Canon 35mm f1.4L II and Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art

[TonyUSA]

Can you guys give some feedback on both of these lens please?

Thank you,

 

[Derrel]

Read Nasim's review, but then look at ALL of the OOF backgrounds on page 6, and you'll see ugly bokeh on the backgrounds. Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Review - Page 6 of 7

I had considered this lens back in 2012, when I was shooting landscapes. 35mm is my favorite W-A length on FX. This lens would be very good for longer-distance landscapes, where pretty much everything is in focus; as a wedding lens, or as an environmental portrait lens, this would not be my choice, ever.

Canon's lens is longer, and a few ounces heavier. Read the review here: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens Review This lens is almost the size of a 24-70 zoom.

I dunno....to me the Canon has the edge in picture appearance. At almost but not quite twice the cost. But does one need such a large, imposing 35mm lens for one stop over the 35/2?

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you very much Derrel.

 

[TonyUSA]

Derrel,

Since I am not going to buy Canon 200 f/2 so I will get 135mm f/2 first($1,000) and then Canon 35mm soon after 135mm.

What do you think about Zeiss 135mm f/2 ($1,500), Not Zeiss Milvus ($2,200)? Do you think picture quality and etc. of Zeiss 135mm would be MUCH better than Canon, is it worth $500 extra? I used to do manual focus, I think I would be okay with that if the picture quality is much better than Canon.

Thank you,

 

[TonyUSA]

Reasons I asked so much about lens because I don't want other mistake like I did with Canon 100-400, I believe in buy once, buy right. I did put $2,000 in the trash for that lens. It was too slow for swimming event. Only used it once and I am done with it.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel,

Since I am not going to buy Canon 200 f/2 so I will get 135mm f/2 first($1,000) and then Canon 35mm soon after 135mm.

What do you think about Zeiss 135mm f/2 ($1,500), Not Zeiss Milvus ($2,200)? Do you think picture quality and etc. of Zeiss 135mm would be MUCH better than Canon, is it worth $500 extra? I used to do manual focus, I think I would be okay with that if the picture quality is much better than Canon.

Thank you,

I owned the Canon 135/2-L for a number of years (10 years or so) and felt that it was a fine lens; SMALL for a 135/2! Lighter, smaller, less dense than the Nikkor 135mm f/2-AiS, smaller it felt than the 135 DC Nikkor. My feeling is that with a 135mm lens of high speed, like an f/2, that autofocusing is worth a huge amount. Critical focusing is super important now that we have 20+ megapixel resolution. Manual focus used to be easy on 35mm SLRs, but on d-slrs it is less easy, less sure, more prone to misses. And the Canon 135/2-L is one of Canon's better lenses. The Zeiss is a nice lens, but again--it is a manual focus lens, in an autofocus world. I do not think it is the way to go, I think an AF lens on an AF camera is the better idea.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, Derrel. I will buy Canon 135mm this weekend.

 

[Derrel]

Thank you, Derrel. I will buy Canon 135mm this weekend.

It is a wonderful, magical lens! So small, so good when shot toward the light, such a neat defocused zone behind and in front of the subject, it's a great lens for selective focus work. It works well. Focuses great. Balances well. Top-grade lens from Canon.

 

[TonyUSA]

Derrel,
What do you think about Canon 16-35mm f4L and 35mm f1.4L II?

 

[Derrel]

Derrel,
What do you think about Canon 16-35mm f4L and 35mm f1.4L II?

Both have good reputations. I think the 35mm has a nice "look" to its pictures. I really do not have strong opinions about eirther lens though.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, Derrel.

 

[nickgillespie]

I have had the 35 1.4 L for about 10 years. It is a tie for my favorite lens. I would cry if I had to get rid of that or my 50 1.2.

The 35 is fast, pretty accurate and has good character.

I hated the Sigma. When it hit the focus it was very sharp. When it hit the focus. But looking at the images later was a disappointment. There was no character, no depth and no microcontrast. Absolutely no 3d pop at all. Definitely one of my least favorite lenses that I've ever used.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, nickgillespie.

 

[TonyUSA]

I owned the Canon 135/2-L for a number of years (10 years or so) and felt that it was a fine lens; SMALL for a 135/2! Lighter, smaller, less dense than the Nikkor 135mm f/2-AiS, smaller it felt than the 135 DC Nikkor. My feeling is that with a 135mm lens of high speed, like an f/2, that autofocusing is worth a huge amount. Critical focusing is super important now that we have 20+ megapixel resolution. Manual focus used to be easy on 35mm SLRs, but on d-slrs it is less easy, less sure, more prone to misses. And the Canon 135/2-L is one of Canon's better lenses. The Zeiss is a nice lens, but again--it is a manual focus lens, in an autofocus world. I do not think it is the way to go, I think an AF lens on an AF camera is the better idea.

I just ordered 135mm two days ago and guess what? Sigma just announced that 135mm f1.8 Art is will be available in April and now taking preorder. Wondering if this 20 yrs old lens will be outdate and couldn't be better than new lens with better technology.[/QUOTE]

 

[Derrel]

Check the length and weight of the Sigma against the Canon. I dunno...I have owned a few Sigma lenses, older models, and was never really, truly impressed, but I know their newer stuff has improved. As for the 135/2 being outdated: it is still a very,very capable telephoto lens, one of Canon's L-series optics. It's a proven design that has durability and quality build, and quality optics. It will be a solid performer. I have seen no reviews at all of the newly-announced Sigma, but I am sure it will be as good a lens as Sigma can make.