Switching from sigma 30 to 35L?

I am currently using sigma 30mm on my 7D and it works great. It is my main lowlight lens. The lens has no focus issue after MA and it takes sharp pictures. But I am debating whether or not to upgrade to 35L as this is the lens I always wanted to buy.

Anyone did it and think you have made the right move? What made you switch? Do you think 35L focus faster and more accurate than the sigma counterpart? How about the color? Do you think the 35L pictures are more punchy vs. the sigma's?

I am not going to upgrade to full frame in any time soon as I like my 7D and still learning it's full capability. So, the switch has nothing to do with FF upgrade.

Thanks for your input.

If you're happy with this lens performance, maybe you can invest first in some other stuff if you like.

I moved from the sigma 30mm to the 35L last week, because I'm planning to move FF in the near future.

It's up to you if you want to upgrade, but maybe there are some other things you could upgrade/buy.

I don't think there is any question that the 35L is a better lens in most aspects, you just have to weigh the price difference with the quality difference, which I can't help with.

I could help by buying your Sigma 30mm 1.4 off you though LOL.

Thanks guys. Anyone else can share with your opinion and experience? Thanks again!

If you like it I wouldn't upgrade. You can get other gear while you're at it.

I went in the opposite direction with focal length. I went from the Sigma 30mm (which I still have) to the Canon 24mm f/1.4L II. I was thinking about the 35mm but after walking around with my 24-105 at 35mm for an hour I decided it was too long on a crop for indoor shooting and that with 18MP I could always crop some off the 24mm. I also wasn't particularly fond of the idea of buying a lens that was released in 1998 when it might be updated before I moved to FF (if I ever do).

I do kind of miss how compact the 30mm is though.

Thanks guys. I am still looking into it. Really have the itch to get the L... I am actually in talk with some forumers for a 35L. Price of a used one is still on the high side. Possible buy it new if buying used copy doesn't save good money as Bing or Mr Rebate will take some off the price tag of a new one.
So, anyone had the experience of switching and is able to share? Thanks.

Personally, I'd save the money. I've owned both. Is the 35L nicer? Yes. The focus was smoother and I liked the colors a little better. Ultimately, I kept the Sigma 30 over the 35L though. The difference in price wasn't worth it for me. Not even close. You have an excellent lens in the Sigma 30. I'd spend your money elsewhere.

Almost eveybody said no to the idea so far... maybe i should just focus on looking for a 70-200 2.8 MarkII instead...But ...Well guess I will still give the idea a try..

Ive considered moving to an L and get rid of the Siggy as well...the price is just to steep though! If the Siggy was 600 then it would be a little more to consider but for 400 its hard to beat it!

if you have a sharp sigma30, then its not worth it. color difference isnt off by much to matter, especially if you shoot RAW.

I have both, but I have FF thats why I got the 35L. I still have my sigma30 mounted on an old rebel xt in case the wife wants to use it.

I went through the same debate with the sigma50 and 50L when I switched to FF. Chose the sigma50 based on my experience with the sigma30.

nonick wrote in post #10532241
Almost eveybody said no to the idea so far... maybe i should just focus on looking for a 70-200 2.8 MarkII instead...But ...Well guess I will still give the idea a try..

i would do this.

i have used both on a crop and they are so much alike. if you can MA and get it super sharp i would just keep the sigma. focus isnt even a noticeable difference. if you like that wide-ish look it has then keep it. 5mm can add alot on a crop.

if you plan on going to FF then yes get the 35L. i have a friend that has the sigma 30 1.4 and its a great lens. i have the 35L and he wanted to borrow it bc he thought because its L it must be better. he couldnt even tell the difference between the 2.

invest that extra 1000 you save in another lens.

I had both the 35L and the sigma 30. I got rid of the 35L. On a crop body, the image quality of the sigma is every bit as good as the 35L. If you have a copy that focuses just fine, then you are basically gaining nothing. I wouldn't even call it an upgrade... rather a wallet downgrade. In fact, my siggy 30 is so good that I still refuse to buy a 35L even though I also shoot 1.3 and full frame. Go fig.

But some people just want to have that red ring on their lens and are willing to pay an extra $1000 for it even with no image quality gain. If this is you, then buy the 35L; you won't be happy until you do. You could always paint the gold ring on your sigma to a red ring.

^ I find it interesting that you have frequently knocked (50L) and overlooked (200L) primes in your bag, but none of the vaunted ones (35/85/135)...care to share your experiences?

toxic wrote in post #10532886
^ I find it interesting that you have frequently knocked (50L) and overlooked (200L) primes in your bag, but none of the vaunted ones (35/85/135)...care to share your experiences?

There's nothing romantic with my lens choices, they are in my bag based purely on need. I need a 50 as that was my primary lens for 15 years before I switched to digital. I don't LOVE any of the 4 50mm choices, I just hated the 50L the least. The 50CM is too slow as a gen purpose 50, the 1.8 has terrible focus and nasty bokeh, the 1.4 isn't crisp and clear until you stop down to f/2 or so, and the L is heavy and has focus shift issues. Considering I use primes wide open EXCLUSIVELY (if I need to stop down, that's what zooms are for) I figured the focus shift wouldn't be a concern to me. And it is has fantastic image quality wide open.

The 200 2.8L is one heck of a beautiful lens with amazing image quality. But I got it purely for it's reach and weight. After years of holding up a 70-200 2.8 every weekend I developed back and shoulder problems that I now need treatment for every two weeks. The 70-200 isn't that big a deal to hold up for a few hours, but repeated over and over year after year, it takes it's toll and broke me down. For wedding reception shooting, I like to stay far away so the 135 didn't cut it. Since I use flash, IS was of no benefit to me. My back is much happier with the 200L.

The 85L is too goofy of a lens in my opinion. It's too big for it's own good. 85mm at 1.2 has so little DOF that it almost looks silly to me. It seems to have a counter-intuitive design where the DOF is so darn small yet the focusing is so darn slow that my keeper rate for candid shooting was horrible. It was fine for still people but as soon as they are moving it was blah. Considering the 1.8 is excellent wide open, has excellent focusing ability and speed, is small and very light, and costs like five times less for all this added performance, it was a no brainer which one to keep. The idea of having the 85L *sounds* romantic, but from a purely practical standpoint, it was a waste of my money. Yes it can get that odd shot that makes you go WOW, but I need thousands of consistent great shots, not one or two wow shots.

As for the 135L, I don't need one as using the 85 1.8 on my 40D is much like having a 135. One of the advantages of multi format shooting, and why I'd never move to a FF only setup. (again, something that sounds romantic but in practicality, having a crop gives you a heck of a lot more options)