Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??
Best 35mm wide open????
- Thread starter MonteGraham
- Start date
- Status
The only non-L lens I have is the Sigma 35/1.4, which I bought just to check if it actually delivers what the reviews said. And it does. The only other AF alternative is the Canon 35 f1.4L, which has received a fair share of criticism for being outdated. But if you drop chart reading and just look at the images that lens produces, you´ll see some stunning stuff. The only alternative beyond these two is the manual focus Zeiss. I have not used this lens myself, but it is difficult to imagine a Zeiss lens with poor performance wide open.
I have attached a picture of the local lion, shot with the Sigma wide open.
I have attached a picture of the local lion, shot with the Sigma wide open.
Attachments
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
The critical part of the bokeh is when the blur is just a few pixels wide. Once the radius is large enough, you are not going to see much difference. Unfortunately, those are the typical examples of "good bokeh" often presented.
I would study the Flickr groups. IMO, Sigma pushed the design too much, and to gain sharpness, they compromised the bokeh. The Canon has its problems with the bokeh as well. To make things worse, the typical double lines might be maximized for radially oriented lines, and minimized for perpendicular ones, for example. So one comparison can be misleading.
Upvote
0
Pi said:
I'm no expert on optical design, I only judge from what I see. If you could explain how sharpness ruins bokeh, it would be most appreciated. I don't see the connection.
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
It depend on how the spherical aberrations are corrected or not. See p.36 here: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf.
Also, see the conclusions on p.40, in italics, the pictures on pp. 41-42, and the comments there.
Upvote
0
.
As others have said, there are really only two AF choices (and if you're using a 5D3, why would you consider a non-AF lens?).
For images shown on ordinary computer screens, you will see no difference between the Canon f/1.4 L and the Sigma f/1.4 A. The data worshipers will scream the Sigma is sharper while the professional eyeballers will warn Canon has better bokeh. If your practice involves prints at 16 X 20 or larger, you may want to study such arguments as you might see a slight difference.
Since I would rarely, if ever, print large, I went with the Sigma because it kept $400 more dollars in my wallet at the end of the day. And I've been entirely satisfied.
As others have said, there are really only two AF choices (and if you're using a 5D3, why would you consider a non-AF lens?).
For images shown on ordinary computer screens, you will see no difference between the Canon f/1.4 L and the Sigma f/1.4 A. The data worshipers will scream the Sigma is sharper while the professional eyeballers will warn Canon has better bokeh. If your practice involves prints at 16 X 20 or larger, you may want to study such arguments as you might see a slight difference.
Since I would rarely, if ever, print large, I went with the Sigma because it kept $400 more dollars in my wallet at the end of the day. And I've been entirely satisfied.
Upvote
0
If you buy the new Sigma, get the dock. Sigma lenses can be adjusted at multiple distances to have accurate autofocus on a given Canon body. Unfortunately, its only one body, but its still a good thing.
Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent. Here is a image of the bokeh for the Nikon version on a Nikon FF body.
It will not be different on a Canon FF body.
Here is the Canon L for comparison Its not nearly as nice to to bokeh fringing.
Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent. Here is a image of the bokeh for the Nikon version on a Nikon FF body.
It will not be different on a Canon FF body.
Here is the Canon L for comparison Its not nearly as nice to to bokeh fringing.
Upvote
0
There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:Mt Spokane Photography said:
You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.
Upvote
0
Take a very close look at the Sigma 1.4. It packs the more bang for the buck than any other 35mm imho.
Not only it is probably the cheapest high performing 35mm prime, it is right at the top, fighting for number 1 or 2 spot in all the reviews I could manage to read.
At the end I got one and I can´t be happier that I did not get neither the zeiss nor the canon´s equivalents =)
Not only it is probably the cheapest high performing 35mm prime, it is right at the top, fighting for number 1 or 2 spot in all the reviews I could manage to read.
At the end I got one and I can´t be happier that I did not get neither the zeiss nor the canon´s equivalents =)
Upvote
0
Which lens is this? I have used the Sigma extensivly for many months under very varied conditions and I have not seen anything like this. I would rather say that it produces very good bokeh compared to the other lenses I have. And most people would rate them as good.Pi said:There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:Mt Spokane Photography said:
You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.
Upvote
0
fegari said:
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. The only way i would jump in on a 3rd party is if it was that much better!! but from what im reading it neck and neck and to me the future wins out all the time. im just looking with real world advise from someone who actually shot both lens and can give me a honest critique on both.
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
If you are worried about obsolescence from the standpoint of body compatibility, I think the firmware for that Sigma lens can be updated, which hopefully prevents such an issue.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock
In addition to the article above, Roger Cicala at Lensrentals has written (at least) a couple other relevant pieces regarding 35mm lenses specifically.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/fun-with-thumbtacks-for-advanced-photogeeks
When I was shopping for a 35mm lens (shortly before the article at that third link was published), I went with the f/2 Zeiss and have no regrets. Since that time, though, the f/1.4 Zeiss was released and so was the f/1.4 Sigma. Buying right now, the decision would definitely be more difficult....
Upvote
0
Eldar said:
This is the Sigma, source: http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/sigma-35-mm-1-4-review
I have posted a few other poor bokeh shots before, both from the Sigma and from the Canon. My point was that those nice blown highlights you see very often are misleading.
Here is another example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebaebajpn/8705959796/#
And this is the Canon:http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebaebajpn/8705959796/# The highlights are OK but look at the tree on the left. Now, a typical comparison would pixelpeep the color fringing of the highlights in the forest on the back but will miss the tree.
Upvote
0
clearly for me the 35 sig is waayy better than my 35L (was)...
I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...
then I tasted a ... sharp-wide-open.... lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...
now I am really spoiled...
used my 24mm f1.4 mk I last night and ...uh ...I forgot how weak it can be wideopen...
nice but ..it ain't a sigma 35 class of lens.... I did try the 24L II and it was a bit better on a few rentals....
but not like this sigma is....
if the sigma 24 rumor is true...I will try that one too
I might add if CANON finally redesigns / releases the 35 II ...they DID NOT release (when they saw the new sigma) ...if it is better - I will get it...
I await Canon's move on this
TOM
I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...
then I tasted a ... sharp-wide-open.... lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...
now I am really spoiled...
used my 24mm f1.4 mk I last night and ...uh ...I forgot how weak it can be wideopen...
nice but ..it ain't a sigma 35 class of lens.... I did try the 24L II and it was a bit better on a few rentals....
but not like this sigma is....
if the sigma 24 rumor is true...I will try that one too
I might add if CANON finally redesigns / releases the 35 II ...they DID NOT release (when they saw the new sigma) ...if it is better - I will get it...
I await Canon's move on this
TOM
Upvote
0
Pi said:There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:Mt Spokane Photography said:
You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.
Its a matter of opinion, there is no measurement of bokeh. Generally, round is a good start, but there are so many things that can be evaluated, cats eye, onion skin, and as in your example, LoCA..
For a wide angle and fast lens, the Sigma is one of the better ones. I'm definitely not a Sigma fan. However, a 35mm f/1.4 is not going to match longer focal lengths.
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
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.
You could probably buy the Sigma or the Canon L and be very happy with it. Maybe soon there will be a Cannon 35mm f/1.4 L II.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Actually, the LoCA is not such a problem. What grabs the attention are the bright edges in the following direction: \ (it is more horizontal than that). This is a crop from the lower right corner, so what you see are double edges along radial lines. The Canon does the same, and the problem is more pronounced near the borders.
Upvote
0
- Status
