Sigma 30 f/1.4 versus Canon 35mm f/1.4L

Yeah I'm just down to the Sigs (30 vers 50) and the Canon 50 1.4. I've been borrowing the Canon 50 1.4 for the past two years and have used it heavily. It's small and nice to use but I hate two things:
a.) sticky/slow focusing ring
b.) slow focus speed

My borrowed copy had no issues with softness or sharpness - if it does, I haven't noticed any!

Just a note on the 28 1.8 - I liked mine better than my 35L, and the 28 1.8 has less CA, for the record. The big plus it has over the sigma is a really close focusing distance (Sigma's is quite long), but the 35L has that advantage too. The 35L's bokeh also smokes the 28 1.8.

IMO all the online reviews I read about the 28 1.8 were flat out wrong - and I know a few members on this forum agree with me on that. It was a gem of a lens. Great AF, sharp even wide open, and a good price too. Massively underrated lens.

I used to recommend the Sigma all the time based on what I had read, but I tried a couple this year and I wasn't impressed. Soft in the corners (even the 35 f/2 smoked it in IQ) and the MFD was irritating. Didn't handle as nicely as the Canons for me.

I also owned the 50 1.4, and you pretty much hit on its weak points.

But since you're on a cropped, the 24L might be sweet if it's the right focal length for you.

I have the 35L- it is without doubt the greatest value for money lens i have come accross. Bottom line is, do your research- check out what the lens can do in terms of image archives or tests if you like that kind of thing- if you can afford the lens of choice then buy it. There is no point in buying a lens you cannot afford or are too afraid to take it out in the field next time your feeling creative-You have to use your equipment otherwise there is no point in having it.
The main points for me buying the 35L were corner sharpness having just gone FF, flare control, wide open sharpness, quality control, build quality, bokeh smoothness and potential resale value, the 35L checked all the boxes so i bought it- infact i view it as one of three great canon primes 35L 135L and 85L.
I did consider the Sigma, but the chatter on here about quality control made it a no-brainer. One downside on the 35L is the AF- its quite slow.
There is no right or wrong answer, it is what you feel comfortable with- if you can you should get out and test the lenses for yourself- Best of luck with your purchase.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #7098719
I have the 35L- it is without doubt the greatest value for money lens i have come accross.

I couldn't disagree more with this. To argue that any L prime is among the 'greatest value for money' is ridiculous. It's a nice lens (I didn't like it) but in terms of value for money, it would be near the bottom of my list, with the 85 1.8 way up at the top.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #7098719
One downside on the 35L is the AF- its quite slow.

What?! I've never heard anybody say that! I assumed it was just as fast as the 85 f/1.8, and nearly as fast as the 135mm f/2L and the 70-200 f/2.8L, since they all have excellent ring USM designs.

perryge wrote in post #7098742
I couldn't disagree more with this. To argue that any L prime is among the 'greatest value for money' is ridiculous. It's a nice lens (I didn't like it) but in terms of value for money, it would be near the bottom of my list, with the 85 1.8 way up at the top.

Perry, I have to respectfully disagree. I think good glass is an investment and a darn good one. Canon unlike say Hasselblad Zeiss and Leica M has a inexpensive line of glass, not Ls. Some of Canons Ls are rated as high as some of the previous mentioned lenses. So the value is in the quality. I think the 35L is a great lens and is the one lens I could shoot almost everything with. Thats not to say its my favorite its just that if I had to feed the family with one L prime I could probably shoot everything with the 35L. If you compare the price of some of the other great glass like the Leica M 35 1.4 aspherical or the Hasselblad 50mm FLE CF lens the Canon 35L is a bargain...

I wouldn't put the 30 1.4 in that class...


Oh and the focus is NOT slow...

I agree with perry. Id go with the canon 28. Wish i still had mine. In fact im gonna get another one......

airfrogusmc wrote in post #7098948
Perry, I have to respectfully disagree. I think good glass is an investment and a darn good one. Canon unlike say Hasselblad Zeiss and Leica M has a inexpensive line of glass, not Ls. Some of Canons Ls are rated as high as some of the previous mentioned lenses. So the value is in the quality. I think the 35L is a great lens and is the one lens I could shoot almost everything with. Thats not to say its my favorite its just that if I had to feed the family with one L prime I could probably shoot everything with the 35L. If you compare the price of some of the other great glass like the Leica M 35 1.4 aspherical or the Hasselblad 50mm FLE CF lens the Canon 35L is a bargain...

I wouldn't put the 30 1.4 in that class...

Oh and the focus is NOT slow...

Yawn. What an L fanatic.

Airfrog, that may be the case if you do this for a living, but even then, I would think that a professional would want to cut costs whenever possible.

The only L primes I would classify, IMO, as great value for money, are the 135L, 200 2.8L, and 300 f/4L/400 5.6L. The rest may be phenomenal lenses, but they are also bloody expensive. I mean, I love my 85L II and it's the last lens I'd ever get rid of, but there's no way in hell it's anywhere near as good value for money as the 85 1.8.

perryge wrote in post #7099395
Airfrog, that may be the case if you do this for a living, but even then, I would think that a professional would want to cut costs whenever possible.

The only L primes I would classify, IMO, as great value for money, are the 135L, 200 2.8L, and 300 f/4L/400 5.6L. The rest may be phenomenal lenses, but they are also bloody expensive. I mean, I love my 85L II and it's the last lens I'd ever get rid of, but there's no way in hell it's anywhere near as good value for money as the 85 1.8.

I'd agree. As much as I hate my 75-300mm f/4.5-56 III USM I think it's a better bang for your buck than say the 800mm. Of course that's no to say I would buy it again, as informed as I am now, but still.

perryge wrote in post #7099395
Airfrog, that may be the case if you do this for a living, but even then, I would think that a professional would want to cut costs whenever possible.

The only L primes I would classify, IMO, as great value for money, are the 135L, 200 2.8L, and 300 f/4L/400 5.6L. The rest may be phenomenal lenses, but they are also bloody expensive. I mean, I love my 85L II and it's the last lens I'd ever get rid of, but there's no way in hell it's anywhere near as good value for money as the 85 1.8.

I'd agree. As much as I hate my 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 III USM I think it's a better bang for your buck than say the 800mm. Of course that's no to say I would buy it again, as informed as I am now, but still.

^^ Haha, woops.

Come on people, lets not take this thread down the "which L lens is good value/if L is even good value" - there is already a thread for that!

I've been set on the 35L for a long time, but the economy and $$ constraints require me to cut corners. Priority falls on getting a few more strobes, more Pocket Wizards, and building a massive sun diffuser panel. So once I get my lights, I might buy the 85 f/1.8 - I don't think I can justify the extra $600 for the 135 f/2L - SADLY. Maybe down the road when I get a little more $$ from photography.

OK then you already have your answer anyway. You want a prime, affordable, wider than 50m on a cropped body.

If you want to focus close or go FF, get the 28 1.8.
Otherwise, get the Sigma 30 1.4.

perryge wrote in post #7099395
Airfrog, that may be the case if you do this for a living, but even then, I would think that a professional would want to cut costs whenever possible.

The only L primes I would classify, IMO, as great value for money, are the 135L, 200 2.8L, and 300 f/4L/400 5.6L. The rest may be phenomenal lenses, but they are also bloody expensive. I mean, I love my 85L II and it's the last lens I'd ever get rid of, but there's no way in hell it's anywhere near as good value for money as the 85 1.8.

You cut costs but not at the expense of quality of your images. Its just one thing besides vision that can separate you from everyone else .

Well it works and has worked for me.