Canon EF 35MM f2 IS VS Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art

I'd like to discuss these two lenses and get opinions. I personally have the sigma 35 art which I really like but like to hear more about the Canon 35mm f2 from those who use it. Obviously the sigma allows more light in but is their a $350 difference there? How well is the image quality in the Canon 35mm f2? etc.. Thank you and take care.

1 stop Aperture vs 4 stop IS. 23 oz vs 12 oz. There's a lot more to compare than just the price. It really is going to greatly depend on your photography style as to what is important.

I never had the 35 art but I use to have the 30 1.4 art. I traded it for the 35 f2IS because I was thinking of going full frame. I will say between those 2 lenses IQ is about equal. but between the 35 art and 35IS I would say it comes down to you need more light ability or more portability.

I've had the art for a few years and have zero complaints.

I don't remember the specifics, but it was an easy choice. By the time I had looked around I had no interest in the Canon.

35mm is my favourite focal length for walk around and family events.

I had both of these lenses for a short time. I had the 35mm 1.4 Art which was amazingly sharp and had a nice bokeh but it had focus problems on my 5D Mark III which couldn't be fixed with micro-adjustments, so I reluctantly returned it.

I got the 35 f2 IS, which had the benefit of being small and light compared to the Art. The centre sharpness was good but not as good as the Art. The killer for me was the terrible bokeh! It's bad.

Finally I purchased a 2nd hand 35mm f1.4 L for not much more than a new 35mm f2 IS. The L is not as sharp as the Art but no problems with focus, and the bokeh is wonderful.

If your Art is working for you then it's a great choice.

What don't you like about the Sigma?
I have the Canon 35F2 IS and it gets more use than all of my other lenses. It is sharp, light, and has excellent AF. The IS lets you shoot under very low light and even with one hand holding the camera. I use it on a 6D. It has good flare resistance and I am happy with the bokeh.
Formal online testing says that the Sigma is sharper, but IS contributes to performance in this area, especially as lighting gets poor. If Canon made an F1.4 version with the same size, weight and price, I would get one. As it stands, I won't give this lens up.

artyH wrote in post #18540031
What don't you like about the Sigma?
I have the Canon 35F2 IS and it gets more use than all of my other lenses. It is sharp, light, and has excellent AF. The IS lets you shoot under very low light and even with one hand holding the camera. I use it on a 6D. It has good flare resistance and I am happy with the bokeh.
Formal online testing says that the Sigma is sharper, but IS contributes to performance in this area, especially as lighting gets poor. If Canon made an F1.4 version with the same size, weight and price, I would get one. As it stands, I won't give this lens up.

I like the sigma and it's performed like a champ for me. Only concern with sigma is when something goes wrong with the lens how you go about getting it serviced. Thanks everybody, hope all is well.

James Crockett wrote in post #18540042
I like the sigma and it's performed like a champ for me. Only concern with sigma is when something goes wrong with the lens how you go about getting it serviced. Thanks everybody, hope all is well.

I dont understand. You send it in for service like you would with any other brand. turn around in my past experience was a week to week and a half.

05Xrunner wrote in post #18540248
I dont understand. You send it in for service like you would with any other brand. turn around in my past experience was a week to week and a half.

If it's convenient to service just like Canon that's awesome. Thanks!

I have sent 2 lenses in for calibration and one that had a busted rear mount and all 3 took under 2weeks for return

I don't know about the Sigma Art lens but, I really love my 35mm f/2 IS. It is my go to low light lens...

In 5 decentred copies of the Sigma (visible on APS-C!), the bits of frame that were good were better than the Canon in both resolution and bokeh. The copy of the Canon I tried was also pretty good, again but for profound decentring (focal plane really bent at top and left). Canon service were unable to correct this. The Sigma's PD auto-focus was way less consistent than the Canon's.

Given a good copy, I'd have the Sigma. But since neither manufacturer demonstrated an ability to supply me with a merely-acceptable copy, these days I'd avoid both.

You'll find sharpness wide open the same but it would pretty much come down to a few specific things per lens.

35mm IS - Lighter, IS, better AF and slightly cheaper.

35mm Art - A stop extra light, less vignette wide open.

I love my 35 IS and if I was going to trade it for another 35mm on a Canon body, then it would be the 35L II. Although if you have a copy of the Art that has no issues with wide open performance and AF, I would recommend keeping it. Sigma make some really great lenses and if you do sell it and decide to buy one back, you may very likely not get as good of a copy the second time. I am hesitant to sell my Sigma 85mm F/1.4 EX for that reason, I may not find another copy that works as well as this one.

The Art is by a good margin better in terms of IQ. The Canon with its IS and smaller lighter size can be more versatile particularly if you travel a lot and take primes with you. That’s based on my personal experience.

ettlz wrote in post #18544930
In 5 decentred copies of the Sigma (visible on APS-C!), the bits of frame that were good were better than the Canon in both resolution and bokeh. The copy of the Canon I tried was also pretty good, again but for profound decentring (focal plane really bent at top and left). Canon service were unable to correct this. The Sigma's PD auto-focus was way less consistent than the Canon's.

Given a good copy, I'd have the Sigma. But since neither manufacturer demonstrated an ability to supply me with a merely-acceptable copy, these days I'd avoid both.

Are you saying that you had 5 copies of the Sigma 35 ART and one copy of the Canon 35 f/2 IS USM that were decentered? Hmmm. I do extensive decentering testing for all my new lenses and have so far only found one that had decentering which was returned to B&H and replaced. Your experience is certainly quite unusual. How did you test them? Did you try them on a second body to confirm that it was indeed the lenses and not some issue with your camera?