Sneakers said:
One option would be the Sigma 35mm 1.4, which is at the very top of the price range I could consider ($900). Coming in a little less would be the Canon 35mm 2.0. Would I notice enough of a quality upgrade going from the 40 to the 35? Anything else I should be considering?
Thanks.
I have had the 40 2.8 for a while and recently picked up a 35 2 IS, and I'm using them on a 6D. I haven't had a chance to play too much with the 35 yet, but my initial impression is the image quality is pretty similar to the 40. So far I'd say the 35 might be a touch better, but it's not by much. I do notice 35 is wider than 40 - I prefer the 35 for things like street photography, but if you've got anyone reasonably close to the camera then I'd pick the 40 (just that little bit longer means a little bit less enlargement of noses, etc - but of course neither is likely to be a great choice for a close up portrait!). The 35 is pretty sharp even at f2 so you I'd say you get a genuinely usable extra stop there (provided the DOF is enough for your purpose), but the biggest difference is the IS. As long as your subject isn't moving, the IS means you can take sharp handheld shots in MUCH lower light than you can with the 40. Or if there's a bit more light (and a stationary subject), you can use the IS to keep your ISO down that much more.
I might change my mind after I've had more chance to play with the 35, but so far I'd say it's a very nice lens which works as advertised - it's pretty sharp even at f2 and the IS does a good job - but it hasn't wowed me yet (except to the extent I've been able to hand hold shots in very low light). And compared to the 40 it's very expensive, not to mention significantly bigger and heavier (even if it's small and light compared with many lenses), and the IQ is not so different.
To pick up on a few points others have made -
Agree that a good flash would be worth investigating. It can make a huge difference (in the right situation).
I've never used the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but from everything I've read, I'd be taking a good look at one if I was shooting with a crop sensor.
I used a 28 1.8 on crop and did like it as a general walk around lens. It doesn't get good reviews and it does get softer than you'd like pretty quickly once you move away from the centre of the frame, but equally (on crop) I didn't think it was as bad as some people made out. If you're shooting for your own enjoyment, I'd say have a good look at one. If you're shooting professionally, it's weaknesses might be more significant.
I read in a recent thread that Dustin Abbott isn't too far from completing a review of the 35 2 IS. I will be very interested to see what his take on it is. I'm very much in the amateur photographer camp, so I'll be interested to see what someone like Dustin has to say about it.
PS - as another suggestion, maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS if you can find one within your budget (maybe look 2nd hand)? I liked it a lot on crop (well, it does have to be on crop after all!) and the IS can be useful. If it was me shooting with your gear, I think I'd be looking at the 17-55 2.8 IS, the Sigma 18-35 1.8 or a flash (subject to budget of course).
