Thanks for pointing that out. Didn't notice that.Sporgon said:
That makes the comparison almost useless.
Upvote
0
Canon 35 f1.4L MkII vs Sigma 35 f1.4 Art
- Thread starter privatebydesign
- Start date
That makes the comparison almost useless.
Maximilian said:
The higher res the more demanding for lens perfection, and that's why I included the 200 f2 also, because that is shot on the 5ds. To see just how much better the mk2 is is staggering... Look at the contrast and lack of CA wide open, mental.
Upvote
0
Efka76 said: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.
None of the lenses need AF adjust because the tests are all done with Live View manual focus, and are focus bracketed to make sure only the very sharpest images are used.
Upvote
0
Maximilian said:
Far from it, the test shows that even when images from the new lens are enlarged much more than the old lens they are still much higher quality.
Canon have knocked this one out of the park (as they have with all lens releases for quite a while now), it was going to take a huge improvement for me to get one instead of my f2 IS, but these are looking like they might do it.
Upvote
0
The pictures of the 35L II are really looking great. But to make a comparison you need to have the same setup.Larsskv said:
We don't know if or how much better the Sigma could/would perform with 5DSR so all speculations how much the high res camera is challenging the lens more and what this would mean to a real comparison are simply that - speculations. In other words: The comparison is almost useless because it is no real comparison.
Of course i see that the Canon is looking better in the edges compared to the center and of course this seems not to come from the sensor. But with that test setup you cannot really compare. And this is also not critique to Bryan Carnathan because I like his work very much and see him as a profound source for good test results.
Upvote
0
I guess we see what we want to see. I see whatever the "my sigma is perfect"-crowd says, this 35 will get you loads of images no other 35 can at faster than 2.8 will, at unprecedented IQ.
Not to mention the AF algorithm will match the newest from upcoming eos bodies and track like bloodhound. And how I missed using a fast short lens in the rain.
Not to mention the AF algorithm will match the newest from upcoming eos bodies and track like bloodhound. And how I missed using a fast short lens in the rain.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I was referring to the fact that this is one of the first crops on TDP taken on a camera without an AA filter, or at least cancelled. Brian states that he used equivalent of sharpening '1' from DPP, but I find that doesn't overcome the AA. So just calling caution on the clarity, that's all.
Upvote
0
Viggo said:
Hhhmmm, what I see looking at the TDP comparisons is:
The 35L II and the 24-70L II are pretty similar at f/2.8, with a slight edge to the 35L II. However, what is impressive about the 35L II is that it seems pretty similar at f/1.4 to f/2.8, apart from some vignetting.
However good the 35L II may be at f/1.4, it is not as good as the 200/2L at f/2.
It is hard to say much about the 35L II v 35L I or the 35L II v Sigma 35 Art since only the 35L II has been tested on the 5DsR. As PBD points out, the fact the 35L II does so well despite the relative enlargement is a good sign. On the other hand, as Sporgon points out, the 5DsR has (effectively) no AA filter, which could be influencing results. Further, given the results are showing the result of the body/lens system, and increasing the resolution of either part of the system will increase system resolution - but to what extent being the big question - it seems to me it's impossible to say much with confidence until we see the 35L I and the Sigma 35 Art tested on the 5DsR. It will be very interesting to see those results though!
For what it's worth, my guess is those results will show the 35L II is a significant step up from the 35L I. I am not so sure there will be that much difference in comparison to the 35 Art though.
Upvote
0
The main reasons for me are AF, contrast, color, lack of CA, off center performance, weather sealing and distortion above sharpness. It took too much hassle to find a good 50 Art and the two 35 Art I had couldn't be used for anything other than MF and very very heavy vignetting, no matter how sharp, when the AF just can't produce anything consistent it's useless.
Upvote
0
Don't know what anybody else is seeing here, but here are the 5DSR files downsampled to the 1Ds MkIII.
What I see is the pretty crappy former lens, which I never got on with on digital cameras, absolutely blown away by the new lens. How much is attributable to the 5DSR vs 1Ds MkIII? Probably very little after all contrast and CA are not going to change much, but it is kind of moot, because when all is said and done I know if I get a 5DSR and a 35 f1.4 MkII I get a considerably better IQ package.
What I see is the pretty crappy former lens, which I never got on with on digital cameras, absolutely blown away by the new lens. How much is attributable to the 5DSR vs 1Ds MkIII? Probably very little after all contrast and CA are not going to change much, but it is kind of moot, because when all is said and done I know if I get a 5DSR and a 35 f1.4 MkII I get a considerably better IQ package.
Attachments
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Thanks for sharing! New 35L II will be only for those that need the Canon AF accuracy and stoping action in low light and big pockets. Others, like me are good with the Sigma 35A and the Canon f2 IS
Upvote
0
Hjalmarg1 said:
I compared the lens with f2 IS version. I think I will continue with the f2 IS as the IS is more important to me than other advantages the lens offers. Correct me please if I am wrong in thinking that the advantages of the new lens are visible only in crops and the flaws of the f2 version can be corrected easily in PS. Yes of course the background blur is a compromise I make - but that too only if I am focusing at less then 10/15 feet.
Upvote
0
I tried mine out yesterday (Mkii) and I can't say I'm that impressed (at this stage).
Still has focusing inconsistencies of the old model but is much better at focusing (and acquiring) in low light.
I suspect though that the weight of the lens holds it back. It is appreciably heavier than the mk1 and makes the 24-35 Sigma more appealing. But until I've used them all in heavy use it's more about how I feel with the lens than actual practical results.
Still has focusing inconsistencies of the old model but is much better at focusing (and acquiring) in low light.
I suspect though that the weight of the lens holds it back. It is appreciably heavier than the mk1 and makes the 24-35 Sigma more appealing. But until I've used them all in heavy use it's more about how I feel with the lens than actual practical results.
Upvote
0
sanj said:
I might be quite wrong about this, but I would have thought that at the same output size, higher resolution = increase perceived sharpness (assuming good focus) = perceived increased IQ (albeit perhaps not by much). No?
Upvote
0
