DPReview of Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 II
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
I prefer Dustin's reviews of the 35LII and sigma 35 ART, over DPR.
One thing I notice with DPR, is that they will always go an extra mile to make Canon look worse, if the first tests prove Canon to be superior. In this case, mounting the 35LII to the A7RII made it worse, probably due to the adapter, or potentially differences in the sensor stack.
I just can't understand why they didn't get another Sigma 35 for Canon, instead of mounting it to the Sony. How hard could that be for DPR?
One thing I notice with DPR, is that they will always go an extra mile to make Canon look worse, if the first tests prove Canon to be superior. In this case, mounting the 35LII to the A7RII made it worse, probably due to the adapter, or potentially differences in the sensor stack.
I just can't understand why they didn't get another Sigma 35 for Canon, instead of mounting it to the Sony. How hard could that be for DPR?
Upvote
0
As far as I can see they just lost any last vestige of impartiality and credibility.
I don't understand how a test of two different lenses on different adapters is not just a test of those adapters. Effectively, they are saying if you want the 35 MkII then you'd be better off getting the Sigma and a Sony along with an adapter! Utter bullshit.
I don't understand how a test of two different lenses on different adapters is not just a test of those adapters. Effectively, they are saying if you want the 35 MkII then you'd be better off getting the Sigma and a Sony along with an adapter! Utter bullshit.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
It's the new age of lens design. Get used to it. If you want the best performance these days you have to pay for it in size and weight (and money)
Upvote
0
My beef with it is that I think they misjudged the winner in the wide open center frame test. I think the 35 II takes the 35 Art. I don't see how they think the other way around looking at their own pictures. Maybe it's just my eyes.
The takeaway that stays with me is still the one that Dustin noted in his (less odd) review, which was how impressive the Sigma is seeing as it's a 4-year-old lens and coatings design versus the new Canon with it's fancy Blue Goo. The canon is plainly better, which is why I traded some lenses for it a few weeks ago, but seriously, good on Sigma for coming out with something almost as good, although it was back when Gangnam Style was still working up the charts.
The takeaway that stays with me is still the one that Dustin noted in his (less odd) review, which was how impressive the Sigma is seeing as it's a 4-year-old lens and coatings design versus the new Canon with it's fancy Blue Goo. The canon is plainly better, which is why I traded some lenses for it a few weeks ago, but seriously, good on Sigma for coming out with something almost as good, although it was back when Gangnam Style was still working up the charts.
Upvote
0
Sabaki said:I wonder if artists had the same discussions about their brushes back in the day? :
If different brushes added varying amounts of purple or green pigment to the edges of brushstrokes as you painted towards the edge of the canvas, I'm sure artists would have had plenty to discuss!!
I'm still getting used to my 35L II, but overall am pretty happy with the results it achieves.
Like takesome1 mentioned, it's longer size compared to its predecessor does make it feel a bit closer to a 24-70 when carrying it around.
Tiggy, I agree with you about the Canon being better @ 1.4 in dpreview's test images, though it's surprising how much more the Sigma improves going from f/1.4 to f/2 in the second set of images shot on the Sony. The Canon catches up again at f/2.8 though.
*Both* great lenses, though, unless you want weather sealing - then we know which one to choose!
d.
Upvote
0
Yes, my brush is made of ass's hair :-[StudentOfLight said:My brush is made of genuine horse hair, your brush is clearly made of inferior ass hair...Sabaki said:I wonder if artists had the same discussions about their brushes back in the day? :
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:takesome1 said:
It's the new age of lens design. Get used to it. If you want the best performance these days you have to pay for it in size and weight (and money)
Is that why the 500 and 600mm F/4 II are lighter than the previous version?
Upvote
0
To be frank, after a minor breeze through Lightroom...I don't think you could tell finished images apart...even at 100%. By that I mean stopped down, hand held wide open...there is very little between them except fringing and local contrast. The opacity and CA sliders usually resolves those. I think the big difference for me would be the AF reliability, especially in low tungsten light. I've had some night mare experiences with Sigma...so I stay in the Canon fold because I believe in their science a lot more than I do with Sigma's.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
