Best 35mm wide open????

[raptor3x]

But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.

This is really interesting as pretty much every comparison I've seen shows the Zeiss being the worst of all the 35 1.4 lenses.

Edit: Scratch that, I was thinking about the 85 1.4.  I may have to rent a Zeiss 35 now.

[sdsr]

Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??

I don't think anyone's suggested yet that you look at the Digital Picture review of the Sigma. There you will find a bokeh comparison, in particular a comparison of specular highlights among several 35mm f/1.4 lenses at f/4.  Based  purely on his samples I would agree with him that the Canon 35 f/2 IS wins, followed by the Sigma.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

I rented both those lenses together a while back and thought both of them conjured up superb bokeh wide open, barely distinguishable; they're the only 35mms for Canon I've tried.  (If I were buying one, I would plump for the Sigma because of its far superior coma performance.)

[Pi]

About the bokeh picture Pi posted, I have seen many lenses (including Canon 50/1.2 and 24-70) produce equally bad background blur.

Examples (with the 50L)? I have pushed it to get bad bokeh but not nearly as bad.

I think Photozone has the worst 50/1.2 shot that I have seen and know for sure it is 50/1.2

Here you can find another example, but I'm not certain whether this is taken with 28-70/2.8 or 50/1.2. I'm leaning towards the zoom for some reason.

The first one is bad, the second one is OK. But they cannot beat this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#

[Mika]

About the bokeh picture Pi posted, I have seen many lenses (including Canon 50/1.2 and 24-70) produce equally bad background blur.

Examples (with the 50L)? I have pushed it to get bad bokeh but not nearly as bad.

I think Photozone has the worst 50/1.2 shot that I have seen and know for sure it is 50/1.2

Here you can find another example, but I'm not certain whether this is taken with 28-70/2.8 or 50/1.2. I'm leaning towards the zoom for some reason.

The first one is bad, the second one is OK. But they cannot beat this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#

Hehe, that's indeed pretty harsh. I'll have to try that myself some time. So far I've been pretty satisfied with Sigma 35/1.4. I think the other photo does have a pretty ugly background blur too. It distracts my eye from the subject (as does yours). Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.

[Pi]

Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.

When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.

[TommyLee]

[/quote]

When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.
[/quote]

Pi
this is such an accurate comment...thanks for summarizing all this in such a short statement......

yes...we start with some superb equipment....but then....
I am sure a lens' owner is responsible for SOME of the blur quality...by selecting what works in the background.....  it must be a lot like getting a good sound out of a musical instrument...all these variables.... distance, repeating objects, different size objects, light angles...

that is part of the mystery...ain't it grand?

IMO

[Danielle]

I shoot my zeiss distagon 2/35 wide open all the time, one great lens and certainly not lacking. Cheaper than the f1.4 version by about $1000. And I find f2 enough considering how much more I'd pay. The 2 zeiss distagon 35mm options are different though. One is not simply faster than the other, they are different.

[kirillica]

It is strange you are not considering 24L2. It's not 35mm, but much nicer than that (I personally found 35mm not usable to me)

[Ruined]

I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS.  It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality.  Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.

[meli]

Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??

You are going to get quit a few Sigma suggestions. This is normal, it is a popular lens that many can afford.
Pride in ownership will generate fanfare. Many answers come from what they own, not what may be best.

But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.

Ah yes, confirmation bias, you should see how strong it is with those that think that since they bought the most expensive toy then it must be surely the "best".

[infared]

I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS.  It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality.  Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.

Yes...this looks like the best buy and offers the smallest , lightest form-factor for an Canon AF lens...and the IS is a bonus!

I went for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4...I saved about $600 compared to the Canon and have been WOWED with the images coming out of my DIII.  The build quality seems great and it is a really nice looking lens as well. The bokeh is just fine for a WA lens....but if that is what I want from an image I am going to pick up a large-aperture normal or tele as the amount and quality of the bokeh can't be beat.

[nda]

imho... keeping i mind i don't have a 35mm prime, but i do have the 50L and 24-70II and imho the Canon 35mmf/2IS is best on my 6d its wonderful, it's not 1.4 but it does have IS and there's been a recent price drop

[wsheldon]

I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS.  It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality.  Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.

Yes...this looks like the best buy and offers the smallest , lightest form-factor for an Canon AF lens...and the IS is a bonus!

I went for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4...I saved about $600 compared to the Canon and have been WOWED with the images coming out of my DIII.  The build quality seems great and it is a really nice looking lens as well. The bokeh is just fine for a WA lens....but if that is what I want from an image I am going to pick up a large-aperture normal or tele as the amount and quality of the bokeh can't be beat.

Same thing here. I bought the Sigma for its build and the ability to use f1.4-2.0 and I'm extremely happy with it, but the Canon 35 2.0is looks to be a great deal after the price drop. At the same price as the Sigma (when adding a hood) I wasn't so sure, but now the value proposition is much better and I may have gone that way if I had it to do over.

The Sigma balances fine on the 6D (better than the 24-105 IMO), but a lighter lens with similar IQ and the same or better bokeh at f2.0 (which is often more practical than f1.4) would be welcome. Higher coma in the corners would be annoying, but not a deal breaker for many, and as already said vignetting isn't a big deal these days and can even help some shallow DOF images.

Good to have such strong lenses to choose between.

[AcutancePhotography]

Thats what im reading too. But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name.. Sometimes 3rd party lens scare me for the future. You know Canon is stingy with their technology. so im not sure if a 3rd party lens will become obsolete 2 camera bodies from now. ...

I am not sure I understand your point here.

To my thinking, if a future 5dmk5 that comes out in 2017 is incompatable with a 2013 sigma lens, then it will be incompatable with a 2013 canon lens.  No matter which lens you bought in 2013, it would need some updating.  It comes down to how easy and expensive it is to update the 2013 lens.  I kinda like the idea of the Sigma USB dock and anticipate that other lens manufacturers will be coming out with their docks soon.

Do you think it is possible that a 2013 Canon lens would work in a "2017 5dmk5" camera but a 2013 Sigma lens wouldn't?  I can't imagine that happening.  I could be wrong.      

There are many reasons to choose Canon lenses over Sigma lens, but future compatabity issues shouldn't be one of them. Not with the lenses being constructed these days. 

But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name

Just my opinion, but buying a lens simply because it has the name Canon on it is as unwise as buying a lens simply because it has the name Sigma on it.  No lens company makes the "best" lens across their entire line.  Especially when "best" depends on the individual photographer and their requiements.

Especially these days, it is important to evaluate each lens separately and base your purchasing decision on how this specific lens performs.  There are people who are interested in re-selling their lenses.  I never do this so my opinons don't incorporate re-sale.

I buy Canon lenses when the Canon lens meets my requrementes.  I buy Sigma lenses when they meet my requirements. I try to keep an open mind about the lenses being made today.  These third-party lenses sometimes (not all the time) are better (how ever the individual photographer interprets it) than the camera manufacturer's lenses.  Sometimes the camera brand is better.  And even sometimes they are the same.   

One thing I have found out is that buying a lens these days is a lot more complicated than back in the film days.  LoL  Sometimes I feel we have too many good choices. 

[Mika]

Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.

When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.

Well, if I really wanted to characterize an objective, I'd put it in the MTF bench at work. Or start counting wavefront fringes in a double pass interferometer setup. Or check the actual lens performance from construction data. But online sites are far more convenient for referencing and save me from quite a bit of hassle.

So I don't have a great interest in finding out which one of the 35s has the best or worst bokeh in which situation. The point was that the difference between Sigma's and Canon's are comparatively small, and in some situations the other is better than the other and vice versa.