Canon 35L vs Sigma 35 Art

I have noticed that recent used pricing of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L is equal if not a tad lower than the Sigma 35 Art. I am looking to upgrade from my Sigma 30MM F1.4 which one would you choose?

Heya,

Well, I chose a 35 F2 IS over the 35L MKI, as I wanted IS on top of great optics, it cost me a stop of light, but that's fine for me. The 35L MKI is an aged lens. It's good mind you, but it's not the best thing out there at 35mm anymore, there's a lot of options. There's 35 F2 IS, 35 F1.8 VC, 35L, 35L II, 35A, and that's just with autofocus.

The Sigma 35 A is an outstanding piece of glass, better than the 35L MKI in every way that is critical really.

And now the 35L II is out and about, so the 35L will slowly fall as it's replaced and discontinued. And the Sigma 35A will remain.

Choose what you need.

While the Sigma is the favorable lens here, personally, I returned my Sigma because I was tired of fooling with the USB dock and trying to get it's focus correct. But that was just my experience.

*************

I went with a 30 F1.4 A early on. Tried the 35L. Eventually though, the 35 F2 IS was available, and that's where I ended up. I wanted it for a lot of reasons, one of which was low light indoor use both on APS-C, APS-H and full frame (as I have all of those, 5+ cameras). I wanted the fast USM AF. I wanted fast aperture, but I had to compromise F1.4 or F2 with stabilization. Ultimately I'm happy with the 35 F2 IS with it's stabilization.

I can handhold 2.5 seconds with this thing (making it great for walk around, travel, museum, dark indoors on still life stuff):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AaPf​v7

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG

if you're still on a crop, you could look at the sigma 18-35 f1.8...i know it's not as fast, but it's got a lot of other things going for it...

I have a 17-55 f2.8is that I love. But want a prime for indoors that I can move to FF in the future.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17793540
Heya,

Well, I chose a 35 F2 IS over the 35L MKI, as I wanted IS on top of great optics, it cost me a stop of light, but that's fine for me. The 35L MKI is an aged lens. It's good mind you, but it's not the best thing out there at 35mm anymore, there's a lot of options. There's 35 F2 IS, 35 F1.8 VC, 35L, 35L II, 35A, and that's just with autofocus.

The Sigma 35 A is an outstanding piece of glass, better than the 35L MKI in every way that is critical really.

And now the 35L II is out and about, so the 35L will slowly fall as it's replaced and discontinued. And the Sigma 35A will remain.

Choose what you need.

While the Sigma is the favorable lens here, personally, I returned my Sigma because I was tired of fooling with the USB dock and trying to get it's focus correct. But that was just my experience.

*************

I went with a 30 F1.4 A early on. Tried the 35L. Eventually though, the 35 F2 IS was available, and that's where I ended up. I wanted it for a lot of reasons, one of which was low light indoor use both on APS-C, APS-H and full frame (as I have all of those, 5+ cameras). I wanted the fast USM AF. I wanted fast aperture, but I had to compromise F1.4 or F2 with stabilization. Ultimately I'm happy with the 35 F2 IS with it's stabilization.

I can handhold 2.5 seconds with this thing (making it great for walk around, travel, museum, dark indoors on still life stuff):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/AaPf​v7 IMG_5890 by Martin Wise, on Flickr

Otherwise, it's one of my go-to indoor lenses.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/zNL7​kG 225H7332_mark by Martin Wise, on Flickr

Very best,

I also have and love my Canon 35mm f/2 IS. The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC seems to better it a bit based on the reviews and comparisons I've read. And of course its 1/3 stop faster. From what I've read the Tamron's AF is almost as consistent as the Canon 35 f/2 IS, which is to say more consistent then the Sigma 35. The Tamron is said to be much better than the 17 year old Canon 35mm f/1.4L at a much lower price.

mwsilver wrote in post #17793604
I also have and love my Canon 35mm f/2 IS. The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC seems to better it a bit based on the reviews and comparisons I've read. And of course its 1/3 stop faster. From what I've read the Tamron's AF is almost as consistent as the Canon 35 f/2 IS, which is to say more consistent then the Sigma 35. The Tamron is said to be much better than the 17 year old Canon 35mm f/1.4L at a much lower price.

Most new lenses are going to be better than Canon's old 35L mkI. No question about it.

If Tamron's 35 F1.8 VC is truly better than Canon's 35 F2 IS, I'd be impressed. I use a lot of Tamron as it is, including the 90mm F2.8 VC and the 150-600 VC. That 90mm VC rivals the 100L. Tamron can certainly do it. That said, I won't trade in the 35 F2 IS for the Tamron, since there's not enough of an increase to warrant anything on my end. If it were 1.4, in a heartbeat, I'd consider it. But at F1.8, there's no gain in my book for what I do.

Very best,

I bought and returned a 50 art. I could not get consistent focusing with it. Friend has a 35 Art permanently attached to his 6D as far as I can tell and had no issues with focusing at all.

I think if you're looking for a 1.4 35mm Art, you should start with the Sigma, it's damn close to the 35L in performance and half the price. However, you should be prepared that if you can't get consistent focusing, you may have to reevaluate your choice.

I'll also toss out some love to the 35 f/2 IS. I recently acquired one, and have to say it stays on the camera a good bit of the time. The IS is very handy for what I shoot.

That's the thing, used pricing are the same for the 35L and 35 Art lens at this moment. I have a 60D so iso sucks past 800-1000. I am looking for a prime that i can use indoors with under 1000 iso so thinking f1.4 is better than f/2 is.

muskyhunter wrote in post #17793889
That's the thing, used pricing are the same for the 35L and 35 Art lens at this moment. I have a 60D so iso sucks past 800-1000. I am looking for a prime that i can use indoors with under 1000 iso so thinking f1.4 is better than f/2 is.

You may not want to hear this, but I'll say it just in case, flash is a better answer. Even if it's just a bounce off the roof and subtle fill.

While you get 1 stop of light (1 less stop of ISO needed for same exposure & settings) at F1.4 compared to F2, you have new issues to deal with: focusing at F1.4 in dark enough conditions to need ISO 800 and F1.4 at a slow enough shutter speed to not blur but still gather light, such as 1/50s or so at this focal length on APS-C. I would actually borrow/rent a F1.4 lens and try this a few times before you commit to something. You may find you do not like how often you get out of focus images due to the depth of field in a dark house not being able to land perfect focus due to minor shifts of subjects in very thin depth of field. Just a thought. I just use flash indoors. The above image of my daughter at the table, that was just flash bounced off a wall at dinner.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17793698
Most new lenses are going to be better than Canon's old 35L mkI. No question about it.

If Tamron's 35 F1.8 VC is truly better than Canon's 35 F2 IS, I'd be impressed. I use a lot of Tamron as it is, including the 90mm F2.8 VC and the 150-600 VC. That 90mm VC rivals the 100L. Tamron can certainly do it. That said, I won't trade in the 35 F2 IS for the Tamron, since there's not enough of an increase to warrant anything on my end. If it were 1.4, in a heartbeat, I'd consider it. But at F1.8, there's no gain in my book for what I do.

Very best,

Agree. The Canon 35 f/2 IS is a great lens and I'm not selling mine anytime soon. But if I we both were making the decision to buy today the Tamron seems to be a much more attractive package for the same price. All metal construction with a lens hood included, Extreme close focusing with high magnification, 1/3 stop faster, and a nicer focus ring with a 190 degree throw. The Tamron reviews I've read, including direct comparisons to the 35mm f/2 IS, indicate its also marginally sharper. If the Tamron AF is as consistent as the Canon's it might be a tough decision, however. I do like the smaller size and lighter weight of the Canon.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17793901
You may not want to hear this, but I'll say it just in case, flash is a better answer. Even if it's just a bounce off the roof and subtle fill.

While you get 1 stop of light (1 less stop of ISO needed for same exposure & settings) at F1.4 compared to F2, you have new issues to deal with: focusing at F1.4 in dark enough conditions to need ISO 800 and F1.4 at a slow enough shutter speed to not blur but still gather light, such as 1/50s or so at this focal length on APS-C. I would actually borrow/rent a F1.4 lens and try this a few times before you commit to something. You may find you do not like how often you get out of focus images due to the depth of field in a dark house not being able to land perfect focus due to minor shifts of subjects in very thin depth of field. Just a thought. I just use flash indoors. The above image of my daughter at the table, that was just flash bounced off a wall at dinner.

Very best,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I'd rather have an old rebel, a nifty fifty, and a cheap manual flash for indoor photography than any combination of cameras and lens without a flash no matter how much they cost. There is simply no substitute for quality light.

vengence wrote in post #17793716
I bought and returned a 50 art. I could not get consistent focusing with it. Friend has a 35 Art permanently attached to his 6D as far as I can tell and had no issues with focusing at all.

I think if you're looking for a 1.4 35mm Art, you should start with the Sigma, it's damn close to the 35L in performance and half the price. However, you should be prepared that if you can't get consistent focusing, you may have to reevaluate your choice.

I'll also toss out some love to the 35 f/2 IS. I recently acquired one, and have to say it stays on the camera a good bit of the time. The IS is very handy for what I shoot.

Yes the 35mm f/2 IS is very underrated, probably because its up against lenses that are a stop faster. When it was introduced at $850 USD it was overpriced in spite of it having stellar optics and IS. That lens can be had today for $599 and often for as little as $549 with a $50 manufacturers rebate. At $550 this lenses is a great value. The new Tamron, at the same price, may give it stiff competition.

vengence wrote in post #17794166
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here. I'd rather have an old rebel, a nifty fifty, and a cheap manual flash for indoor photography than any combination of cameras and lens without a flash no matter how much they cost. There is simply no substitute for quality light.

That's true about quality light, but cheap flashes won't provide it and may not illuminate the subject and surrounding area properly. Additionally, I photograph in a lot of venues where I couldn't use a flash, cheap or otherwise. Beyond that you are suggesting that the results from a $100 nifty fifty on an old rebel will be equal to the better lenses discussed here on better bodies. I'd have to disagree with you on that.

35L II > 35 IS > 35L > Sigma 35A

mwsilver wrote in post #17794171
Yes the 35mm f/2 IS is very underrated, probably because its up against lenses that are a stop faster. When it was introduced at $850 USD it was overpriced in spite of it having stellar optics and IS. That lens can be had today for $599 and often for as little as $549 with a $50 manufacturers rebate. At $550 this lenses is a great value. The new Tamron, at the same price, may give it stiff competition.

With a coupon code, I was able to get a refurb 35 f/2 IS for $407.99. Really a nice lens!