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

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I'm pretty sure that the vignetting on the Canon is deliberate. It's really flattering in portraits...and it saves on adding it in post prod. Optical vignetting looks more natural than Lightroom's too. It's very easy to fix in Light room or just stop down a few clicks. This was designed and intended as a portrait lens...not a lens for looking at the stars / coma. Use it in that particular context and it excels in the right pair of hands.

 

[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.

I'm pretty sure that the vignetting on the Canon is deliberate. It's really flattering in portraits...and it saves on adding it in post prod. Optical vignetting looks more natural than Lightroom's too. It's very easy to fix in Light room or just stop down a few clicks. This was designed and intended as a portrait lens...not a lens for looking at the stars / coma. Use it in that particular context and it excels in the right pair of hands.

No way vignetting is deliberate, it's a cost issue. It's not always wanted and this
Is not a dedicated portrait lens, and even then vignette is a problem when using off center composition. "Just stop down"? Why buy a lens that's 1.4 and made really sharp wide open then?

 

[Sporgon]

I look at lenses from two points of view: 1. For it's image quality including performance and 2. It's investment factor

Me too; that's why I've got the 40 mm pancake

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I'm pretty sure that the vignetting on the Canon is deliberate. It's really flattering in portraits...and it saves on adding it in post prod. Optical vignetting looks more natural than Lightroom's too. It's very easy to fix in Light room or just stop down a few clicks. This was designed and intended as a portrait lens...not a lens for looking at the stars / coma. Use it in that particular context and it excels in the right pair of hands.

No way vignetting is deliberate, it's a cost issue. It's not always wanted and this
Is not a dedicated portrait lens, and even then vignette is a problem when using off center composition. "Just stop down"? Why buy a lens that's 1.4 and made really sharp wide open then?

Viggo, the 35mm f1.4 IIL was passed to many pros on Canon's list of top users while in beta stage. There was some kick back over one or two of their designs being too perfect. I believe it was the "look" of the lens for portraiture when shot wide open. Canon went back to the drawing board several times to get this lens looking the same (although sharper ect) to the mkI. It is primarily intended as an available light portrait lens, sure it's versatile...but that's the genre of photographer that was handed too during it's extensive development phase. The 85 and 35 are considered by Canon as a portrait pair. Through my wedding forum contacts, I knew of this lens development a long time ago and I also knew the photographers who criticized early design prototypes and why.
One of the general problems (and i'm not singling anybody out specifically) with camera forums is that it's populated with self confessed lens or sensor design experts who assume every lens or camera is designed for their specific and often quite bizarre needs. Which is why I don't come on here that often and I certainly avoid DPR as much as possible. I know very few knowledgeable or well skilled professionals that frequent that particular forum. Many on those forums feel that their limited use of a lens makes then an expert. Canon have a long list of real world experts who they go to for advice on any new lens. Canon selects advice from photographers who they know that really know what they need, like and want in a specific lens. This is true of all the current mkII lenses. I'm not fortunate enough to be on that list, but I'm good friends with a number of photographers who are...and believe me, they know their stuff.

 

[Viggo]

Oh I'm sure you're right about everything you said, and I hope you weren't talking about me. But I also share that some people seem to think everything should be made
For them. I'm not one of those.

But to say the vignette was much less and that they designed it to have more makes NO sense.

And to limit a 35 to only portrait-shooter makes no sense either.

Those two is not logical at all. I have NEVER heard any reviewer or owner of a lens complain about too little corner shading.

 

[TommyLee]

just fo the record....
sold sigma...got 35L ii ......


stunning.. i saw diff from sig 'a' lens....right away...on the camera..sceen

this lens and 100-400 ii ..are so good and great quality value....
not reachable ....easily by 3rd party...

i sooo wish for a 135 f2.. and maybe with i.s. .....at this level...
just...'swell and stretch' the 100L macro....