New 50mm Sigma ? There are other options !

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Theres a lot of talk and hype maybe rightly so on the new Sigma 50mm , much of it generated by Sigma : making claims they knew would drum up interest.

However having recently given up waiting for its release and the wedding season upon us I decided to go for the new Canon 35mm F2 IS and oh my god what a lens. There is good reason is at the top of DXO marks canon prime ratings ! The sharpness is just amazing, I have since packed up my 24-70 and replaced it with this 35 the 24mm 2.8IS and the 85mm and what a difference, after only a few weddings not carrying the massive 24-70 around it has taken no time at all to adjust and the 35mm spends a lot of time on the camera with the 85 on a second body and the 24 in bag for wider needs.

It is tack sharp from F2 - i used to use the 50 1.2L and that was only any good at F2 onwards. This is better than the 50 1.2L in my opinion and for the price is a steal. No way is the Sigma going to beat this by any great distance. The bokeh is brilliant , it can handle close up nearly as good as a macro lens , it has IS which gives it low light capabilities beyond any other lens i have used and add to that the very good L standard build quality and lovely balanced size and Canon have produced a real gem and all for under £500 !!

Dont pass this up as an option if your looking for a fast standard prime on full frame its a winner.

Shot by Newcastle and North East Wedding Photographer www.andrew-davies.com Canon 35mm F2 IS at f6.3 iso400 on 5Dmk3

 

[caMARYnon]

100% agree about 35IS. I am a hobbyist and I bought it in early october 2013 and since then it's glued on my 5D2. It's close-up capability made my 100L macro to collect dust (I'm not a true macro shooter). Beautiful colours, contrast, sharpness, weight, versatility.

 

[cid]

I have since packed up my 24-70 and replaced it with this 35 the 24mm 2.8IS and the 85mm and what a difference, after only a few weddings not carrying the massive 24-70 around it has taken no time at all to adjust and the 35mm spends a lot of time on the camera with the 85 on a second body and the 24 in bag for wider needs.

Which 24-70 are you referring to? The original one f/2.8L, or f/2.8L II, or f/4L?

 

[Albi86]

It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.

It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.

 

[YuengLinger]

Not sure what this OP has to do with the Sigma 50mm at all??? More of a 35mm vs 35mm topic, or having one very strong 24-70mm vs three decent primes.

Personally, I'd rather use one heavyish lens than deal with changing during a wedding, of all events!

I did sell my 24-70mm v 1 and feel the version 2 is equal to all its hype (eg "like a bag full of primes).

And I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4, as I obviously don't get tired of announcing.

But TOUCHING on 50mm, for many shots, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is great at weddings in low light, with speedy AF, and good sharpness at f/2 - f/8. To me, the Sigma will have to be spectacular to be worth retiring it.

Glad, though, to hear the 35mm 2.0 is so nice.

 

[caMARYnon]

It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.

It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.

Sigma 35 1.4 has something special ?

 

[SoullessPolack]

Sigma 35 1.4 has something special ?

Yeah. 1.4.

 

[SoullessPolack]

Yeah. 1.4.

And the quality at that 1.4 is amazing too.

 

[ecka]

It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.

It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.

Sigma 35 1.4 has something special ?

Sigma produces much nicer background blur, even at f/2+. The IS is great for videos, but it's not necessary for people photography (in 35mm lens). IMHO, Sigma 35/1.4 is a win-win for the same price, unless you are doing a lot of videos.

P.S. It feels like all the new IS primes were meant for videographers.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

It is a good lens with IS and at a decent price, but nothing more than that.

It delivers consistently but it has absolutely nothing special about it.

What a load of cobblers, it is a fantastic lens. To answer the other questions and comments it has replaced a 24-70 2.8L v1 , and i dont have any issue changing lenses as i have two bodies one on my belt and one round my neck. Each to their own if you prefer the lower quality but higher convenience of a zoom then fine but don't go attempting to justify your laziness by saying primes are no good as all top photographers will tell you different.

 

[YuengLinger]

I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.

But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?

The difference between 35mm and 50mm on an SLR might seem slight to you, but not to models who see the difference in distortion right away. Sure, the 35mm is great for many shots, but, even on a cropped sensor, what is the point of saying x brand of 35 is an option to any brand of 50mm?

Heck, an iPhone is an option to an SLR, but that's kind of a wide net for a topic too.

Why do I feel as if somebody is about to say, "April Fools!"?

 

[bmwzimmer]

I own the canon 35 IS but have used the Sigma many times and liked them both. The Canon at the time was $350 cheaper ($550 vs $900) but it wasn't about the difference in cost for me, it was the size, weight, and bonus IS.
The Sigma wins by a hair in sharpness at f/2 at the corners but the out of focused backgrounds looked better on the Canon to me at the same maximum common aperture. Of course opening up the sigma an extra stop will provide better bokeh than the canon. The thing is when I shoot wider focal lengths like 24-35, I find myself shooting between f/2 to f/8 98-99% of the time. Now shooting at f/1.4 created ok to good bokeh but if I wanted really nice bokeh, I would simply reach for the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 to really make the subject pop in a way the sigma just can't touch. At f/2.8 on, the sharpness of the canon 35 and sigma were identical to my eyes so I decided to get the Canon. Both are much sharper than the Canon 35L and the 35L like the Sigma is too big for a walk around prime. For me, the 50L is the biggest and heaviest I want to go with a walk around.

The AF on the Canon was just slightly snappier (although a bit louder) than the Sigma. I did however have problems with AF on the Sigma on dimly lit conditions where the canon had no problems. The Canon 35 acquires focus in the dark about as fast as my trusty 24-70. I felt the AF on the Sigma performed as poorly as the 100mm L in poorly lit conditions. Perhaps it was just the particular copy I used.
The "initial" build quality of the Sigma is slightly better than the canon but both are excellent. The Canon 35 feels similar to the 100mm IS macro minus the gasket and red ring. It's better than any other non-L canon I've ever tested. In terms of reliability, I'm pretty sure the Canon will be just as good in 10-15 years of use if I take good care of it just like all my other L and non L canon lenses but nobody knows how the Sigma will hold up over time.

Bottom line is if you shoot at 1.4 a lot with a 35mm focal length, then get the Sigma. If f/2 is sufficient and IS is useful for you, get the 35 f/2.

 

[Sporgon]

I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.
But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?
The difference between 35mm and 50mm on an SLR might seem slight to you, but not to models who see the difference in distortion right away. Sure, the 35mm is great for many shots, but, even on a cropped sensor, what is the point of saying x brand of 35 is an option to any brand of 50mm?

Heck, an iPhone is an option to an SLR, but that's kind of a wide net for a topic too.

Why do I feel as if somebody is about to say, "April Fools!"?

You could take the OP in the context of the next arrival in the EF IS prime line ; the 50 IS - assuming it does arrive. Could be a really fine 50. Problem is a lot of people dismiss f1.8 despite the fact that if it's stellar wide open this speed is fast enough 99.9% of the time.

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

I think being able to catch precious moments--rather than laziness : -- instead of changing lenses is one good reason to use something such as a 24-70mm rather than 3 primes.

But what does ANY of this have to do with the new 50mm Sigma, which your title referred to?

The difference between 35mm and 50mm on an SLR might seem slight to you, but not to models who see the difference in distortion right away. Sure, the 35mm is great for many shots, but, even on a cropped sensor, what is the point of saying x brand of 35 is an option to any brand of 50mm?

Heck, an iPhone is an option to an SLR, but that's kind of a wide net for a topic too.

Why do I feel as if somebody is about to say, "April Fools!"?

A floored response. If you are photographing models you have plenty of time to change lenses and seen as primes will always give better quality and quality is a big factor in portrait photography and modelling your assumption that everyone would be happy with a zoom lens is not correct.

During a wedding no moments have been missed whatsover with the 35mm as it is on the camera as already noted and the 85 on my waist on the second camera so i have a similar range but better quality.

Each to their own, personally i have outgrown my zoom lenses and prefer the quality the prime provides and have the ability to think about the composition and use my feet.

Just to add on the final point , i along with many others will have been weighing up the 35mm and 50mm options including the new Sigma 50 and 35 as wedding photographers and event photographers do use both or one of these lenses for similar purposes and its down to taste which one suits your style as there is little in it which is the reason i added to this thread.

The amount of hype created by Sigma and fed by all these discussions still has no basis in fact until the lens is freely available and has been tested properly in the field. Its not more than a year or two ago everyone avoided Sigma for their rubbish QC remember ? I am reporting on a lens which is not only tested and has received rave reviews but it well priced has excellent QC and a proper pedigree ( canon )

 

[zlatko]

The 35/2 IS is a great lens -- one of my favorites. It's just right for image quality, autofocus, bokeh, size, weight, price, etc. But a wide angle is not an alternative to a standard. An alternative to a 50mm is another 50mm or a mid-range zoom.

 

[CarlTN]

Not sure what this OP has to do with the Sigma 50mm at all??? More of a 35mm vs 35mm topic, or having one very strong 24-70mm vs three decent primes.

Personally, I'd rather use one heavyish lens than deal with changing during a wedding, of all events!

I did sell my 24-70mm v 1 and feel the version 2 is equal to all its hype (eg "like a bag full of primes).

And I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4, as I obviously don't get tired of announcing.

But TOUCHING on 50mm, for many shots, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is great at weddings in low light, with speedy AF, and good sharpness at f/2 - f/8. To me, the Sigma will have to be spectacular to be worth retiring it.

Glad, though, to hear the 35mm 2.0 is so nice.

Well reasoned and succinct response, +1.

 

[infared]

The 35/2 IS is a great lens -- one of my favorites. It's just right for image quality, autofocus, bokeh, size, weight, price, etc. But a wide angle is not an alternative to a standard. An alternative to a 50mm is another 50mm or a mid-range zoom.

Exactly.

 

[benherman]

I have the old sigma 50mm, kicks pants off canon 1.4, especially build quality, but also sharpness. My canon, along with many unfortunate consumers out there, broke from light usage, the focussing mechanisms/moving front element are fragile as. $250 to fix on a $400 lens, no thanks canon especially since the service centre dude said its likely to happen again. Been happy with the sigma for years so any talk about poor quality/qa etc. doesn't exist in my book. I bought the sigma 35 1.4 due to my positive experience with the 50, it is wonderful.
I will look forward to seeing shots from the new sigma 50 and will consider upgrading only if it is phenomenally sharp, my current one is tops.

 

[beckstoy]

Yeah. 1.4.

And the quality at that 1.4 is amazing too.

+1 (with a bullet)

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Some great points and all taken. I was offering an alternative and would counter that to my mind a 35mm lens does not fall in the wide angle category that would be more the 10-24 ranges , the current crop of 35/40/50 lenses are all standards as in they can be kept on camera to take standard shots, many moons ago though 35mm would have been classed as wide as there were very limited options and sometimes a 35 50 or 70+ were all their was to choose from so I can see where your coming from.

I think the way of things now 24 is just on the edge of wide with DSLRs with most opting for the 14-17 areas.

So far that reason and for me anyway the 35 and 50s are competing for a place in my own bag , and having owned the 50mm 1.2L and still owning the rather cheap 50mm 1.4 ( canon ) i can happily say i much prefer the 35mm.

Also out of interest i do shoot the occasional video clip too so the IS as well as useful in low light has come in very handy for the video side too.

Looking forward to seeing some stellar shots from the new Sigma and if the reviews of their recent lenses are anything to go by maybe they have finally nailed the QC problems ?