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

[caMARYnon]

Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach
In the second attach is a crop from petapixel with more visible cromatic issues canon vs. sigma.

As you can see from this shot, it is clearly due to user error on my part, you would get the exact same miss if you're focusing on a wall with very little to no contrast, had i aim the AF point higher onto the eye/pupil the miss would have been avoided, this is most definitely not a strange focus behavior, rest assure.

Thank you, encouraging remarks. BTW: I really want this lens!

 

[ben805]

Like wockawocka said, an example from ben805 (thank you) with strange focus behaviour - see first attach
In the second attach is a crop from petapixel with more visible cromatic issues canon vs. sigma.

As you can see from this shot, it is clearly due to user error on my part, you would get the exact same miss if you're focusing on a wall with very little to no contrast, had i aim the AF point higher onto the eye/pupil the miss would have been avoided, this is most definitely not a strange focus behavior, rest assure.

Thank you, encouraging remarks. BTW: I really want this lens!

CA and color/bokeh fringing is exceptionally well controlled too, almost as good as the Samyang 14mm that I use for astrophotography. The only thing I have not been able to test is the coma correction, hopefully we'll get a clear sky sometime this week.

 

[caMARYnon]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Viggo]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You beat me to it. And I stand by my previous statement. The midframe and corners looks epic on the 35 L II!

 

[Maximilian]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You beat me to it. And I stand by my previous statement. The midframe and corners looks epic on the 35 L II!

+1 and even in the center you see a lot more details. GREAT lens. 8)

 

[caMARYnon]

Very quick test for coma with city lights. First crop is f2.0 with 35f2IS, second is f1.4 with 35f1.4II.
I don't have 35f1.4clasic.
EDIT: third one with the tower placed in center.

 

[Larsskv]

Very quick test for coma with city lights. First crop is f2.0 with 35f2IS, second is f1.4 with 35f1.4II.
I don't have 35f1.4clasic.

Thank you for these samples. I was curious about the coma, and it seems pretty good. I think I see some vertical issues to the right, but it is way, way better than the 35 f/2 IS.

 

[caMARYnon]

Sorry, my mistake. You have now the tower placed in center because the magenta lights are vertical from the architecture not because of aberration.
Look at white or red ligts for compare.
IMO the coma is not a problem with this lens.

 

[Larsskv]

Sorry, my mistake. You have now the tower placed in center because the magenta lights are vertical from the architecture not because of aberration.
Look at white or red ligts for compare.
IMO the coma is not a problem with this lens.

Thank you for the update! The 35LII keeps growing on me. I think I will have to start saving for it.

 

[ben805]

Finally have a clear sky tonight and conducted some Coma test at f/1.4, f/1.6, f/2.0, and f/2.8. Coma control is as good if not better than my astro lens Samyang 14mm f/2.8, which i think is absolutely fantastic! I have not seen any other Canon prime or zoom lens with such high quality coma control, definitely wouldn't hesitate to use this 35L II lens for astrophotography @f/1.4 for sure.

Test results: https://www.flickr.com/photos/13715639@N07/


Extreme upper corner @f/1.4: 100% Crop

 

[caMARYnon]

Thank you for this much better test.

 

[ben805]

Here's a comparison to the 35L Mk1 @f/1.8 with sharpness cranked to maximum at 10 in DPP. The purple fringing, coma, and corner sharpness even after stopping down to f/1.8 is complete garbage in comparison to the 35L II @f/1.4. The old MK1 is terrible at Astrophotography.

35L MK1 @f/1.8 full size at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/13715639@N07/

 

[Larsskv]

Great comparison! Thank you!

 

[Viggo]

Wow! That is seriously impressive. Can't wait for it to drop 10%. My money is burning!

 

[caMARYnon]

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816

 

[StudentOfLight]

Wow! That is seriously impressive. Can't wait for it to drop 10%. My money is burning!

I'm lusting for the 35L II, but the exchange rate is a killer at the moment. If this lens was released last year I could have picked it up for almost 30% less :'(

Anyway, I've now sold off my 35L and have been pleasantly surprised by the Tamron 35mm VC. Want to get hands on a 35L II loaner from CPS to see how much of a benefit the new lens offers over the Tamron 35-VC. I'll probably rent a Sigma as well to do a three-way-shootout.

 

[Viggo]

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816

I read a lot of different reviews of things I would like to have, but is slrgear any more serious than Ken Rockwell? They for example state that the 35 L II has an "all metal barrel" and they say vignette is 1.25 stops in the corners while TDP says 3,5 stops. And I remember reading similar mistakes in other reviews also.

 

[StudentOfLight]

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816

I read a lot of different reviews of things I would like to have, but is slrgear any more serious than Ken Rockwell? They for example state that the 35 L II has an "all metal barrel" and they say vignette is 1.25 stops in the corners while TDP says 3,5 stops. And I remember reading similar mistakes in other reviews also.

Boggles the mind... Surely 2 stops is a huge deviation from what is expected.

 

[Viggo]

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816

I read a lot of different reviews of things I would like to have, but is slrgear any more serious than Ken Rockwell? They for example state that the 35 L II has an "all metal barrel" and they say vignette is 1.25 stops in the corners while TDP says 3,5 stops. And I remember reading similar mistakes in other reviews also.

Boggles the mind... Surely 2 stops is a huge deviation from what is expected.

Indeed, I must correct myself, it's 3 stops at TDP. If it is 1.25 stops that would be pretty superb, and I think 3 is actually pretty poor. I don't get how a lens could be 1.4 if it's only in the inner center circle that might be a t-stop of 1.7.

It's correct in the same an amplifier for a car costs 100 usd and claims 1000W rms.

 

[StudentOfLight]

SLR Gear review http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1816

I read a lot of different reviews of things I would like to have, but is slrgear any more serious than Ken Rockwell? They for example state that the 35 L II has an "all metal barrel" and they say vignette is 1.25 stops in the corners while TDP says 3,5 stops. And I remember reading similar mistakes in other reviews also.

Boggles the mind... Surely 2 stops is a huge deviation from what is expected.

Indeed, I must correct myself, it's 3 stops at TDP. If it is 1.25 stops that would be pretty superb, and I think 3 is actually pretty poor. I don't get how a lens could be 1.4 if it's only in the inner center circle that might be a t-stop of 1.7.

It's correct in the same an amplifier for a car costs 100 usd and claims 1000W rms.

I had a look at the TDP vignette tool and it appears that the vignette on APS-C is 1.25 stops. Which is very different from full frame obviously.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=994&Camera=453&LensComp=1003

My guess is that SLRG reported the the APS-C figure for full frame and probably interpolated the APS-C from the "incorrectly assigned full-frame".