Best 35mm wide open????

[Dick]

I see people praising the Sigma 35. You can surely go for that. I have a copy of that lens & I love the images it produces when focused spot on. I have not taken any photos with it that would suck because of "bad bokeh". Nailing the focus is a much greater issue.

Getting the AF to work may be problematic. Basic AFMA tests gave me a horrific value that only made things worse. I tested the lens on real subjects and ended up with a value that seems to work nicely. I'd say that you cannot really trust the focusing even when you have the correct AFMA in place. In servo mode the lens tends to be really slow and on a 5D3 you end up with plenty of OOF photos. There is no scientific research behind my statement, but I'd claim that especially with servo you can trust the 35L's AF much more. This might in the end be more important than the additional sharpness of the Sigma 35.

 

[TommyLee]

Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.

There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:

You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.

the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II, but this shot below is ALSO how well it can do.... you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

here I see
smooth and nearly identifiable secondary figures...smooth transitions...all judgement of course

love mine

 

[MonteGraham]

Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.

There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:

You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.

the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II, but this shot below is ALSO how well it can do.... you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

here I see
smooth and nearly identifiable secondary figures...smooth transitions...all judgement of course

love mine

Nice Photo!

 

[Hobby Shooter]

As someone said, you'll likely get a number of suggestions based on what people have themselves. But what is the best? Do you always have to go for the best? Do you have the wallet for that?

I have my 35L which I am very happy with, it makes me happy every time I put it on the camera. Always brings home very nice artistic pictures. Maybe not perfectly sharp every time, but I am not always after that. I think you should get yourself a Sigma though. It seems to be the one everybody talks about as the best, so it should suit.

It feels good that I could mention my favourite lens that I've taken my best pictures with in my last post here.

Just remember that it's not always about getting the sharpest picture.

All the best to you guys and take care!

 

[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. In fact, most objectives do have this effect at some object and background distance and brightness combo.

Just learn when it happens and work around it; I can't think of an easy way (or better said, feasible way) to eliminate this effect in lens design.

 

[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.

 

[Pi]

the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II, ut this shot below is ALSO how well it can do.... you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

The trick is to avoid the transition zone. In your case, it is empty air, which is good.

 

[TommyLee]

Nice Photo!
[/quote]

thanks.... MonteGraham
I like these people...and this shot
my daughter, her mother ...my replacement - NewDad - ha!..
all very nice folks....
I -old dad- had just been fed by NewDad.... a master Chef...

this 35 Sigma is PERFECT for these liv room shots... I just love it for that....

sometimes it is as good (bokeh) as the 135 / 85....

but the king is the 85 for sure...it solves all lo light problems...

I swear the 35 bokeh CAN BE very smooth....
sometimes it is awful with leaves ...repeating small stuff..etc

thre lenses ...... 14L, 35 Sigma, 85L II = case closed
IMO

 

[lucuias]

I personally tried both Canon and sigma and I end up getting Canon 35mm F/1.4 L because of:-

-I have doubt of Sigma focusing accuracy
-I prefer Canon colour,sigma colour seems to be pale and cold side.

 

[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.

But I reiterate that none of this is actually seriously detrimental for photography, you'll just need to know when this happens and avoid it.

ps. 50L can refer to another 50 too...

 

[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

 

[Deleted member 42026]

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".