April 25, 2014, 03:01:23 AM

Author Topic: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4  (Read 5325 times)

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2013, 10:13:39 AM »
that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L.

Oh, no. The 50L is better in terms of bokeh (and much softer) by a mile. I can post pictures, if you like, where I pushed it hard to test the transitions.

You can find poor examples of bokeh with any lens. But with wide lenses, situations like the one I posted are just too common.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2013, 10:13:39 AM »

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1477
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2013, 10:45:21 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.

With all due respect, this is patently untrue.  The build quality of the new lens is roughly on par with the 100L Macro, sans the weather sealing.  Of the two, it is my intention to buy the Sigma, but that assessment of the build quality on the Canon is just not true.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 10:49:04 AM by TWI by Dustin Abbott »
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2013, 11:01:37 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.
The 50L has fantastic bokeh, in my opinion.  The 50L shot at f/2 (same as that cowboy shot) is pretty darned good.  As you say, when the stars align just right or wrong, an otherwise good lens can look bad.  Anyway, it's hard to compare a 35 and a 50.

And I agree with TWI by Dustin Abbott on the build quality of the new 35/2 IS.  Distinctly better than the old 35/2.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 12:59:36 PM by Zlatko »

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2013, 11:23:02 AM »
Plamen

I think you have explained this well with some samples ....

------------------

I used the 35L for years and had 'good' bokeh ..mostly.. from HOW I shot...
a lot depends on where you select/place the background....(and foreground)....when you compose

IMO neither the Sigma (just bought it) nor the 35L have great bokeh in all shots...
they have good down to mediocre in many shots- IMO

Sigma gets a bad rap - IMO

////

but my real reason here is to say
this in an opportunity for Canon 35L II to really work the bokeh...I mean assuming they get sharp at f1.4 like Sigma does now

make Bokeh the difference.....

c'mon Canon ...you are up ... design a new top-dawg...



 

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2013, 11:33:52 AM »
but my real reason here is to say
this in an opportunity for Canon 35L II to really work the bokeh...I mean assuming they get sharp at f1.4 like Sigma does now

make Bokeh the difference.....

c'mon Canon ...you are up ... design a new top-dawg...
I could not agree more. I am afraid that they may go the other way - to "beat" the Sigma and to sacrify the bokeh for more resolution.

EvilTed

  • Guest
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2013, 12:06:19 PM »
You can't have your cake and eat it...

The designers either go for a creamy, dreamy (read soft) look wide open or they go for a sharp look.
You can always make a sharp lens soft (vaseline) but you cannot go the other way :)

Personally, I think bokeh is way overrated and the majority of Canon's old lenses are not sharp enough.
Kudos for Sigma for taking it in the right direction.

BTW, I sold my 50 F/1.2 because it was too soft wide open and I've had and returned two samples of the Sigma because it has focus inconsistencies and it was no sharper than my 24-70 F/2.8 II @ F/2.8.

I'll wait for the Canon 35 F/2 IS to drop $200 like the 24 and 28 did or get the 35 F/1.4L II if it ever materializes.
I'm shooting a Leica Summicron 50 F/2 on a Leica MP film body at the moment and really enjoying the experience...

ET

AdamJ

  • Guest
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2013, 12:45:45 PM »
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.

Perhaps you have, though not on this site.

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.

We would need to see the same image shot with the Canon to make a comparison.

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.

At least it has validity by being a comparison of the same view.

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.

I understand the transition zone to be the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, like the grass in the image of the rubbish bin. The busy background in this fairground image is in the distance.

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

Indeed. But if one is criticising the bokeh quality of one lens against another, comparative images of the same subject are more reliable evidence than isolated samples.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 01:00:28 PM by AdamJ »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2013, 12:45:45 PM »

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2013, 01:09:44 PM »
Here is one direct comparison. I would be more curious to see what happens 2-3 m behind the tree though.

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2013, 02:55:31 PM »
AdamJ
you are sort of right about the distance...I think ...they all have a bad distance...IMO

here is one I just shot...that shows the 'bad' distance...baskets on the left

just a quick shot ...not art

then 3 that show the distant bokeh is smoother
////////////////////////

BUT Canon 35L from my experience with it would have been just a little smoother..
but not buttery like a 85L II..

35 is not bokeh king..

I believe Canon COULD find a compromise between bokeh and BEATING Sigma sharpness..
and with weather sealing..
go for the standard $2300 new lens charge

I'll take one if it makes my socks catch fire...

I believe the Sigma 35 I just bought  is better than the 35L I just sold..
otherwise I would be unhappy.......ha!

it is close enough...I say... with Siggy sharper by ONE STOP

IMO

Plamen

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2013, 03:32:48 PM »
[The busy background in this fairground image is in the distance.
It does not matter (much) where it is. It matters how much it is blurred. In this case, the "transition zone" goes more or less to infinity. In the shot with the beer bottles, the background is pleasantly blurred and it is just 3-4m away, if I remember well.

In the boy with the Cowboy hat shot (Sigma), the background is very far and the bokeh is still bad. DPReview has nice portrait shots with the Sigma where the background is close but the main subject is much closer, and the background is well blurred.

Focus a 34/1.4 lens wide open at 4m, or so, and you are trouble with the background. Focus it even farther away, no problem.  :)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2013, 03:32:48 PM »