Sigma 35mm 1.4, Did I miss something?

There has been TONS of talk about the Canon vs Sigma 35mm f1.4 and I feel that I have read just about everything on the net about these two lenses.
Because of the great reviews (newer, sharper, cheaper, better CA, etc), I went with the Sigma over the Canon L.
After spending some time with it, I feel like I am missing something. Yes, the Sigma is better on paper, but I feel I'm missing the "look", the "magical" aspect of the Canon L that make images look "three dimensional". All quoted terms I have seen used in reviews about the 35mm L. A quality that cannot be quantified by tests or numbers.
Anyone else have similar feelings about the Sigma after using it? Maybe I overhyped the lens in my mind after reading all the reviews? Maybe I just need to spend more time with it?

Sadly, a great number of people judge and recommend lenses based on graphs and charts of sharpness, but as you've described in your post, sharpness isn't everything in a great image. Great L glass images really do 'pop' off the screen at you, where other, more clinically sharp lenses can produce images that are just.. well.. a bit flat. It's a combination of many characteristics I think that provides the 3D pop - sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, bokeh etc, all lend a little to subject separation/isolation. And graphs just don't show this.

I had the Sigma 35A for a while, but had to get rid of it because its AF was completely inconsistent in artificial light. I couldn't rely on it. Later I looked at the 35L and the 35f2 IS, and even though the 35f2 is sharper and less prone to aberrations, I preferred the 35L.

Never owned any Sigma lenses so far.

I compared the sharpness of the Sigma 1.4 art and Canon 35L using tools online. It appears the Art is sharper wide open. Stopped down to 2.8, the two are similar.

Most user comments claim the Art is sharper. Very few discusses color renderings.

I am happy with my 35L so far, although I need a wider lens in my current gear.

I bought the sigma because I could afford it. I was under no illusion that it was "better" than the L. Sharper wide open maybe but overall I liked the photos I saw from the L more. Just couldn't justify the additional cost.

Cost wise, a 35 L used is now around $900, not much from a new 35 Art. Especially if you want to buy a dock with the Art.

I have heard of many good comments about the Art. It should be a very good choice.

I just found Canon's lenses are much more reliable in focus than sigma's. Sigma would hit in most cases but when it missed it missed bad and sometimes it was repeatable and other times it was not.

From what I understand, the 35A and 50A are very similar in every way. Based on that, here are some observations from my first month of owning the 50A vs my L glass.

--The Sigma indeed is super sharp, as all reviews say. I know my PP work isn't the best around, but I can't reproduce that kind of sharpness in Post.
--Working in PS in CS5, I have to work to get L colors out of the 50A and I can usually reproduce them pretty well. That said, I find this to be the biggest difference.
--The 50A, once micro-adjusted, offers very fast and accurate AF. Not as good as my 135 and 200Ls, but close enough where I would be OK using it on the baseline at a basketball game.
--Construction of the Art line and L series is pretty good, although the Art line doesn't offer weatherproofing. But the 35L doesn't either, right? Can't recall.
--If you have a body that offers micro-adjust, do you really need the dock? I'm not getting it.
--After the $20 rebate from Greentoe, my 50A was $768 brand new and shipped to my door. I've seen the 35A in the mid $600 range refurbished, bottoming out at like $619 from Sigma direct. How much is a refurbed 35L, like $1050ish?

I labored over Sigma A vs Canon L for months, but my decision was made for me when my low offer to Greentoe was accepted. I'm very happy with the 50A and I would do it again, although I openly prefer L colors SOOC. Also, the 50A is a nice change-of-pace piece of glass for me as it gives a different look from the Ls. Lastly, the Sigma A glass thrives doing B&W conversions because of the contrast.

There are no bad decisions between the two, just different ones IMO.

I own plenty of L glass, I sometimes prefer the look my 35A gives over that of the Ls. It does have slightly different colours, but I like it. No issue with "3d" pop from the 35A, in fact it is something many people praise about this lens, from what I recall reading and from my own experience.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #17407658
--Construction of the Art line and L series is pretty good, although the Art line doesn't offer weatherproofing. But the 35L doesn't either, right? Can't recall.
--If you have a body that offers micro-adjust, do you really need the dock? I'm not getting it.

The 35L doesn't have weather sealing either.
The dock would help where the lens is focusing spot on at a certain distance, but then is front/back focusing at another distance. Microadjust can't help you there, but the USB dock can.

the sigma is sharper but I prefer the way the 35L renders the whole image. better colors imo (sigma tends to have a green/purple tint) and smoother transitions from focused and OOF regions. For shooting objects/street scenes etc te sigma is better but I prefer the canon for shooting people because of these reasons.

say it's like the difference between glossy and matte paper..they're both good for different things but people tend to prefer one vs the other

the sigma is higher contrast, sharper, less CA..... Would be really hard to pick canon in this instance, unless the tint of sigma was severely off.

I don't have the Sigma 35 1.4 Art, but I do have the 30 1.4 Art. It's a great lens, really sharp most of the time (though focus isn't as accurate as some my other Canon glass). It has a particular was of rending colors and contrast. It looks great, and for a while I absolutely loved it. But now that I've been trying to incorporate the lens into my work, I've noticed the way it renders color and contrast requires more PP work to make it consistent with my other lenses. It's not worse--it's just different. May even be better. But for consistency sake, I'm planning to sell my Sigma 30mm and eventually replace it with a Canon 28 1.8.

I also used to shoot with a Sigma 70-200 2.8, and absolutely loved it. So I was shooting two Sigma lenses at the time. I think it was when I upgraded from Sigma 70-200 to a Canon that I began to really notice the color differences in the Sigma 30 1.4 Art.

For these reasons, I've decided that if I ever decide to get a 35 1.4, I'll go with Canon, even though so many people move the opposite way.

Rui Peixoto wrote in post #17408183
say it's like the difference between glossy and matte paper..they're both good for different things but people tend to prefer one vs the other

This is a really good way of putting it!

I'm torn on this right now. I want to add a 35mm, but I dont know which way to go. I don't want the only reason to go Sigma to be because of the price. I have heard a lot of great things about it, but also some not so great, where as the Canon seems solid all the way through. Humm...

Reverse your situation. Can you go to a store where both lens are offered and actual use both lens shooting a subject? Then ask yourself if you can justify paying the extra money for the L lens.

I haven't had any Sigma lenses so far. I have stayed with Canon and happy with Canon lenses.

Sigma art series have received a lot of glowing reviews. I have no doubt that there are excellent copies.

It's a matter of personal preferences and taste. Maybe I will give it a try in the future. Probably will borrow/rent a copy first before buying one.

The prices of Canon 1.4L and Sigma 1.4 Art are not that significant. The price differences are not $600 if one buys used copies. A used Canon 1.4L will be in the range of $900, while a used Sigma 1.4 art in the range of $750.