Canon 24mm 1.4 II vs Sigma 24mm 1.4 Art @ f1.4 wide open

I can't find many comparison commentaries for these two lenses when used wide open at f1.4. I already have a Canon 16-35mm f4. However, I'm considering one of these lenses for f1.4 shooting only. Which is better choice? Did anybody buy the Sigma and wish you had bought the Canon instead?

While I cannot comment on the Sigma, I will say I love my 24L II
With a multicoated ND filter you can shoot wide open even in daylight if you want.
If I had the choice to buy it again I would not trade it for something different.

Here is a sample wide open, It does exactly what I want it to.
It wipes out the background and appears sharp even at MFD

While I will say it is not as sharp as my macro lens, it serves an entire different purpose in my gear bag.

I can't find any reviews that say the Canon is better, so I'll probably get the Sigma and save half.

I've owned both and still own the 24L. Here are my own personal thoughts and opinions (your milage may vary) from a full-time event shooter:


The Sigma was sharper corner to corner @1.4 (real world you would never notice)

The Sigma had slightly more contrast straight off camera (it was close)

The Sigma needed a bunch of focus calibration and still wasn't perfect at all distances

The Canon had better color rendition straight of camera (it was close)

The Canon makes better photographs in my experience

The Canon focuses much more reliability when you have anything but good light (THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME).


Being sharp isn't always the first thing you should look at when considering certain lenses.

Is my 35mm ART sharper than my 35L? Hell yeah. Does it make better photographs when I'm shooting events and weddings? Nope. Not in my opinion. I know other people will tell you otherwise.

I would go 24mm 1.4L II ALL DAY.

sourcehill wrote in post #17707160
The Sigma needed a bunch of focus calibration and still wasn't perfect at all distances
.

What do you mean it "needed" calibration at multiple distances? I understand Sigma offers a calibration dock, but I thought the purpose of that was to render the Sigma lens that much sharper than the Canon--not because it "needs" it to be on par with the Canon.

So you're saying the Sigma multi-distance calibration dock is more of a crutch than a throttle?

The dock is a crutch to allow Sigma lenses to focus acceptably. Paying for an extra device to correct your lens on your time is not an advantage.

I have the 120-300/2.8 Sport because I want that speed with that zoom range. For $50 and 10 hours of my life, I got the 4x4 matrix of focus error corrected for my two bodies.

The lens is not as fast as the Canon 300/2.8 and it does not track fast action nearly as well. But it is accurate now, post dock, and works for what I got it to do.

That is how I characterize the dock. It's OK, but I prefer lenses that don't need it.

[QUOTE=JeffreyG;177072​33]The dock is a crutch to allow Sigma lenses to focus acceptably. Paying for an extra device to correct your lens on your time is not an advantage.

QUOTE]

If it's true the dock is more of a Band-aid, then Canon is the way to go. I wonder if anyone did a multi-distance sharpness comparison between the Sigma and Canon to test this theory empirically.

So my Sigma right out of the box was super sharp 3-5 feet away. Move to 7-8 feet away and it would start back focusing. Once I got the back focusing pretty close to were I wanted it, infinity was still thrown off so I bought the dock so I could calibrate the lens at different distances. I was happy for the most part when I dialed it in.

It still didn't focus reliably in lower light like the 24L did. I usually shoot my 24L @f2 for most events and my keeper rate has to be in the 90%. It NEVER misses focus. The Sigma would nail focus, then back focus and then front focus. There was no rhyme or reason why.

Canon doesn't give Sigma or any third-party manufacturer their 'special sauce' on how to make the EF mounts and how to communicate with the bodies. They're reverse engineered. And while I'm sure it seems like the most simple thing, no third-party lens maker has got it 100% right.

And don't get me wrong. The Sigma is a beautiful piece of glass for more than 1/2 the price AND a 4-year warranty. It's a no brainer. But if you're going to be using it to make money, just make sure you get a good copy that you can trust. EVERY lens has shortcomings. You just need to learn to work around them.

sourcehill wrote in post #17707297
So my Sigma right out of the box was super sharp 3-5 feet away. Move to 7-8 feet away and it would start back focusing. Once I got the back focusing pretty close to were I wanted it, infinity was still thrown off so I bought the dock so I could calibrate the lens at different distances. I was happy for the most part when I dialed it in.

.

OMG, I just bought a Sigma 85mm 1.4 (passed up the Canon 85mm 1.2). And it doesn't even come with a dock (no Art version yet). I hope it has consistent autofocus for different distances. You're scaring me.

No reason to be scared. There are a million people who are super happy with their Sigmas. They make GREAT lenses.

I had the 85mm 1.4 and LOVED it. I wouldn't worry. That's what warranties are for =)

Once you get the dock and nail focus you can then sell the dock on as you shouldn't need it again, takes a few hours to get it the way you want it. I can only talk from my own experience with the 35mm 1.4 lenses as I have the Canon and have sold the Sigma one a few months back.