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

Charlie wrote in post #16484255
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.

Unless you're in a museum or somewhere else where they don't allow tripods.

Canon it is

Thank you all.

what you want to get with this find of lens is the fantastic bokeh for portraits

i've also compared both before buying and finally went for the Sigma

shots at f/1.4 and f/1.8 on this lens are fantastic

JNowakPhoto wrote in post #16484991
Canon it is

Thank you all.

You won't regret it. Saturday i have a photo-walk in a city, and the 35 F2 IS will be glued to my 6D.

Bert_B wrote in post #16486005
You won't regret it. Saturday i have a photo-walk in a city, and the 35 F2 IS will be glued to my 6D.

Yeah. I just didnt wanna play the same Sigma lottery I did when I got my 30mm.

Bert_B wrote in post #16486005
You won't regret it. Saturday i have a photo-walk in a city, and the 35 F2 IS will be glued to my 6D.

Could you say what you think of the 28 1.8 vs the 35 f2IS ?
Thanks !

Nemofoto wrote in post #16486714
Could you say what you think of the 28 1.8 vs the 35 f2IS ?
Thanks !

28 1.8 is an absolute dog. Soft till about f/2.8. Horrible CA and low contrast at all apertures. Probably the worst cost-performance ratio of any lens Canon still manufactures.

JNowakPhoto wrote in post #16483795
WOuld be used as a 90% on camera lens. Low light mostly.

Static subjects then the Canon. Moving...Siggy all the way. The extra stop in low light really does help.

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.

Yes, but you can shoot the same moving objects at a lower ISO with a 1.4 lens.

I have a Canon 35mm f2 I'll sell you for $210 shipped.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

smooth3000 wrote in post #16487060
I have a Canon 35mm f2 I'll sell you for $210 shipped.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMG_0873 by tienphotographyICT, on Flickr

Pretty sure he's buying the newer IS version.

Ooops, I just noticed that haha

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

That's awesome.:p

Nemofoto wrote in post #16486714
Could you say what you think of the 28 1.8 vs the 35 f2IS ?
Thanks !

Optically, the 28 1.8 is not bad at all. I gets sharp starting from 2.2. But i prefer the 35 mm FOV. It's also nicer for taking pictures of people or close-up portraits (less distortion, no big nose syndrom). And the IS is a very nice addition sometimes.
I want to sell my 28 1.8, and complement this prime with a 24 mm, or perhaps if Canon releases an update of theirs 20 F2.8 so it comes in line with their new primes, i think this will make a nice walk-around combintation.

Bert_B wrote in post #16487888
Optically, the 28 1.8 is not bad at all. I gets sharp starting from 2.2. But i prefer the 35 mm FOV. It's also nicer for taking pictures of people or close-up portraits (less distortion, no big nose syndrom). And the IS is a very nice addition sometimes.
I want to sell my 28 1.8, and complement this prime with a 24 mm, or perhaps if Canon releases an update of theirs 20 F2.8 so it comes in line with their new primes, i think this will make a nice walk-around combintation.

Thanks !
Il think I'll definitely go for the 35 f2 IS while I have a 50 1.4 already. These two focal lenghts seem quite different to me. I hope I won't regret it !