I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"?
My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.
But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.
Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!
You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?
Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.
I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200).
Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.
By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!
I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...
I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.
The only thing I want to know here is HOW did my original comment denigrate into a Ken Rockwell discussion??? LOL!
« Last Edit: April 07, 2014, 04:39:56 AM by infared »
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....