35mm 1.4 Prime - Canon L or Sigma

Craigus

Craigus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,562
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
I keep going round in circles with this choice.

I think I would rather the Canon (1st version) but it would need to be used to keep the cost down. I did think that I was decided on the Sigma, but then came across lots of people saying that even with the usb dock they were having problems with front focusing at different subject distances, and generally inconsistent focus.

Considering how much this lens will cost, which is quite a lot for me, I would rather not have to compromise on things as fundamental as auto focus performance. However, I am well aware that reading about these things on the internet and certain forums makes them seem a lot worse of a problem than they are, and all the happy users don't bother coming forward to say their's is fine. But some of the examples I've seen aren't pixel-peeping territory of softness but rather obvious focusing issues.

Anyone have experience with the 35 1.4 ART and focus performance that they could share?
 
Sigma. I've had this lens in various mounts since it's release. I've never had one that's so far out that I couldn't MA it.

From what I've seen the dock fixes any issues and if you buy UK stock Sigma will calibrate it for free under warranty anyway.

Issues can also be down to user error or camera settings. I think youll also find reports of 35L focus issues.
 
Last edited:
I've got the Sigma
Haven't even felt the need for MA.
As above, don't take too much notice of the online complaints, for every person who 'could never get a good copy' there's a dozen happy users.
 
Ive owned both from new, I first got a sigma then sold that after a while, wanted another but Amazon didn't have one in stock the day I needed it so went for the canon one. The canon one was good but it has a lot of chromatic aberration on the images. I then sold that and stuck with the sigma, Ive always had the dock and played around with it but I've never needed to change the settings on the lens. The Canon 35mm 1.4II is meant to be better than the sigma, But for what you're looking at the sigma all day long.
 
I’ve had the 35L mk1 for about 8 years, shot some of my favourite images from it, it is a workhorse of a lens, it’s sharp, great bokeh and focused fast. It is also lighter and shorter and smaller than the Sigma. The down side is the CA is quite evident however.

I’ve never had the Sigma so can’t comment but I have now upgraded to the Mk2 which by all objective measurements from build quality to sharpness to lack of CA, it is the best 35mm money can buy and it includes Zeiss glass.
 
Just by way of interest to people, I am now leaning heavily towards the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, as it's cheaper, more reliable focusing and gets very good reviews from what I've read. I really am not sure I will need the extra stop that I would get from the others, and don't have the money to through at the L.

If I somehow found myself doing stuff that demanded the extra stop I can always upgrade to the Sigma or L if it's really necessary.
 
Craigus said:
Just by way of interest to people, I am now leaning heavily towards the Canon 35mm f/2 IS, as it's cheaper, more reliable focusing and gets very good reviews from what I've read. I really am not sure I will need the extra stop that I would get from the others, and don't have the money to through at the L.

If I somehow found myself doing stuff that demanded the extra stop I can always upgrade to the Sigma or L if it's really necessary.
Click to expand...
The 35mm f2 is a great lens, but as/h one isn't that different from a s/h Art lens, and the quality difference is definitely worth the cost.
 
The AF problems that are reported on the sigma does still bother me though, I've read too many people with the same problems for it to not be true. And is the build quality of the sigma really that much better than the f2?
 
Craigus said:
The AF problems that are reported on the sigma does still bother me though, I've read too many people with the same problems for it to not be true. And is the build quality of the sigma really that much better than the f2?
Click to expand...

Not sure internally but externally it is very solid.
 
Craigus said:
The AF problems that are reported on the sigma does still bother me though, I've read too many people with the same problems for it to not be true. And is the build quality of the sigma really that much better than the f2?
Click to expand...
How many people own the lens and have had no problems?

How many people on this thread?

You should handle one to check the build quality, it's built like a tank, probably the toughest lens I own, and I have several L lenses.

Buy the Canon, you'll be happy with it.
 
Craigus said:
The AF problems that are reported on the sigma does still bother me though, I've read too many people with the same problems for it to not be true. And is the build quality of the sigma really that much better than the f2?
Click to expand...

But you're missing the point/s that it's a damn tough lens and comes with a 3 year warranty for calibrations and manufacturer defects if it's UK stock. Canon doesn't offer that on their own lenses, neither does Nikon.

You either need f1.4 or you don't.... if you're even looking at an f2 lens then just buy an f2 lens.
 
I see some people say they have tried multiple copies of the lens and still the same issues are present even after calibrating the USB dock. I don't really want the hassle of that, but maybe it is people being incredibly picky about it and basing that on test shots rather than real world shots?
 
Craigus said:
I see some people say they have tried multiple copies of the lens and still the same issues are present even after calibrating the USB dock. I don't really want the hassle of that, but maybe it is people being incredibly picky about it and basing that on test shots rather than real world shots?
Click to expand...

I think you also have to accept that some people don't know what they're doing.

I once sold a Siggy f1.4 lens that never missed a beat and the buyer immediately posted shots with the focus all over the place, user error I'm certain. Another guy dismissed my Siggy 50mm f1.4 (which also never mossed a beat) as junk but I could see him rocking forward and back as he took the pictures. Funny how both lenses performed well for me.
 
I've owned both, but kept the Sigma. I had to perform some minor manual adjust using the dock, but once adjusted, it's been great.

I didn't do much scientific testing, but I just found the images with the Sigma have really special quality to them.I wanted to like the Canon, as the IS would be useful, but the Sigma produced nicer images.
 
Craigus said:
I see some people say they have tried multiple copies of the lens and still the same issues are present even after calibrating the USB dock. I don't really want the hassle of that, but maybe it is people being incredibly picky about it and basing that on test shots rather than real world shots?
Click to expand...
As above, the internet contains more than it's fair share of complete idiots.

I've read of users who can't find a decent copy, but I've also seen thousands of gorgeous images shot by 'photographers' with Sigma Art lenses. Check Flickr groups, Facebook groups etc. There's loads of great images,
 
It's all about the Canon for me.

Lhyelup.jpg
 
Thanks guys, knowing you get on with it fine is reassuring Phil, as I know you shoot weddings and if it was unreliable when it comes to focussing that would be a pretty serious problem to have and imagine you would have ditched it fairly quick.
 
I have to admit, the Sigma is my favourite lens and of late might as well be welded to the camera. With regards to the build quality, one common complaint you will see about the Sigma Art and Sport lenses is regarding the size and weight, there is a reason for that, as has been mentioned they are built to last. When I changed systems, I had a number of people offer to buy it, a few others have suggested swapping to the Sony FE 35 1.4 for the improved booked, but the Sigma is just so sharp. The only thing that will get me to part with it, is if Sigma decided to do a version with a Sony FE mount.
 
The sigma 35mm 1.4 ART is by far my favourite ever lens. What do you want to use it for?

So much so that even though I only own a Nikon camera right now, for which I have a Nikon 35mm lens, my Canon mount sigma 35mm is still here boxed up. It's that good I can't even use it and I've not got round to selling it.

If you're serious it's a good copy, I hear they all are re image quality to be fair then pm me an offer.
 
I use Nikon rather Canon but have the 20mm, 35mm and 50mm art lenses.

The 20mm I only got the other day and it needed a very slight adjustment to be 100%. I didn’t need to use the dock although I have one. It was only slightly out. I tune all my Nikon glass as well have only ever had 1 lens that didn’t need a minor adjustment to be 100%.

The 50mm was a different story when these first came out I tried 5 different copies and couldn’t find one I was 100% happy with. Several seemed to be fixable using the dock and camera adjustment combined but when I fixed back focusing at shorter distances it would create front focus problems at longer distances. Did my head in so decided not to ever buy another one. A few months ago I came across a used one being sold for really good money and decided to take one last punt. I was a bit dubious as thought the cheap price might mean focus issues but that wasn’t the case. This one needed an adjustment of between +2 and +4 depending on which body I use it on. I have 6 Nikon bodies at the moment.

The 35mm’s I have had for a couple of years I have 2 of these. Both needed minor adjustments but nothing that I wouldn’t have expected from the Nikon equivalents.

Have also had a few Nikon lenses that have issues with adjustment in particular a 14-24 which I could never get sorted.

Buying an oem lens doesn’t guarantee that no adjustments will be needed, well that’s my experience anyway.

For what it’s worth the 35mm art is a lens I use a lot both for weddings and commercial work and I have also tried the Nikon 35 f1.4 and the f/1.8 versions and preferred the Sigma over both of these even though it’s a cheaper lens it punches will above its weight. As others have said if you buy u.k retail there is no real risk as you can just return it for replacement if you run into issues with it needing major micro adjustment that you can’t resolve yourself easily.
 
Ended up getting the Canon f/2. If I get on with it and feel I need the extra stop (probably extremely rarely, if ever) then I'll think about an upgrade to the L in the future.

I think the IS and the weight saving will be more valuable to me for my usage than the extra stop of light I'd gain from the sigma.
 
interesting move
I have the 50mm ART and love it but don't always use it.
I have the 35mm IS f/2 and then the 45mm pancake f/2.8 simply because of weight and practicality.
Also I take a lot of boxing and now MMA photos. limiting myself to a widest aperture of f/2 is practical for reasons of depth of field, so having a lens that can "only" get to this aperture is very handy for me.
Lovely lens to use, focusing seems pretty good and the IS is handy too at time (but not for boxing :P)
 
Those are similar to my reasons, I wanted a fast prime to go with my 85 1.8, that extra stop of light to 1.4 would be handy on occasion, but the depth of field becomes hard to control and sometimes not practical.

I chose the f/2 for the weight saving (I've grown a dislike for heavy kit, particularly when I'm just using it in a walkabout capacity) the IS (not especially useful, but will be on occasion) and cost were more important factors for me.

I've not used it a lot yet, but the build quality seems very good to me, image quality is great as well, lots of contrast and nice and sharp at f/2, very quick focusing too.
 
Craigus said:
Those are similar to my reasons, I wanted a fast prime to go with my 85 1.8, that extra stop of light to 1.4 would be handy on occasion, but the depth of field becomes hard to control and sometimes not practical.

I chose the f/2 for the weight saving (I've grown a dislike for heavy kit, particularly when I'm just using it in a walkabout capacity) the IS (not especially useful, but will be on occasion) and cost were more important factors for me.

I've not used it a lot yet, but the build quality seems very good to me, image quality is great as well, lots of contrast and nice and sharp at f/2, very quick focusing too.
Click to expand...


yup, no complaints here with the 35mmMD1_1350.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top