness. I almost went with the Canon due to the IS.

I'm thinking you can't go wrong either way.

They are both fantastic lenses. You need to decide what kind of shooting you are mostly into.

If you think you appreciate the IS you should go for the Canon. It's especially handy in video and shooting sceneries hand held. Some say it's slightly faster to lock focus than Sigma 35. And as you said, Canon is cheaper, lighter and smaller.

However personally I would go for the Sigma. You get one full stop more of light, slightly sharper lens and it also creates more blur which leads more of those 3D images (plenty of examples @ lens sample thread). They are both very sharp lenses, but the Sigma really is one of the sharpest lenses around. In addition IS is not going to help you with motion blur and I can easily handhold the Sigma at 1/35 shutter speeds or less. If you are worried about focus problems: don't be. You have the 6D, it has sensational dim light focus capabilities. The latest firmware for Sigma 35 has improved the AF even further (you need the dock to install it, imo worth the money). If you happen to be the small minority with focus problems fine tuning the lens with the dock works really great. And it's easy. I just urge not to listen for some loud members of the community who keep bashing on Sigma 35's focus capabilities. They probably never even tried the Sigma...

You should check the lens sample threads here and here to help make up your mind. Good luck in your decision

LV Moose wrote in post #16484180
I'm thinking you can't go wrong either way.

+1. DXOMark seems to agree with this as well.

if money and weight are no issues, sigma. That extra stop doesnt come at a huge premium and sets the siggy apart. At worst, you can use a tripod to stabilize your shots.