September 02, 2014, 05:38:11 PM

Author Topic: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4  (Read 6060 times)

tatsu

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Eat, drink, dance and get photographic evidence.
    • View Profile
Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 22, 2013, 06:11:16 PM »
I know this topic has sorta been beaten to death, but I'm still having a tough time with it.  Everyone says to get the Sigma unless you need the IS, which I feel maybe I do.  Or maybe wait for a 35L II or 50L with IS.  Or just wait for price drops on the 35 IS?

I take mostly event or food/beverage photos in poorly lit restaurants/bars, handheld, on a 5D mkIII.  In that case, does it make sense to take the lower IQ for the IS?  Or go with the Sigma and always pump up the ISO?

For non-studio, non-tripod, low light situations, does that change people's recommendations?  Or is resolution/fstop always king? 

Any thoughts welcome.
6D, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100L f2.8 IS, 40 f2.8, Sig 35 f1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« on: February 22, 2013, 06:11:16 PM »

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2013, 06:34:20 PM »
My personal opinion - either the 35/2 IS or the 35L. I own the L and I use it often wide open and next to wide open. The 35/2 IS has IS. I would not worry so much about sharpness differences but I am curious to see whether the 35/2 IS can match the "clarity" of the L.

The bokeh of the Sigma can be very problematic. I would not buy it. With fast lenses, bokeh is maybe more important than sharpness.

BTW, we may see a 35LII soon but it will be expensive.

brad-man

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 694
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2013, 07:50:35 PM »
Simple. For events the Sigma will rule. For low light static shots of food the Canon wins :P

risc32

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2013, 08:48:01 PM »
REally, this is easy. if you are shooting things that move in low light get the sigma. if it's low light and it dosen't move go for the f2 IS. If you shoot both and you can't justify buying both, you'll have to decide what is more important to you. That is, would you prefer Higher ISO shots of moving things or higher iso shots of stationary things? I wouldn't worry about bokeh or sharpness, they are both very good.

Also, don't believe that the sigma is bokeh defective. I can show you examples of the canon 50L and 85L that are a mess. There really isn't much in it with these sharp 35mm lenses anyway, and the sigma is just fine. I've been shooting my Sigma and LOVING it since it hit the streets.

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2013, 10:30:52 PM »
I had the 35L ...for a few yrs...sold it
and then wanted the 35 I.S.  or Sigma.....

as is said here by others ...if you need I.S.....you need I.S.
and you start at f2........

I shot a 35L, Sigma35 1.4, and 35 I.S ....and distagon at the counter
a few situations

distagon had nice bokeh over the others
canon35L next .. with Sigma almost the same(neither is as good as 85L or 135L)
then 35 I.S.

the Sigma was almost one stop sharper than 35L
Sigma @ f1.4 ~ Canon 35L @ f2
the 35 I.S was close to those other two....by about f2.8 or f4

I bought the Sigma....and I do love it...performs better than the canon 35L did for me...for years
and it was great

I went into this thinking I wanted the 35 I.S. ...but it was not as impressive as I had hoped
and I like to have I.S. (I do think the I.S. is a good lens...but sigma got me)

I liked getting f1.4 sharp performance....
and on a 5D3 it is great


a couple samples
the bokeh is just fine.... IMO

just my thoughts
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 10:37:22 PM by TommyLee »

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2013, 11:44:45 PM »
The Sigma bokeh (and that of about any other lens) is problematic in the "transition zone". Well blurred background looks good with any lens but when you are close to the focus plane, things change. The 35L has busy bokeh as well; I have seen poor bokeh of Leica lenses, etc., but the Sigma seems to be a champion.

Here is an example from FLICKR (not mine), f/2, 5DII:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 11:48:15 PM by Plamen »

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2013, 01:55:23 AM »
Here is an example from FLICKR (not mine), f/2, 5DII:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/
Wow, that is unexpected.  Background bokeh does not look good there.  It should be nicer at f/2.  Very confusing.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2013, 01:55:23 AM »

tatsu

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Eat, drink, dance and get photographic evidence.
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2013, 02:16:54 AM »
Thanks everyone for your advice.  But I have to say I'm even more conflicted than ever.  The Sigma is obviously sharp as heck, but based on the transition point and images I've seen, the bokeh concerns me still. 

What's everyone's take on an upcoming 35L II?  Is that going to happen any time soon?  I thought it was rumored for Jan but then just never materialized. 
6D, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100L f2.8 IS, 40 f2.8, Sig 35 f1.4

tatsu

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Eat, drink, dance and get photographic evidence.
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2013, 02:20:26 AM »
Also, any thoughts on when the 35 IS might drop in price?  It feels slightly overpriced for a non L.
6D, 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100L f2.8 IS, 40 f2.8, Sig 35 f1.4

AdamJ

  • Guest
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2013, 06:02:55 AM »
The Sigma bokeh (and that of about any other lens) is problematic in the "transition zone".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/

You appear to be citing photozone.de. In their images (e.g. of the reed grass), I don't see the "transition zone" issues, especially when compared with the corresponding images in the 35L test which are unarguably less pleasing. It doesn't strike me as a valid reason to disregard the Sigma.

The flickr image doesn't tell us anything about the Sigma relative to the Canons since there are no comparative images.

In the interests of balance, viewers of this video voted the Sigma's bokeh best in a blind comparison.

Battle of the Bokeh - Canon, Nikon Sigma 35mm f/1.4


sandymandy

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2013, 06:10:46 AM »
Perhaps u should rent each lens for a day and see urself which one u prefer.

sjp010

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2013, 08:52:41 AM »
What's everyone's take on an upcoming 35L II?  Is that going to happen any time soon?  I thought it was rumored for Jan but then just never materialized.

I was thinking about this recently.  I wonder if the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 caught Canon with their pants down.  They can reasonably release an IS f/2 35mm that is optically inferior to the Sigma, because there are differentiators between those lenses (IS, smaller size & weight, etc).  But a non-IS 35LII would be a direct competitor to the Sigma, so it had better be a LOT better for the price they're likely to charge!  And how much better than the Sigma can you realistically get?

Anyway, given recent market developments, I wouldn't be surprised if the 35LII is a ways off now.  I could be totally wrong though.

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2013, 09:10:24 AM »
sjp010

yes - I believe this is the case..
the run up to Sigma release... Canon 35L II rumor was whispering

the timing was... it seemed like the 35L II was about to be announced
when suddenly Sigma released 35 and it was raved about....still is

I felt like Canon quickly pulled their 35L II because it was not as good as Sigma
and sent the 35L II BACK to dwg board....  I have no proof but the events seemed to fall that way

it was expected to see a 35L II... but Sigma upstaged them

me ...I bought the Sigma after checking them out and digging thru reviews..
Sigma is great and both Canon 35L and Sigma have ..just ok bokeh ..Canon maybe an edgein SOME scenarious

MY comittment to myself is if Canon NOW comes out with a 35L II that BEATS Sigma ...
I will sell Sigma and get 35L II....
also Canon ...if they ever get competitive here ...the should feel they have to trump Sigma...
...
I will wait ...using the Sigma ....for the  ? ... $2200 35L II ... ?
that's my feeling about what happened and what will happen...






canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2013, 09:10:24 AM »

risc32

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 462
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2013, 09:45:31 AM »
that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L. When the stars align just right, or wrong, things can look bad, but in my exp the sigma is just fine in the bokeh department. As i bet the 50L is also. actually, i'm not sure i've ever seen decent bokeh from any leica lens, but that's another topic.

my take on the canon 35mmL v2. it'll won't be released anytime soon, it'll cost somewhere north of 1800 US, it'll be just slightly better than the sigma and have weather sealing.

another thing is the build, the canon 35mm IS isn't really built any better than the old 35mm f2, and that wasn't very good.  personally, i would have a hard time speeding that much money on it, esp with the great build on the sigma, but i stand by my first recommendation of choosing the lens based on your subject matter's movement, or lack there of.

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2013, 10:06:43 AM »

You appear to be citing photozone.de.
No, they are citing me.  :) I have been critical about Sigma's bokeh before they published their review.
Quote

In their images (e.g. of the reed grass), I don't see the "transition zone" issues, especially when compared with the corresponding images in the 35L test which are unarguably less pleasing. It doesn't strike me as a valid reason to disregard the Sigma.
Look at the image with the garbage bin in the foreground; the grass on the right of it. As I said, the Canon has a similar problem but not that bad, IMO.
Quote
In the interests of balance, viewers of this video voted the Sigma's bokeh best in a blind comparison.

Battle of the Bokeh - Canon, Nikon Sigma 35mm f/1.4

This is far from the transition zone. Not challenging enough.

Here is a shot with problematic bokeh with the 35L, f/1.4 (my image): It is more or less a torture test. Look for the double lines there. If I wanted to convince you that the 35L had a wonderful bokeh, I would have posted a different image, like this one or this one (both f/1.6). But that would have been either cheating or lack of knowledge because the first one contains foreground blur only (which tends to look good with most well or over corrected lenses), and in the second one, the transition zone is small and does not dominate the image.

So the bottom line is - it takes more than one or two samples to understand what a lens can and cannot do.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 10:14:57 AM by Plamen »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2013, 10:06:43 AM »