I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4

[sunnyVan]

No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

 

[ziggy-too]

Hi Forum. First post. Bought Sigma 35mm, 1.4 last saturday and took a lot of shuts. In many of the shouts the AF was happy to pick one or more AF points, but afterwards the picture when zoomed showed a focus planed that was in front of selected AF point/points.
Took my 60D and lens to the reseller and he/they validated by findings with a number of pictures. They swapped the lens with another one, which I now will try out.

Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I've never tried the Sigma 35 1.4, but I image you will LOVE your new 35L, it is one of my favorite lenses I've ever owned or tested. The 35L on the 5Dii is my go-to when I'm venturing out with only one body and one lens.

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[MLfan3]

I think you made right decision, I my self sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 for my D800 and got the Canon 35mmf2IS for my 5Dmk2.
I think the small barrel size of the 35mm f2 with IS ,with the super effective IS, is a bit more practical lens in real life than the expensive Sigma or the huge 35mm f1.4 Carls Zeiss or the Nikon version of it, and I even go further to say getting a Canon FF body for just the Canon 35mm f2IS is worth it.

I think the 135mm f2 L and the 35mm f2IS make the 6D and the 5D3 so attractive , Nikon's got nothing like that small but sharp new gen 35mm prime with effective image stabilizer.
Honestly, I have never understood why so many people rave about the Sigma 35mm f1.4 or Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , which I had and used on my 5DMK2 for a couple months and sold.
the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is ridiculously huge as a prime and it was not that special optically.
I really think the Canon 35mm f2ISUSM is the best (or more precisely most practical) 35mm prime ever made for any SLR system.

I think the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is overrated.

 

[Pi]

No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples?

 

[sunnyVan]

No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples?

I'll see if I could post some tonight. I'm still at work. I'm a slave.

 

[sunnyVan]

No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.

Would you post samples?

I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

 

[sunnyVan]

35L test 1_4 B by Sunny_Van, on Flickr

 

[infared]

Well....it does not make a lot of sense to pay $500 extra for that much green slime....now, does it?

 

[Zv]

Can we shorten the Sigma 35 f/1.4 to just "35A" as in Art? Then in our signatures we can distinguish a 35L from a 35A easily!

You heard it here first!

 

[Pi]

I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

It is a torture test for any lens. You have blown highlights. The CA in the other shot (stuff on a deck) looks much stronger than it is because the highlights which caused it were clipped. The Sigma controls the CA much better, no doubt but I do not see similar shots with the Sigma (but I see the poor bokeh in the shot shot with the cardboards).

This CA is rarely a problem. This is probably the only shot of mine, wide open, where CA is objectionable, look for the white label on the top of the yellow package on the left.


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

No problem here, however:


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

or here:


Naked cowboy, on Flickr

 

[sunnyVan]

I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.

It is a torture test for any lens. You have blown highlights. The CA in the other shot (stuff on a deck) looks much stronger than it is because the highlights which caused it were clipped. The Sigma controls the CA much better, no doubt but I do not see similar shots with the Sigma (but I see the poor bokeh in the shot shot with the cardboards).

This CA is rarely a problem. This is probably the only shot of mine, wide open, where CA is objectionable, look for the white label on the top of the yellow package on the left.


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

No problem here, however:


Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

or here:


Naked cowboy, on Flickr

Pi, it really wasn't meant to be a test. I was simply running around shooting stuffs randomly like a child who just got a christmas gift. Even if it was a test, it was really a test of the AF in backlit condition. And it passed easily. I was very satisfied with the 35L's AF performance. It's so instantaneous and accurate. The look and the feel of the L is also more attractive to me. The 100g less weight is a nice bonus. It feels so right until I see all this colorful stuff!!

I do feel that Sigma's optical performance seems better, or simply more modern. 10 yrs is a big deal. And I can't justify spending 40-50% more on the L. Bokeh, some say, is more creamy or prettier for the L. But you know what, I'm very distracted by the colorful CA. I'm talking about my copy specifically. Maybe I'm being harsher because when I pay more I expect more. If they're the same price, um... I may lean toward the L.

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

 

[wayno]

I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also. The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.

Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.

With pictures taken at 2.8, one click on "remove CA" in LR will take care of most unwanted colored lines. Pictures taken below 2.8 need manual defringing with the dropper. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. Any insights would be appreciated. That's just my observation from 3 hrs of owning it. Could be wrong.

No you're probably right, I just don't find the corrected CA offensive. Just a personal thing.

 

[Pi]

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in one of the shots I posted but that is passable.

 

[Pi]

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in the third shot I posted (upper left) but that is passable. I do not even know if there is CA there or not because I have not studied it under 100% but I see problems in the bokeh right away.

 

[sunnyVan]

My new Sigma seems to work better than the one I returned earlier. The AF is a bit faster and quite accurate most of the time. It's still not as fast as canon but fast enough. It hunts a lot less than the one before too. So far I'm happy but will continue to have fun with it while doing more testing. The canon L is probably going into a return box soon.

 

[sunnyVan]

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.

Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in one of the shots I posted but that is passable.

I got it refurbished. So is my 135L. My 135L works perfectly. I would buy from Canon direct again.

The Sigma did produce some pictures whose bokeh is suboptimal. But it also gave me many more shots with beautiful bokeh. I think it can be very subjective.

 

[bleephotography]

After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision.

I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high.

I took quite a few pictures I love with the Sigma. I really wanted to love it but I can't deal with unreliable and slow AF.

The sigma deserves a second chance. Perhaps I'll get a better copy. But I'm gonna try the Canon first.

I can attest to the slower AF, and the copy variation with the Sigma. It took three copies to finally receive one that I'm happy with; the first was lacking in sharpness, even after AFMA. The second exhibited extreme color fringing and sluggish AF. And my current copy...well, it is PERFECT. Not only is it tack sharp at f/1.4, but it also has noticeably faster AF. Now I'm sure most people would have been satisfied with my first and second copies, but admittedly I'm a pixel-peeper and wouldn't lower my standards for a $900 lens.

 

[CarlTN]

I was seriously considering getting the sigma 35 but at around $800 or so... I can't bring myself to pay retail. I did have an offer on the table for $900 for a used Canon 35mmL but I read enough about the sigma that I simply had to go that route.

Then I realized that 35mm on a full frame is like a 22mm on a crop (I'm just starting to make the transition). And I rarely ever shoot anything at 22mm on a crop... so I'm back to needing a good low light lens f/1.4 that is sharp wide open... which eliminates the 50's. So I guess my other option is the 85mm... but I have a 70-200 mkii which seems redundant... which is also why I'm selling my 100mm L and why I have all but stopped wanting a 135mm f/2.

So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.

My Voigtlander 58mm Nokton SLii is sharp wide open on my 6D. However, it is a manual lens. There are plenty on here who will slam the lens because it is a manual, and because it's not a Canon...but I'm sorry, it is sharper than both Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.2. Period...it just is. I bought it for around $450 from Adorama in 2011. It is a Nikon mount, but I bought the Fotodiox chipped adapter for $35...works very well (after some tightening)...focus confirmation is accurate.

The color, contrast, build quality, and focus ring feel, are almost identical to Zeiss. The sharpness is almost up to that of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar...from the tests I have seen. The vignetting is minimal for an f/1.4 lens on my 6D, and non-existent on a crop body. This is comparing my particular copy...I have no idea about sample variation.

I was convinced to buy the lens after looking at the test charts that photozone.de did. You can compare the results they got with both Canon 50's.

However, if you expect razor sharp focus accuracy at f/1.4 from this Voigtlander, without magnified live view, you will probably never get it. Also, if you shoot at slower apertures than near wide open, the light meter on your camera won't be as accurate.

These are all tradeoffs I'm happy with, considering the color, sharpness, build quality, and price.

One final caveat...If I were an event shooter who only used the lens for that, and had to focus and re-focus hundreds of times over a short period of time...I would just pick a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom (probably the Tamron)...and run with that.

It's a shame you don't want the 135 f2L. It has been my favorite lens for over 4 years. But the Voigtlander's color is better, its contrast identical, its sharpness on par...while it has slightly more CA, and its bokeh is not as smooth as the 135's. But then nothing I've tried beat the 135's overall bokeh (including the 200 f/2 and 85 f/1.2)...other than perhaps a Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar. But then it's also a mostly manual lens that costs twice what the 135L costs...and it was overall not as grand as the 135.

 

[mememe]

This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.

With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\

I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D

Mine is pretty usable at 1.4
Not softer than the 50L at 1.4
Seems like i got a pretty good one.

It does shift focus when stopping down. My 50L also did.

There was no reason to keep the expensive L (ok, more and round blades. But u cant have everything)

I even had a 50 1.8 II which was really great wide open (sharpness. Contrast could be better)


SORRY 4 OT