Would you replace your Sigma 35A with the RF-35mm 1.8 IS Macro?

Curious as to what others think about making this swap on the R5 body.

I do like almost everything about the Sigma 35, except it's size/weight, which is further exaggerated by having to use the EF to R-mount adapter. It's an odd feeling to be shooting 35mm with a lens the size of the 100L, but heavier. The RF 35 obviously adds the benefits of reduced lens size, reduced overall camera/lens footprint because I can get rid of the adapter, image stabilization, and "semi" macro capability. Not to mention, if I sold the Sigma, I'd basically put money in my pocket after the swap.

Funny, but I just bought a Sigma 35mm Art instead of the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. I dunno, I always wanted to try a Sigma Art lens. Now seemed like a good time, since my EOS R's autofocus would be much better with a Sigma lens than my old 5D (Mk 1). The RF 35mm looks decent, and it's small and compact too, but I wasn't wowed. So far, I am impressed with the Sigma, although I haven't been shooting too much lately. It has been bitterly cold here, so I'm hibernating.

I never owned the Sigma, but do have the RF 35mm and like the lens. I did do a similar swap with 50mm lenses, though -- selling my Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L after buying the RF 50mm f/1.8. I never shot the 50L wide open, was happy with the results from the smaller/lighter RF lens, and selling the 50L more than covered the cost of the RF 50mm.

Dillan_K wrote in post #19320814
Funny, but I just bought a Sigma 35mm Art instead of the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. I dunno, I always wanted to try a Sigma Art lens. Now seemed like a good time, since my EOS R's autofocus would be much better with a Sigma lens than my old 5D (Mk 1). The RF 35mm looks decent, and it's small and compact too, but I wasn't wowed. So far, I am impressed with the Sigma, although I haven't been shooting too much lately. It has been bitterly cold here, so I'm hibernating.

The Sigma is surely a great lens. I used it successfully for many weddings, and particularly in low-light situations at the receptions. When I initially purchased years ago, I believe my only other mainstream 35mm choices were the EF-35 f/2 and the 35L v.1. The 35 f/2 specs and charts did not impress me, and the 35L was at least twice the price of the Sigma but with it's own issues (if I recall correctly the major complaints were excessive flaring, CA, edge softness, and focus shifting). Sigma's main concerns were inaccurate AF, but having the Sigma dock and a camera body with MFA, the Sigma made more sense back then.

Now, my main use of the 35mm focal length is as a walkaround daytrip/night-out type of lens. With the Sigma, I feel like I was already compromising practical use because of the size/weight, but even more so that I now have to use the EF to R-mount adapter. It feels like I'm holding a mini-bazooka, which is borderline absurd for a 35mm lens. So as my use has changed, a smaller profile 35mm makes more sense. The added benefit of a small footprint, semi-macro capability, and IS has me leaning away from the Sigma for now.

I am going to use the Sigma as a walk around lens, much as you describe. The RF 35mm would be more practical, but I bought the Sigma as an experiment. Other than my 300mm f/4L IS, all the lenses I own are the small, inexpensive Canon non-L primes. This is a chance for me to try something different. I debated getting this lens or the Sigma 50mm Art for years, but I never went for it due to the focusing issues. With the EOS R, the lens works really well. It's nice and sharp too.

I think the 35mm focal length will be perfect for my intentions. Previous to this lens, I've walked around with my venerable EF 50mm f/1.4 glued to my camera. The idea of the 35mm, for me, is to have a good lens with me for taking photos of my family when we're out having fun. A 35mm is a little wider, so it will give me a little more of the setting we're in. The Sigma fits in my bag nearly as well as the 50mm f/1.4. It'll occupy the same slot. It'll just weight 2/3 lbs. more. I think I can live with that. It could have been worse: I was considering the Tamron 35mm f/1.4 too, and that is bigger and weighs 1/3 more!

I can certainly see why you might be considering replacing the Sigma. The RF 35mm is a fine example of what most of the non-L primes are: small, light, useful prime lenses. They're all nearly everyone needs, really. I'm still half-way convinced that I should have gone with the RF myself.