Canon 35 f1.4L MkII vs Sigma 35 f1.4 Art

Sort by date Sort by votes
#2
Thanks for posting! Been waiting for some reviews/comparison.

I voted for "Canon is better, but not worth the price" and that is to say, even with the best AF in the world, even me that waited ten years for this lens wouldn't buy at the current 2800 USD price. I'll just have to live with my mk1.
 
Upvote 0
#3
Many others have been waiting too!

I voted 'Canon is better and worth the price', for me I can't be bothered with Sigma AF and inconsistency issues, also it is less than $1,799 here so not quite the crippling cost. But it took Canon too long, I got an f2 IS a while ago and am happy with that at this point.
 
Upvote 0
#4
privatebydesign said:
Many others have been waiting too!

I voted 'Canon is better and worth the price', for me I can't be bothered with Sigma AF and inconsistency issues, also it is less than $1,799 here so not quite the crippling cost. But it took Canon too long, I got an f2 IS a while ago and am happy with that at this point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree in comparison with the Sigma any price would be worth it, because missed focus that is simply the lens' fault is probably the worst part of photography.

But the AF I have in the mk1, so for me to swap the 35 I have for the new the price needs to come down a lot.
 
Upvote 0
#5
privatebydesign said:
Interesting first comparison I have seen.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing.

I am quite surprised to see how well the BR element seems to work at CA.
Especially in the street picture with the white transformer CA looks great.

Personally, to me that lens is too expensive to buy but worth the price.


Edit: I cannot read from the comparison if they turned any in camera correction off. I refer my CA comments to the asumption that LuLa did turn it off. If they didn't that test is useless.
 
Upvote 0
#6
Viggo said:
privatebydesign said:
Many others have been waiting too!

I voted 'Canon is better and worth the price', for me I can't be bothered with Sigma AF and inconsistency issues, also it is less than $1,799 here so not quite the crippling cost. But it took Canon too long, I got an f2 IS a while ago and am happy with that at this point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, agree in comparison with the Sigma any price would be worth it, because missed focus that is simply the lens' fault is probably the worst part of photography.

But the AF I have in the mk1, so for me to swap the 35 I have for the new the price needs to come down a lot.
Click to expand...

I was expecting more from the New 35LII. I went from the Sigma to the 35mm f/2 IS and, apart from the coma-issues on the 35 f/2IS, I never missed the Sigma, and I didn't have any focus issues with the Sigma on my 6D. I like the 35 f/2 IS for beeing smaller and more light weight, and with almost on par performance compared to the Sigma at f/2, and to my eyes as good from f/2.8. Now, the 35 LII, is heavier than the Sigma, way more expensive, and seems only slightly better. The price has to drop a whole lot in Norway (and Europe), before I will consider it.

When it comes to the CA, it seems very good indeed, but the Sigma isn't too bad either.

I will save my money for a new 50 L instead.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Upvote 0
#8
JoFT said:
privatebydesign said:
Interesting first comparison I have seen.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/22/shootout-the-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-versus-the-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/
Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing. I judged that the Canon is the better lens and worth the money.


But I will not buy it because I am happy with the results of my EF 35mm f2.0 IS which is still "faster" in low light situations due to IS.... I guess you can understand: http://bit.ly/1yIfBGF
Click to expand...

From an optical point of view, yes the Canon is slightly better. But that's splitting hairs and not enough to warrant the vast price difference. The Canon lens price will drop 40-50% after the first year anyhow. So it's an unfair assumption that the Canon will remain that expensive. In fact i suspect that the lens review will stay the same while the Canon retail price will drop substantially.
The real separator between the Canon and Sigma is the reliability, the accuracy of the AF (seriously...don't under estimate how important this is on an f1.4 lens) and the build quality. Plus there's the re-sale value...sigma's don't survive as well as Canon lenses over the long term, both in re-sale terms and in general looks
 
Upvote 0
#10
I look at lenses from two points of view: 1. For it's image quality including performance and 2. It's investment factor

Often these review pics are done in very controlled environs, as in this case, the reviewer wants to show case the IQ of both lenses. Yet, do I want to lose once in a lifetime images due to poor AF performance or the absence of weather sealing? Do I want a great image to be slightly tarnished by aberrations which post processing could not remove? Well no, no I don't.

Then there's the cash outlay. We all know that Canon is an investment that holds value really well. I in fact have sold 2 of my lenses for more than what I paid! Sigma on the other hand, will not offer similar returns.

But that's my value propositions I consider when I buy kit, yours may differ.

To my eye, both lenses deliver superb images. Much like the 100mm Macro Vs 100mm Macro L IS discussion of performance versus cost, I've never felt disappointed in paying more for the L
 
Upvote 0
#11
Viggo said:
Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
Click to expand...

When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.
 
Upvote 0
#12
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
Click to expand...

When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.
Click to expand...

Are you taking used gear ? Here a 10% decrease in the first year and it never goes below that.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Viggo said:
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
Click to expand...

When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.
Click to expand...
Are you taking used gear ? Here a 10% decrease in the first year and it never goes below that.
Click to expand...

In the UK the new prices are wildly inflated. The UK RRP is a work of fiction and most of the retailers heavily discount. But on release...everyone charges RRP. So in the UK a 30/40/50% drop in price over the 1st year is quite typical. If your local retail market doesn't do this then it means that Canon are setting a more realistic RRP in the first place. Here in the UK, it's a rip off for brand new released lenses. Only someone with a serious need or a serious ego would be mad enough to buy something fresh on the shelves. The 5DIII didn't start shifting in any quantities on launch here in the Uk until the price stabilized to a more realistic price. I saw some retailers trying to sell a body only for £3000 UKP!!! Now I can pickup a new body, inc vat for less than £1500.
 
Upvote 0
#14
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
Click to expand...

When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.
Click to expand...
Are you taking used gear ? Here a 10% decrease in the first year and it never goes below that.
Click to expand...

In the UK the new prices are wildly inflated. The UK RRP is a work of fiction and most of the retailers heavily discount. But on release...everyone charges RRP. So in the UK a 30/40/50% drop in price over the 1st year is quite typical. If your local retail market doesn't do this then it means that Canon are setting a more realistic RRP in the first place. Here in the UK, it's a rip off for brand new released lenses. Only someone with a serious need or a serious ego would be mad enough to buy something fresh on the shelves. The 5DIII didn't start shifting in any quantities on launch here in the Uk until the price stabilized to a more realistic price. I saw some retailers trying to sell a body only for £3000 UKP!!! Now I can pickup a new body, inc vat for less than £1500.
Click to expand...

I presume you're talking eBay or HK specials?
 
Upvote 0
#15
hard to know all the conditions
in the compare..

I THOUGHT I saw a slight bit of better clarity in canon shots...
so slight... and copy variation from both mfgrs will swamp that diff....

I did think sigma bokeh a little smoother/creamier...subjective...

.........I had original 35L, sold it got sigma 35 'A'....
never had focus issue on 5D3......either lens..
I remember when Canon was JUST about to release their 35L II...then sigma sent out the 35 f1.4 'A'....
they backed away..
and I got the sigma..
but swore I would replace with 'L' if it was better than sigma....

for me I have to see a few tests before I can even ponder what to do...

* Lens tip especially coma tests...and I would get a compare to sigma

* Roger - lens rentals...testing a handful at a time would be useful too....
Canon seems to have tighter groups lately for new lens releases...

auto focus is very improtant....I skipped sig 50 for comments about autofocus...
not a '50' guy anyway...35 is natural for me..

the coma on sig 35 is not perfect....but lets see the Canon 35 f1.4 II.....

again I thought 35L mkI had very slight better bokeh...than sig 'A'
but higher chromatics..

now the sig bokeh seems slightly better than 35 L mkII...


just glancing at it all...

lets see coma and also test a handful of each....

the price will drop a little..
and yes...I have sold 'L's for more than I paid...yrs later.....

////////////
just my first take.....
good grief how long have we waited....

and where is the Canon and the Sigma ...135 f2 I.S. ......hurry up

//////////
by the way...as good as lenses are coming out from Canon lately,
if 5D4.... does not have the spotmeter tracking focus point... and manual controls STILL with no exp comp
and worst of all........ unlighted/black focus points in servo mode... this is unusable for me...
if this set is missing.... .....
I wont get the 5D4.....and that may just push out the Canon brand for me..
they need to get hip.... or not...

IMO
 
Upvote 0
#16
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
GMCPhotographics said:
Viggo said:
Drop 50% in a year? No, just no.
Click to expand...

When the 24mm f1.4IIL was launched it was in the same price bracket, circa £1899. I bagged my copy for around £950 10 months later. The 70-200 f2.8 LIS II was £2500 here in the UK at launch, some places charging £2700. I waited 8 months and bagged my copy for £1250. The 100-400 LIS II was launched for silly money but already it's fallen to £1450.
Click to expand...
Are you taking used gear ? Here a 10% decrease in the first year and it never goes below that.
Click to expand...

In the UK the new prices are wildly inflated. The UK RRP is a work of fiction and most of the retailers heavily discount. But on release...everyone charges RRP. So in the UK a 30/40/50% drop in price over the 1st year is quite typical. If your local retail market doesn't do this then it means that Canon are setting a more realistic RRP in the first place. Here in the UK, it's a rip off for brand new released lenses. Only someone with a serious need or a serious ego would be mad enough to buy something fresh on the shelves. The 5DIII didn't start shifting in any quantities on launch here in the Uk until the price stabilized to a more realistic price. I saw some retailers trying to sell a body only for £3000 UKP!!! Now I can pickup a new body, inc vat for less than £1500.
Click to expand...

hmmmm... I bought the 1dx when first released for £4200 UKP, I checked just now, this instance, £4104 UKP.
 
Upvote 0
#17
 
Upvote 0
#19
I think that if you compare lenses you have to calibrate both of them with specific camera and then perform comparison. With Sigma docket it is possible to calibrate Sigma Art series lenses (4 calibration points for fixed focal lenses and 16 calibration points for zoom lenses). Accordingly, after calibration you will have the most sharpest lens. For example I bought Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art and performed calibration by using Reikan Focal Plus for different distances. Calibration values were +9 ; +4 + 4; +2. Canon allows only camera calibration (1 microadjustment value for fixed lens and 2 values for zooms).

After calibration I never missed AF in any shot and was amazed how sharp images are when photographing with F1.4. I really doubt that we would see difference in Sigma 35 Art and Canon 35 L II. Maybe Canon would be slightly better than Sigma in CA area. Sharpness and other factors would be equal. Even now, when I compare both images I can not see substantial differences.

Regarding weather sealing: Yes, Canon has weather sealing and Sigma does not have it. I do not know how you photograph during rain but I am always trying to cover my camera and lenses if there is a rain. Also, few small drops of water will not do any harm to Sigma lenses.

Price: is Canon 35L II worth such huge premium over Sigma. My answer is - definitely not. For such price i can buy Sigma 24 mm Art, Sigma 50 Art and Sigma 35 Art :))) Of course, there will be people who will buy Canon 35 L II despite anything but that will be minority. If Canon price would be higher by 10-15% comparing to Sigma, then it would be quite hard to make decision regarding purchase. However, now many photographers will buy Sigma's and not Canon's lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#20
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Sigma Announces Development of 85mm F1.2 DG | Art Lens
Replies
0
Views
355
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Richard-CN
Sigma Announces the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG II Art
Replies
10
Views
1K
mimbu
mimbu
Canon Rumors
SIGMA announces the 15mm F1.4 DG DN DIAGONAL FISHEYE | Art
Replies
3
Views
2K
Malm
Malm
D
R5 Mark II vs BMPCC 6K G2 - dynamic range, aspect ratios etc
Replies
1
Views
390
Deleted member 399245
D
J
Sigma 14mm f1.4 Art lens
Replies
8
Views
7K
Czardoom
C
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu