just hit the purchase button

[JohnDizzo15]

Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.

Agreed regarding both lenses.......with regard to optics.

"unless you are shooting at f1.4"

The issue though, is that part one of the more important reasons you buy a fast prime is to be able to shoot it fast. I personally had issues with several copies not only with varying distances, but varying lighting as well when shooting at or near wide open. This is a problem I had personally never experienced with the 35L. As a matter of fact, the Canon was the most consistently accurate fast prime I've ever had when shooting wide open.

I absolutely disagree that you "should" be manual focusing when shooting wide open with a fast prime as a general rule. While there may be times when it is needed, it generally is not.

 

[CarlTN]

Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.

Agreed regarding both lenses.......with regard to optics.

"unless you are shooting at f1.4"

The issue though, is that part one of the more important reasons you buy a fast prime is to be able to shoot it fast. I personally had issues with several copies not only with varying distances, but varying lighting as well when shooting at or near wide open. This is a problem I had personally never experienced with the 35L. As a matter of fact, the Canon was the most consistently accurate fast prime I've ever had when shooting wide open.

I absolutely disagree that you "should" be manual focusing when shooting wide open with a fast prime as a general rule. While there may be times when it is needed, it generally is not.

So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

"So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"

Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.

The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.

 

[jdramirez]

"So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"

Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.

The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.

What body do you have? Do you have AFMA?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

"So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"

Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.

The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.

What body do you have? Do you have AFMA?

When I had the copies of the Sigma, I had a 5d3. They were both AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal. At the time, the dock had not yet been released so I didn't have the ability to modify the three distance values in lens. However, with the single distance calibration in body I did have, I was still getting inconsistent AF at roughly that distance depending on the lighting I was in during real world usage. As stated earlier, the second copy was even worse than the first which is when I threw in the towel.

At the time, I had spoken to a tech in their New York office and was told to send both the body and lens in together which I had actually given some consideration to since the optical quality of the lens made it so attractive.

Putting the accuracy issue aside, both S35 copies I had were still noticeably slower to AF than the copy of the 35L I had which in all reality was the most consistently accurate AF'ing lens I owned. The speed difference was not the deal breaker though since the Sigmas still did reasonably well in that regard (albeit not as fast).

 

[CarlTN]

"So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"

Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.

The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.

What body do you have? Do you have AFMA?

When I had the copies of the Sigma, I had a 5d3. They were both AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal. At the time, the dock had not yet been released so I didn't have the ability to modify the three distance values in lens. However, with the single distance calibration in body I did have, I was still getting inconsistent AF at roughly that distance depending on the lighting I was in during real world usage. As stated earlier, the second copy was even worse than the first which is when I threw in the towel.

At the time, I had spoken to a tech in their New York office and was told to send both the body and lens in together which I had actually given some consideration to since the optical quality of the lens made it so attractive.

Putting the accuracy issue aside, both S35 copies I had were still noticeably slower to AF than the copy of the 35L I had which in all reality was the most consistently accurate AF'ing lens I owned. The speed difference was not the deal breaker though since the Sigmas still did reasonably well in that regard (albeit not as fast).

But what I want to know is, were the bokeh background highlights in the "transition zone", as smooth as the 35L? And if not, how much more coarse were they?