Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4

[EvilTed]

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]

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.

 

[Plamen]

Here is one direct comparison. I would be more curious to see what happens 2-3 m behind the tree though.

 

[TommyLee]

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]

[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.