Should I buy the 35L now or wait for the price drop?

[Radiating]

You seem very uninformed.

You are almost 1.1 times more likely to have a focusing issue with the Canon 35mm L than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma 35mm A, based on actual reliability history from lens rentals which rents hundreds of copies of these lenses.

Read that a few times if you need to. You are MORE likely to have a FOCUSING issue with the Canon than you are likely to have ANY issues with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm is a 16 year old lens and one of the least reliable lenses you can buy regardless of manufacturer, it has all the problems the Sigma has, and issues with dropping dead and decentering. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is a brand new design, which comes with an incredibly long warranty.

If you're buying a used copy you're not going to have a few months left on the warranty at most with the Canon, which gives you a 1 year warranty.

Sigma gives you a 4 year warranty and it's a lens that is 2-3 times more reliable overall. The weight difference is also not noticeable, we're talking around a 10% difference. You'd be crazy to get the Canon for your needs.

The only reasons not to get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is that is has harder to correct distortion and much stronger purple fringing, which can both be annoying to correct. Otherwise the Canon is inferior in every way.

Uninformed? I have personally tried 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm F1.4, and 2 or 3 Sigma 30mm F1.4 on three different Canon bodies (5DIII, 40D, 60D). All had either focus inaccuracies or focus inconsistencies. This is not user error, I have been shooting for 3.5 years, and I'm not trying to sound cocky, but I do know what I'm doing.
I have also personally worked with the one and only one qualified Sigma lens technician available in Israel to try and calibrate a few of the said lenses, using their lab tools and using Sigma's new USB dock - we were unsuccessful and eventually I got refunded for the copy I have originally purchased.

Maybe the Canon uses old technology, but do you have any references for what you're saying? This is the first time I'm hearing such a review on the 35L, usually I hear only good things about it.

Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.

- Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L.

Like I said if you have problems with lenses having focus calibration, then you don't want a 35mm f/1.4L

Check the link if you have any skepticism:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

"Canon 35mm f/1.4 14% Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure"

The Canon 35mm f/1.4, not only cannot focus properly and requires calibration, but it's focusing system simply breaks, and many copies are severely decentered.


With that said 80% of copies of pretty much any lens are going to be good. What probably happened to you is that you bought multiple copies from a bad batch. I have purchased 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, to get the sharpest one and 2 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and haven't really had any issues with any of them, but what concerns me about the Canon is long term reliability. The lens simply breaks due to it's antiquated focusing system over time. You don't want to completely lose your investment.

If I were you I would just buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from another source.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.

- Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L.

Like I said if you have problems with lenses having focus calibration, then you don't want a 35mm f/1.4L

Check the link if you have any skepticism:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

"Canon 35mm f/1.4 14% Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure"

The Canon 35mm f/1.4, not only cannot focus properly and requires calibration, but it's focusing system simply breaks, and many copies are severely decentered.


With that said 80% of copies of pretty much any lens are going to be good. What probably happened to you is that you bought multiple copies from a bad batch. I have purchased 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, to get the sharpest one and 2 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and haven't really had any issues with any of them, but what concerns me about the Canon is long term reliability. The lens simply breaks due to it's antiquated focusing system over time. You don't want to completely lose your investment.

If I were you I would just buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from another source.

I don't want to go into a Canon vs Sigma argument, but here's the latest version of Roger's lens repair stats:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013

... drawing attention to a few points:

1. The main issue with the 35L is the AF/MF switch, which not many people need to use- it has instant manual override.
2. The rate of problems with the 35L has gone down.
3. The much revered 70-200 II has a significantly higher breakage rate. Does not mean people should stop buying them.

Also, saying 35L is one of the least reliable lenses is probably overstretching the data. Again, quoting Roger Cicala:
"...from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh"

 

[Radiating]

Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.

- Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L.

Like I said if you have problems with lenses having focus calibration, then you don't want a 35mm f/1.4L

Check the link if you have any skepticism:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

"Canon 35mm f/1.4 14% Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure"

The Canon 35mm f/1.4, not only cannot focus properly and requires calibration, but it's focusing system simply breaks, and many copies are severely decentered.


With that said 80% of copies of pretty much any lens are going to be good. What probably happened to you is that you bought multiple copies from a bad batch. I have purchased 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, to get the sharpest one and 2 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and haven't really had any issues with any of them, but what concerns me about the Canon is long term reliability. The lens simply breaks due to it's antiquated focusing system over time. You don't want to completely lose your investment.

If I were you I would just buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from another source.

I don't want to go into a Canon vs Sigma argument, but here's the latest version of Roger's lens repair stats:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013

... drawing attention to a few points:

1. The main issue with the 35L is the AF/MF switch, which not many people need to use- it has instant manual override.
2. The rate of problems with the 35L has gone down.

The rate of problems with the 35L has only gone down a tiny bit, it's gone from being the 12th least reliable lens you can buy to the 15th least reliable lens you can buy, out of 700 other lenses. That is not good. I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...

3. The much revered 70-200 II has a significantly higher breakage rate. Does not mean people should stop buying them.

People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it.

The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment. The Sigma with it's lower defect rate and lower calibration issues rate, lack of risk in being replaced soon, lack of risk of dropping dead, and 4 times longer warranty is a much safer bet.

I would just get a working Sigma 35mm if I were the OP.

Also, saying 35L is one of the least reliable lenses is probably overstretching the data. Again, quoting Roger Cicala:
"...from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh"

From a pure accuracy standpoint the 35mm f/1.4 L will be more consistent. My Canon copies of the 35 1.4 had half the variation in focus accuracy of the Sigma 35 1.4, but we're talking about a difference of around 1/4 of an AFMA step so that's not really meaningful. I think what most people care about is whether a lens has severe focusing issues, ie severe defects not tiny little differences. The Sigma has fewer severe focusing defects related to calibration than the Canon. So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.

 

[Arctic Photo]

Ok well if you have only heard good things about the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, let me tell you a few bad things.

- Lens Rentals rents out over 700 different of lenses with over 12,000 individual lenses in their arsenal. The 35mm f/1.4L is responsible for around HALF of all inoperable focusing system failures they have, despite the rest of their inventory being several hundred times larger. Out of the 700 different lenses they have, the 35mm f/1.4 L has consistently been in the BOTTOM 20 or worse. That means that 680 lenses are more reliable than the 35mm f/1.4 L.

Like I said if you have problems with lenses having focus calibration, then you don't want a 35mm f/1.4L

Check the link if you have any skepticism:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/09/lens-repair-data-4-0

"Canon 35mm f/1.4 14% Calibration, decentered element, autofocus failure"

The Canon 35mm f/1.4, not only cannot focus properly and requires calibration, but it's focusing system simply breaks, and many copies are severely decentered.


With that said 80% of copies of pretty much any lens are going to be good. What probably happened to you is that you bought multiple copies from a bad batch. I have purchased 3 copies of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, to get the sharpest one and 2 copies of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and haven't really had any issues with any of them, but what concerns me about the Canon is long term reliability. The lens simply breaks due to it's antiquated focusing system over time. You don't want to completely lose your investment.

If I were you I would just buy a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from another source.

I don't want to go into a Canon vs Sigma argument, but here's the latest version of Roger's lens repair stats:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013

... drawing attention to a few points:

1. The main issue with the 35L is the AF/MF switch, which not many people need to use- it has instant manual override.
2. The rate of problems with the 35L has gone down.

The rate of problems with the 35L has only gone down a tiny bit, it's gone from being the 12th least reliable lens you can buy to the 15th least reliable lens you can buy, out of 700 other lenses. That is not good. I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...

3. The much revered 70-200 II has a significantly higher breakage rate. Does not mean people should stop buying them.

People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it.

The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment. The Sigma with it's lower defect rate and lower calibration issues rate, lack of risk in being replaced soon, lack of risk of dropping dead, and 4 times longer warranty is a much safer bet.

I would just get a working Sigma 35mm if I were the OP.

Also, saying 35L is one of the least reliable lenses is probably overstretching the data. Again, quoting Roger Cicala:
"...from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh"

From a pure accuracy standpoint the 35mm f/1.4 L will be more consistent. My Canon copies of the 35 1.4 had half the variation in focus accuracy of the Sigma 35 1.4, but we're talking about a difference of around 1/4 of an AFMA step so that's not really meaningful. I think what most people care about is whether a lens has severe focusing issues, ie severe defects not tiny little differences. The Sigma has fewer severe focusing defects related to calibration than the Canon. So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.

If you don't like it, then just say so, you're overdoing it a big now.

I have the 35L and haven't had a single problem with it. Very consistent performer. I have only had it for two years but to me it seems to just keep working. I always bring it out when I want that extra artistic touch.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...

One can use back button focus.

People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it.

True, and similarly people buy 35L despite those stats, and I am yet to see a single thread here complaining about the lens.

The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment.

Not really. The OP wants to get the 35L, period, and the only question is whether he should wait.

So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.

True. So if the OP can get a 'good copy' of the 35L he/she is set, right? I understand the 35Art is a fantastic lens and more power to Sigma for that, but if someone has decided specifically not to go with it, is there much point in going over the same thing?
I hope the OP decides to get the 35L now and furthermore, decides to post some of the pictures here
Cheers

 

[shlomki]

Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon

 

[sagittariansrock]

Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon

I suppose you are familiar with fredmiranda.com? Good ones get snapped up quickly, though... Good luck!

 

[shlomki]

Thanks everyone, you've all been a great help. I'm searching the boards for a used 35L, hopefully something will come up soon

I suppose you are familiar with fredmiranda.com? Good ones get snapped up quickly, though... Good luck!

I'm from Israel, so no fredmiranda but thanks! looking on some local boards.

 

[Radiating]

I'm also not sure how it's possible to use full time manual overide to manual focus and do minor adjustments on a tripod, because the autofocus will completely refocus between shots in that mode...

One can use back button focus.

People should stop buying them if there is an alternative that doesn't constantly fail. People buy the the 70-200mm L II despite it's extreme breakage rate not because of it.

True, and similarly people buy 35L despite those stats, and I am yet to see a single thread here complaining about the lens.

The OP wants a lens that isn't going to be defective and will be a safe investment.

Not really. The OP wants to get the 35L, period, and the only question is whether he should wait.

So the Canon has more defects but slightly less variation in good copies. The Sigma also does have slightly more nervous bokeh, but it also has stunning clarity and I think that images just look noticeably better when you average those two issues out.

True. So if the OP can get a 'good copy' of the 35L he/she is set, right? I understand the 35Art is a fantastic lens and more power to Sigma for that, but if someone has decided specifically not to go with it, is there much point in going over the same thing?
I hope the OP decides to get the 35L now and furthermore, decides to post some of the pictures here
Cheers

I don't think you're understanding my point. The OP gave us a set of reasons why he wanted to get the 35L. The Canon 35L is seriously much worse at fulfilling his needs than the Sigma 35A. It is a completely illogical purchase fueled by the fact that he got a bad copy of the Sigma.

It would be like buying a motorcycle to drive to work every day because your car crashed and you feel unsafe driving a car.

Like I said I've owned multiple copies of both the Sigma 35A and the Canon 35L. I initially went from the Canon, to the Sigma, and then back to the Canon because I really disliked the fact that lightroom didn't properly correct distortion for the 35A at the time (this is fixed now), and it had crazy levels of purple fringing which I hate, but I went back to the Sigma again because the stunning clarity of the Sigma made a huge difference in my photos. If the OP said that he wanted a 35mm lens with low purple fringing then I'd recommend the 35mm L. But the OP does not want a lens with low PF. He wants a lens that is reliable and a safe bet financially. The Sigma is way more reliable than the Canon, and is a much safer bet. It's basic logic.

 

[Ruined]

There was the rumor not long ago that Canon has patented a new formula for a 35mm 1.4.
I want to buy a used 35mm 1.4, but I'm not sure if I should risk loss of value, in case a new one comes out shortly after.
Of course, there is also the Sigma option, but I'm scared of focusing problems which I have had before with Sigma. I also like the lighter weight of the Canon.
What do you think and what would you do?

Thanks!

The significant advantages I could see Canon adding to the 35L II would be:

1) Rounded aperture blades - for more rounded bokeh balls when stopped down. I see this as a significant advantage, unless you shoot at 1.4 100% of the time. This will definitely be incorporated in a 35L II.

2) Weather sealing - I don't see anything about the 35L's design that would complicate weather sealing (unlike say the 85L). Thus, adding weather sealing would likely be a new added feature of a 35L II.

3) Other optical improvements - the current 35L is a very old design. I believe that a new 35L would have other optical improvements and perhaps improvements in coatings, though they could be subtle.

There is a possibility that image stabilization could be added, but I would not count on it as a definite because of the wide focal length.

But, it is a definite that a 35L II would likely cost at least 1699-1899. So, would the above three points be worth it? That is for you to decide! There are very good cases that could be made either way on that point. For me, #1 is a big deal, so it would be worth it for that alone to me. Others might not care.

 

[Light Sculptor]

I had to get my canon 35 repaired as the AF stopped working. I consider it as an OK lens, but not a "wow" lens. For me predictability of autofocus is more important, than absolute sharpness, so I would probably not go for the Sigma in the near future.

 

[YuengLinger]

Sigma, for cryin' out loud.

 

[Shane1.4]

I prefer the Sigma 35 1.4 to all the L lenses I have owned. Including the 135. I have had no issues with the AF but lots of issues with the AF failing on my Canon lenses. It really leaves my 5d mkiii.

 

[beckstoy]

forget the 35L. Get the Siggy 35 Art. You'll not regret it (and you'll have $700 left over in your pocket). I'm constantly stunned at the sharpness fully open at 1.4.

 

[JumboShrimp]

Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed. Outstanding images wide open in near darkness on my 6D. Was also fortunate to snag one refurbished thru Sigma website for $680 shipped; looks, feels, and tastes brand new.

 

[Marsu42]

Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed.

How is the 6d af with this f1.4 lens (center point)?

 

[JumboShrimp]

No issues so far with AF, but my tests have been pretty informal.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Just received my Sigma 35/1.4 ART a few days ago and am totally impressed. Outstanding images wide open in near darkness on my 6D. Was also fortunate to snag one refurbished thru Sigma website for $680 shipped; looks, feels, and tastes brand new.

Wow, that's a really good price. I have been looking at their website periodically in search for it. Were you able to set up any alert?

 

[IsaacImage]

Siggy all the way !