Confused 35mm Sigma OR 35mm Canon?

[Roshideva]

Hi Guys,

Need help Canon costs £1200 and Sigma costs £600 but which one should i buy? Does anyone have any idea please:
Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II OR sigma 35 mm lens

 

[beagle100]

I'd first look at lens reviews on sites like Welcome to OpticalLimits!

 

[Derrel]

There is also the 35mm f/1.4 Canon in its first EF version, used, for a lot less money than the new version II model!

My advice: a "standard" 35mm prime lens, like an f/2 model, is a nice, small, handy lens, and is really nice on full-frame. The 35mm f/1.4 lenses are HUGE in comparison, MUCH heavier, and are something like six times more money, for a gain of one f/stop value. I've owned two 35mm f/1.4 models, over a span of three decades, and both were manual focus Nikons, and I've owned a Nikkor 35/2.8, and also three 35mm f/2.0 Nikkors, two manual focus, and one the modestly-priced f/2 AF-D model, around $250 used. Honestly? I find the smaller, f/2.0 lens to be a wonderfully convenient, good-quality lens.

In modern AF models, the f/1.4 35mm lenses are BIG. Heavy. And they are, in my opinion, too large and too attention-getting, compared to the 35mm f/2.0 models. A 35mm lens will typically be used in social photography situations, from close distances. I think the degree of background blur the 1.4 can give, compared against the f/2.0, is not worth the money. But more importantly, I think the _smaller lens size_ of the f/2.0 models makes people feel more at-ease, and makes it easier to carry and use the lens.

A 35mm f/2.0 autofocus prime lens is a wonderful thing! I LIKE the nikon 35/2. On a FF camera, a 35/2 is a nice lens for social photography! I really do NOT think the f/1.4 lens, with its huge size and weight, is actually "better" in terms of the kind of pictures one gets with it. I think the smaller,lighter, less-conspicuos lens is the way to go. I truly do. if you buy a Canon 35/2, you'll save enough money that you could also buy a 50/1.4 Canon EF, or an 85/1.8 Canon EF.

 

[jaomul]

There is a lot to be said for smaller lighter lenses that are f2 as said above.

 

[weepete]

There is also the 35mm f/1.4 Canon in its first EF version, used, for a lot less money than the new version II model!

My advice: a "standard" 35mm prime lens, like an f/2 model, is a nice, small, handy lens, and is really nice on full-frame. The 35mm f/1.4 lenses are HUGE in comparison, MUCH heavier, and are something like six times more money, for a gain of one f/stop value. I've owned two 35mm f/1.4 models, over a span of three decades, and both were manual focus Nikons, and I've owned a Nikkor 35/2.8, and also three 35mm f/2.0 Nikkors, two manual focus, and one the modestly-priced f/2 AF-D model, around $250 used. Honestly? I find the smaller, f/2.0 lens to be a wonderfully convenient, good-quality lens.

In modern AF models, the f/1.4 35mm lenses are BIG. Heavy. And they are, in my opinion, too large and too attention-getting, compared to the 35mm f/2.0 models. A 35mm lens will typically be used in social photography situations, from close distances. I think the degree of background blur the 1.4 can give, compared against the f/2.0, is not worth the money. But more importantly, I think the _smaller lens size_ of the f/2.0 models makes people feel more at-ease, and makes it easier to carry and use the lens.

A 35mm f/2.0 autofocus prime lens is a wonderful thing! I LIKE the nikon 35/2. On a FF camera, a 35/2 is a nice lens for social photography! I really do NOT think the f/1.4 lens, with its huge size and weight, is actually "better" in terms of the kind of pictures one gets with it. I think the smaller,lighter, less-conspicuos lens is the way to go. I truly do. if you buy a Canon 35/2, you'll save enough money that you could also buy a 50/1.4 Canon EF, or an 85/1.8 Canon EF.

But what about impressing those guy's down at the photography club with the sheer expanse of glass on the front of that f1.4!

Nah, I jest I'm just overtired. Not so overtired I don't recognise good advice when I see it though.

 

[Cortian]

I'd first look at lens reviews on sites like Welcome to OpticalLimits!

This ^^^^^

Multiple reviews, if you can find them. For example: Ken Rockwell was not at all impressed with the Canon 70-300mm DO lens I have. Another reviewer thought it was terrific. Both agreed it was exceedingly sharp.

You're putting this on a full-frame sensor camera, yes? What do you seek to accomplish with this lens?

 

[pixmedic]

usually when someone is comparing lenses of the same focal range, it is about budget and trying to get others to help convince them that the cheaper alternative is close enough to its OEM counterpart so they wont feel like they got ripped off by buying a cheaper lens.

do you have $1200 in your budget strictly dedicated for a 35mm f1.4 lens? if so, just get the newest Canon offering. OEM will hold its value better, and will usually (not always..depends on the lens) out perform the third party offering. (sometimes only very slightly though)

that being said, the sigma 35mm f1.4 ART lens got rave performance reviews, and is half the cost of the Canon.

you could also look into, as @Derrel mentioned, the older canon 35mm f1.4 lens. it was originally released late 90's i think (almost 2000?) so i would expect the sigma ART lens to outperform it.
then again...do you NEED super ultra nano coating? the older lenses render images just as well as they ever did and if they were good enough for the pros back then, i imagine they are good enough for most people now. when I shot Nikon i used a lot of "D" lenses because i never had any reason to upgrade them.

I spent a few minutes reading some comparison reviews on these two lenses as well as looking up some actual side by side picture comparisons with extreme crops. MY opinion on it is this....the Canon 35mm f1.4L II does beat out the Sigma f1.4 ART lens, but only be a very thin margin and mostly noticeable when a lot of cropping is done.
the Canon is also weather sealed. im not sure if the sigma is or is not.

personally, i couldn't justify spending twice the money for such minor differences.
then again, I shoot fuji and choose the much smaller and lighter 35mm f2 over the 35mm f1.4 lens.

if you have already decided you need (or just really want) an f1.4 version of that lens, and you know what kind of photography you plan to do with it, start looking around for photos taken with each particular lens and see which you like better. im sure there are plenty of flickr or IG groups for each of those lenses for you to peruse through.

 

[Derrel]

A very well written and well thought out post by pixmedic, above!

 

[jcdeboever]

Chances are way greater getting a good copy, buying a Canon brand. Chances getting a good Sigma are not good at all, from my experience. They are cheaper for a reason. If you do buy a sigma, right after you check the cart out, print off some focus test charts and immediately check the focus accuracy. If its off, send it back. It may take 3 or 4 tries to get a good copy. Never buy a sigma used unless you can send it back. Trust me, I have blown loads of money on new and used Sigma glass. I had one that was decent but the hit rate was lucky with it. Why do they have to market their glass with the term "art" . Gimmicky and stupid IMO.