Sigma vs Canon 35 1.4

I might regret asking this.

I tested these two lenses just yesterday.

I took 4-5 test shots focusing (single point) on the same point each time and refocusing on a distant object between each shot.

With the Sigma, on average 50% of them were sharp.. there were always missed focuses.
(shooting at 1/250)

Interestingly, this is similar to my experience with the multiple Sigma 30mm 1.4s that I've owned.

With the Canon 35L, I had NO missed focuses.

Even the salesperson was intrigued by this. And even tho online tests show the Sigma to be sharper, what good is this if it's not focusing consistently?

Anyway.. rant over. I'll just save up a little more for the Canon.

Which body?

bobbyz wrote in post #17280421
Which body?

That doesn't matter because he was experiencing a "sigmadud" experience

The fact that the 35L was more consistent indicates its a lens issue and not the body.

OP, you should have tried a different copy just for giggles. Having misses and sharp photos is a good indication that the AF isn't working well. If all of your images were soft that would indicate front orback focus issues.

This is why I've kept my 35L because I have no doubt in my mind when I shoot with it I land the shot with extremely high keeper rate. The sharpness is decent but lacks the micro contrast of the Art 35mm. But for me on print this matters very little to clients/friends etc. On the IPS panel or cheaper TN panel monitors the 35L is definitely sharp enough with no compromise.

Its just the 35L has a different look compared to the 35 ART.

while I'm no fan of sigma I did rent the 35f1.4 and I got a better hit rate than that. but I used the lens in a variety of conditions over several days.

I agree that ring USM is the best but my problem with the 35L -- and I have owned it -- is it doesn't get sharp by TODAY's standards until f2. I also tested the canon 35 f2 IS and in the end it was close between it and the sigma but I stuck with the canon because I had no IS in short lenses and I wanted the smaller lens.

sharpness is overrated if its in focus thats all i care about. id take a uniquely rendered image over tack sharpness any day but missing focus is unacceptable though

My Sigma 35 worked my Canon 35L so I sold the 35L. I remember getting the Sigma in the mail and taking shots of my daughter in backyard at 1.4 and boxing up the Canon to put for sale an hour later.
I had a tough time selling it used for less than $1k.
Sigma 35 is always consistent near, far doesn't matter. I guess I got lucky. Sharpness for me is not overrated, I love how sharp it is at 1.4 even though I like to shoot at 2.0 for extra dof because of my constantly moving kids. For what it's worth I'm by far no pro, just a dad with a cam. Try another copy.

Yeah, I should have tried a 2nd copy. Finding a consistent one would be ideal. Another shop said they'd call me when one comes in.. I should do the same A/B there.

Brian_R; Totally.

Mine has as good a hit rate as my Canon lenses (although they are not fast primes)

Brian_R wrote in post #17280579
sharpness is overrated if its in focus thats all i care about. id take a uniquely rendered image over tack sharpness any day but missing focus is unacceptable though

Uniquely rendered? Let's keep the biased hyperbole out of an otherwise useful statement

I'd suggest saving up a little more for the Canon too.

The Canon does actually have better looking bokeh, in my opinion. So that's worth more to me in a ultra-wide aperture lens than sharpness. If I want the sharpness, I'll use the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II over both the Sigma and and Canon 35mm f/1.4 prime lenses.

Dan Kearley wrote in post #17280252
I might regret asking this.

I tested these two lenses just yesterday.

I took 4-5 test shots focusing (single point) on the same point each time and refocusing on a distant object between each shot.

With the Sigma, on average 50% of them were sharp.. there were always missed focuses.
(shooting at 1/250)

Interestingly, this is similar to my experience with the multiple Sigma 30mm 1.4s that I've owned.

With the Canon 35L, I had NO missed focuses.

Even the salesperson was intrigued by this. And even tho online tests show the Sigma to be sharper, what good is this if it's not focusing consistently?

Anyway.. rant over. I'll just save up a little more for the Canon.

I had the same result when I tried out a Sigma 35 at my local store. Ended up getting a second hand 35L for just a tad more than the new Sigma. It blows me away every time I use it.

Owned a 35 L a few years ago, but sold it. It was nice to have f/1.4 if needed, but I had to stop this lens down to around f/2 to get good sharpness.

Later, I decided to replace it with another 35mm prime. I tried the Sigma 35 Art and the Canon 35 f/2 IS, and ended up keeping the Canon for the lighter weight, lower cost, IS and more accurate AF.

Dan Kearley wrote in post #17280252
With the Sigma, ... there were always missed focuses.
(shooting at 1/250)

Dan Kearley wrote in post #17280593
Finding a consistent one would be ideal.

i'm confused, first you are saying it was consistent, then you say it wasn't.

I have both and hit rate is almost same. This is on 5dmk3. Look wise, typical sigma vs canon difference. Both plenty sharp at f1.4. Here @f2 for looks difference:

hes gone wrote in post #17281071
=he's gone;17281071]i'm confused, first you are saying it was consistent, then you say it wasn't.

Sorry; I'm saying the Sigma wasn't consistent and that I wish I could find a consistent one.