Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life

[Foxdude]

I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4

 

[JohnUSA]

How's the focusing of the Canon in low light? I've been eyeing the Sigma but like the IS of the Canon and the price. I shoot with a 5D3 which seems to help some lenses focus in low light and accuracy.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I think you would be happy with either lens, but see no reason to own both.

 

[sdsr]

How's the focusing of the Canon in low light? I've been eyeing the Sigma but like the IS of the Canon and the price. I shoot with a 5D3 which seems to help some lenses focus in low light and accuracy.

I rented both lenses when they were new for about a week, using them on a 6D or 5DIII (I forget which) mostly in very low light (after sunset in winter), and although that probably isn't long enough to get much sense of AF accuracy, I never had a problem with either one. But, since you mention low light, there is one issue where the Sigma seemed unquestionably superior - coma. Few review sites address this, but this one does:

http://www.lenstip.com/365.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

http://www.lenstip.com/359.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

If coma is a big enough issue for the sort of things you photograph, the Sigma seems preferable; otherwise the Canon might be more appealing. (I couldn't decide and while I was dithering Adorama had a ridiculous short-lived sale on the 28mm IS, so I bought that instead....)

 

[Ruined]

I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4

Why not sell the Sigma 1.4, buy the Canon 35mm f/2 IS + 24mm f/1.4 L or 50mm f/1.2L for shallow DOF work?

 

[Foxdude]

I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4

Why not sell the Sigma 1.4, buy the Canon 35mm f/2 IS + 24mm f/1.4 L or 50mm f/1.2L for shallow DOF work?

I have thought the same. My Sigma 35 is now on sale. When it finds new owner, I'll buy 35IS, and later add a fast 50mm or 85mm lens. 35+85 would be sweet combo. I also like macro and close-ups. I have 100L which I love, so maybe 35IS + 100L might work well, too.

 

[dlee13]

I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4

Why not sell the Sigma 1.4, buy the Canon 35mm f/2 IS + 24mm f/1.4 L or 50mm f/1.2L for shallow DOF work?

I have thought the same. My Sigma 35 is now on sale. When it finds new owner, I'll buy 35IS, and later add a fast 50mm or 85mm lens. 35+85 would be sweet combo. I also like macro and close-ups. I have 100L which I love, so maybe 35IS + 100L might work well, too.

It all depends on your shooting style but having a 35 and a 50 can be unnecessary. Currently I only have my 35 IS and 100L is and I find it to a good combo. It Canon release a new 85mm 1.8 I'll probably get that, but at the same time the 100L does a great job on portraits.

 

[Khufu]

To throw a bit of a curveball for those who are trying to decide what's best... Sigma's (now old) selection of fast, wide primes are freaking awesome! They do a 20, 24 and 28mm, I think all at f/1.8 and the price increases as they get wider. I shoot with the 24mm f/1.8 and I'm honestly blown away with the results I get from it every time - oh and it focuses stupid-close, with expected W/A distortion of facial features etc, but what you can achieve with a ("macro" of sorts) close focusing, wide angle, fast lens like this really is fantastic. I'll try to dig out a decent example or two but I've got an image here from this past Friday which was shot with that lens on a 5D3, though cropped for composure...

Also - I'm torn with the 35mm IS thing too. It really is a bit slow/deep-field for my ideals but I'd also like something relatively fast and stabilised for video - aaargh ;D

...but for me, whilst I do see the general appeal of the 35mm FL, I go for a slightly less conventional Sigma 24mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 & Canon 100mm f/2 trio for "Arty"/Low Light Event and Life-documenting photography... and for arty stills I feel this is a wonderful sort-of-budget set-up (oh, and Tamron's amazing, discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for UWA!)

recent image from the 24mm f/1.8 as mentioned above:

 

[Khufu]

Again, I know this is a thread about the 35mm lenses but I was intrigued to see the results shared by drmikeinpdx (great work, btw!) and the thoughts regarding shooting in tight spaces and trying to achieve shallower DoF, and feel inclined to share what I feel are advantages of maybe considering wider, fast primes... apologies for the rubbish compression (they're facebook server images) but this might offer some perspective on the 24mm perspective, which unfortunately isn't at f/1.8 when considering Canon's Stabilised offerings - more "aaaargh!"

I'll not clutter the forum with lots of embedded images so here's a few shots from the 24mm Sigma, for those who care to click!

** https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/857084_10151325590728977_1824944742_o.jpg
** https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/998616_10151510141658977_1597403139_n.jpg?oh=000e030c0640fdff0bc0aff7efc51646&oe=548ADF5F&__gda__=1422860880_ea1f30801fce5f5a879af80c9e55e65c
** https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10455236_10152196440088977_9118970523587077111_n.jpg?oh=cf336881899b5617b96e0aa2f6fef5b7&oe=549A553E&__gda__=1419685672_2db2800a27537de4c1ae6ee41f9e0a1c
** https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/1273518_10151649373228977_165448402_o.jpg

 

[Foxdude]

So, I sold the Sigma, and have been using the EF 35 IS about 2 months now.
To compare them, here are few my thoughts. First, I didn't use them side by side, but I feel they are equally sharp, even wide open. Or at least the difference is that small I can't see that on 40 inch TV, or zooming in in computer.
F 1.4 would be nice sometimes, but I haven't missed that too much. I much prefer the smaller size and weight. You definetely feel the difference, it is so much nicer to carry around. IS is also nice to have. Bokeh seems to be a little pleasant in Canon.
I agree, there is pretty bad coma, until you stod down to F4. Doesn't bother me, though.
I have no regrets at all, I also pocketed some money when sold Sigma and bought the New EF35 IS.
With all that hype around Sigma Art lenses, I would say this Canon is just as good. Even better overall, when we think versatility, weight, IS, size, price...
Unless you really need the F1.4, or you like to shoot test charts wide open and print them large, I would say the Canon EF 35 IS is a better choice. Just my thoughts

 

[dlee13]

So, I sold the Sigma, and have been using the EF 35 IS about 2 months now.
To compare them, here are few my thoughts. First, I didn't use them side by side, but I feel they are equally sharp, even wide open. Or at least the difference is that small I can't see that on 40 inch TV, or zooming in in computer.
F 1.4 would be nice sometimes, but I haven't missed that too much. I much prefer the smaller size and weight. You definetely feel the difference, it is so much nicer to carry around. IS is also nice to have. Bokeh seems to be a little pleasant in Canon.
I agree, there is pretty bad coma, until you stod down to F4. Doesn't bother me, though.
I have no regrets at all, I also pocketed some money when sold Sigma and bought the New EF35 IS.
With all that hype around Sigma Art lenses, I would say this Canon is just as good. Even better overall, when we think versatility, weight, IS, size, price...
Unless you really need the F1.4, or you like to shoot test charts wide open and print them large, I would say the Canon EF 35 IS is a better choice. Just my thoughts

I see quite a few people switching over now. There is a guy in the Flickr group for this lens that just switched from the Sigma and he's pretty much said exactly what you did. His main issue with the Art was the size of the lens. If you want to see the discussion you can have a look if you like https://www.flickr.com/groups/canon35mm_is_usm/discuss/72157644351053006/
Glad to see you're happy with the Canon 35 IS, I know after one year of owning mine I love it to bits!