35mm dilemma: 35Lv1 or 35Art?

I am "in a dot" thinking about buying a 35mm lens.

For the whole years I was thinking about 35L (the 1st version), as I liked how it renders the background when shooting at 1.4. I am aware of it's flaws, f.e. a bit of softness wide open, it's chromatic aberration. But I really liked it's creamy bokeh.
Some time ago, when the Sigma was a new lens, I've checked a lot of photos from it and I got to the conclusion that it renders the background in a very busy way, I mean, the bokeh is sharp around the edges, not as creamy as the 35L's. But I've never seen any side by side comparison tests of the two mentioned lenses. Anyways I forgot about the Sigma and left with that conviction that 35L is maybe a less sharp but a nicer rendering lens overall.

Now some time passed and I am about to finally buy that 35mm lens, but I've seen some photos and reviews of 35Art and I am a bit confused again. For example I think Sigma's bokeh is bigger on the same aperture as Canon, shooting from the same distance and focusing on the same thing.

Let's forget about the sharpness and CA aspects of both as I am pretty aware of it. I need some photos done by these two lenses showing exactly the same subject, shot the same way so I can see the real difference how each lens renders.
I am a portrait photographer so I like shooting wide open from let's say 3-5m distance and that's the photos I am looking for.

If anyone can make such comparison shots of "real world", not batteries, I will be thankful. Or maybe you know any website with such shots?

Thanks!

Pbase has a gallery of samples of the 35L f1.4 lens.
Hope it helps.
Link: http://www.pbase.com/c​ameras/canon/ef_35_14u

Paul

Well I know 35L pretty well, I was more curious if there is a side by side comparison with 35Art

I'd like to know this too. I have the 35L and I love it, but my Nikon buddy has a 35A and tells me its the best lens ever made. I'm curious to the findings of this.

I've owned both and preferred the Sigma. It was just all around a better lens.. Mine never had focusing issues either

Trevor04GT wrote in post #18259868
I'd like to know this too. I have the 35L and I love it, but my Nikon buddy has a 35A and tells me its the best lens ever made. I'm curious to the findings of this.

I had the 35A during my Nikon days. It is very sharp wide open, but the rendering can be a bit harsh for images of people and I never liked the colors. When I moved to Canon, I contemplated if get this lens again (or perhaps splurge on the 35LII), but ended up with the 35L and I love this lens. It's plenty sharp enough and the rendering, colors and bokeh just make the images look "right" for my taste. These are all great lenses though, it's a question of personal preference. If you love your 35L, I'd stick with it and not move to the 35A. I certainly won't. I'm glad Canon even has all these options (Nikon's own 35/1.4 is a dog, I tried it).

I've never had the 35L but used to have the 35Art.

Basically the 35A has noticably better image quality than the 35L but does render bokeh slightly worse, you're right. Whether that's a deal-breaker is subjective.

The other issue with the 35A, as with all the Sigmas, is the AF. Whilst good, it's just not as accurate or reliable as the Canons. This is often mentioned in reviews of the new Sigma lenses. Most of the time they're fine but they do 'miss' more often than they should and, depending on what you shoot, this could be a factor.

So they each have their pros and cons and I'm afraid no-one else can tell you which is better overally, it's down to your own priorities.

The only complete solution is the 35L II which is better than both.