35mm f/1.4 on a 7D... worth it?

Shoot Em Up

Shoot Em Up

Messages
919
Edit My Images
No
Simple really, is it worth investing in a 35mm f/1.4 for a 7D or is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 a better choice (ignoring the different focal lengths)?

I've read that the 35mm shines on a FF but what about on a crop body?
 
I've never used the 35L, but for the money if I had a crop I'd go for the Sigma unless I really needed the absolute best. Something like the 24L would be a better wide prime for a crop.
 
I have the siggy and it's very good, equivalent to 50mm full frame but I can't help but think the 35mm would be better! The sensor benefits from high quality lenses and the 35mm is certainly that. Let your budget decide!
 
Why wouldn't it shine? In fact, it should be even better on a crop (for overall sharpness and lack of Vignetting at least).

It's also a perfect focal length on a crop IMO.

I have the Canon 35mm f/2 and would love the f/1.4!
 
Last edited:
The main difference seems to be border sharpness, not just at/near max appature but all the way to F/8 the 35L is a good deal sharper on a crop going from reviews I'v seen.

So perhaps it depends on how your going to use it? boader sharpness might not be as much of an issue wide open since it will be out of focus alot of the time anyway but if you want to use it for more than that I'd say the 35L would likely give signifcantly better performance.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys. I've already bought the 35mm 1.4 for my 5D which I'm hoping to upgrade to MKII but also thinking I just keep the 5D and get a 7D too. Either way, it will definitely be used on a FF so no worries there.
 
daugirdas said:
I can't see 35mm L being bad on 7D so if you can justify the price tag get it. Probably it is best on FF, so you will have something to look forward to.

I'd give 30mm a miss. It is not anywhere near as good optically. I've reviewed some photos of my mates and was not impressed at all. This seems to agree somewhat:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/298-sigma-af-30mm-f14-ex-hsm-dc-test-report--review?start=1

it is cheap and that what you get.
Click to expand...

I think you have a problem. It is actually a good lens for the money. Not everyone wants to splash out the cost of the 35mm L and the siggy is actually recognised as a very good lens, once you get a decent one. Mind you a lot of the 'faults' with it are actually user error. For many people it is their first fast lens and it can be difficult to nail the focus.

Please consider your advice when giving it, not everybody can afford or wants to spend that kind of money on lenses etc and these 'judgements' you hand down are often not entirely accurate.
 
i'm also looking at getting this prime for my 7d think it will be a better bet than the 24 or 50mm.
 
Shoot Em Up said:
I'm willing to try the Sigma but I'd buy second hand and there's no guarantee I'll get a good one. Still, I'll keep my eyes peeled.
Click to expand...

Buy new then you can keep returning it until you are happy. Also make sure that you give it a good go rather than making a snap judgement! :)
 
The first review I Googled said this...

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

"Conclusion: The Sigma is slightly sharper (center of frame) from f1.4 - f2.8, controls flare and CA better, is significantly smaller and lighter, and costs less than 1/3 the price of the L. The Canon has slightly better extreme border sharpness from f1.4 - f2.8, controls barrel distortion and light fall-off better, is a tad quicker with AF, and has a closer MFD (and higher magnification). In terms of build and build-feel, they are comparable (solid metal mounts, no weathersealing for either, both can take some bumps and bruises, but drop either from 6 feet up onto concrete and both will need a service trip, etc.). When you consider ALL the strengths and weaknesses of both lenses, then factor in the price on top of everything, IMO the Sigma remains the one to have for APS-C standard primes. It's very sharp from the start (f1.4), has excellent color reproduction, is small and lightweight, and costs under $400 USD. It's for this reason that the 30 EX gets my recommendation over the L for APS-C photographers."

TBH that surprised me as I'd expect the much more expensive Canon L to shade it, but I don't know how old this Canon lens is and as some of their lenses are a bit long in the tooth now maybe that would account for Canon's less than clear, if any, victory.

I used to have a Siggy 30mm f1.4 and I was always amazed by the negative reviews and always suspected that most were down to user error (there's a lot of that about I'm sure...) and badge snobbery. That the reviewer found the Siggy sharper in the centre doesn't surprise me as mine was basically sharp from the off. I like centre sharpness and compact size but if buying today I'd consider FF compatibility too and obviously that brings the Canon to the fore.

PS. Just Googled the Canon 35mm f1.4 and got a date of introduction of 1998. If that's true it's now a 13 year old design and maybe things have moved on.
 
Last edited:
There are rumours that the 35L might be updated with the new FF models but looking back there seem to have been similar rumours of going back years.
 
The Canon 35 1.4 L is absolutely amazing. It is very sharp but really sharpness is only so much of the equation and the colour and contrast and va va voom for want of a better expression that it produces is fantastic. If that is the range you want and you can afford it get it.
 
Moreorless said:
There are rumours that the 35L might be updated with the new FF models but looking back there seem to have been similar rumours of going back years.
Click to expand...

I fail to see a way it could really be improved on that would make it worth doing. Weather sealing perhaps but really it is a stonking lens.
 
The 35mm is a beautiful lens but £900 beautiful? Hmmm... I could have a 35/50mm f/1.4 Sigma, a Canon 85mm 1.8 and maybe even squeeze in a Canon 17-40mm!

Damn this hobby is expensive.
 
Shoot Em Up said:
The 35mm is a beautiful lens but £900 beautiful? Hmmm... I could have a 35/50mm f/1.4 Sigma, a Canon 85mm 1.8 and maybe even squeeze in a Canon 17-40mm!

Damn this hobby is expensive.
Click to expand...

I'd better not mention the 85 1.2 is a good lens to compliment the 35 then had i?
 
Don't worry, I've already thought about the 85mm 1.2 and 135mm 2.0 to complete the lineup. Better start saving them pennies!
 
menthel said:
Buy new then you can keep returning it until you are happy.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone buy a product if they thought they might have to keep returning it to get a good one? :shrug: Do Sigma not have quality control?
 
Jackwow said:
Why would anyone buy a product if they thought they might have to keep returning it to get a good one? :shrug: Do Sigma not have quality control?
Click to expand...

They do. However, it is perhaps not as good as others but there is also user error to consider with these lenses. I am sure a number of them that have been returned have not been faulty.
 
A lot of it is simply down to absolutely minute differences in calibration.

Most of this is now correctable with micro adjustment (on bodies which feature this). That's what micro adjustment is for, and you can tune it to individual lenses which the camera will recognise.

I've known people to send lenses back without even trying to adjust it in camera.

I'd estimate that 90% of front/back focusing issues are resolvable this way.
 
Last edited:
front/back focus is only a fraction of optical faults. Centering defects and element misalignment are very common too and cannot be corrected. They usually cause focus errors as AF module just can't cope with it.

Canon also have it by the way but so far my overall experience was worse with Sigma.
 
Centre defect and element mis-alignment are far less common than lens calibration issues.
 
amtaylor said:
I fail to see a way it could really be improved on that would make it worth doing. Weather sealing perhaps but really it is a stonking lens.
Click to expand...

Well according to the review I read earlier the much cheaper Siggy is better at controlling flare and CA so there's a couple of areas for improvement.
 
woof woof said:
Well according to the review I read earlier the much cheaper Siggy is better at controlling flare and CA so there's a couple of areas for improvement.
Click to expand...

But it is a ff lens and without making it huge money I don't see Canon being able to do much. Also the CA isn't particularly noticeable and I haven't had any flare issues.
And on a similar line the 85 1.2 mk ii has a bit more CA than the mk I and the 35 for that matter but again not really that much of an issue when compared to the images it can yield imo

Of course on the flip its not as impressive on a crop as on full frame but then I'm not much for the approx 50mm look.
 
I only know one person who has one but he raves about it so whatever shortcomings it has can't be that bad.
 
woof woof said:
I only know one person who has one but he raves about it so whatever shortcomings it has can't be that bad.
Click to expand...

I have the 35 and its one lens I will never ever get rid of. I love it even more than my 85.
 
amtaylor said:
I have the 35 and its one lens I will never ever get rid of. I love it even more than my 85.
Click to expand...

I felt that way about the 135L but, I'm actually thinking about changing it now for something a bit wider. I had a look at the 35mm, but something is making me look long and hard at the 85mm now.
I have a feeling it will need to be a really good one to make me forget about the 135 though, it really is the best lens I have ever used! :thinking:
 
Chris Primadona said:
I felt that way about the 135L but, I'm actually thinking about changing it now for something a bit wider. I had a look at the 35mm, but something is making me look long and hard at the 85mm now.
I have a feeling it will need to be a really good one to make me forget about the 135 though, it really is the best lens I have ever used! :thinking:
Click to expand...

Both is the answer but I would get the 35 first as it will be more a more versatile setup until you got an 85. I will get the 135 at some point.
 
amtaylor said:
Both is the answer but I would get the 35 first as it will be more a more versatile setup until you got an 85. I will get the 135 at some point.
Click to expand...

I would actually consider getting both, but the 70-200 2.8 is mkII is high on my list of lenses at the moment so one is probably best taking my relationship into account :lol:

Will have a play with the 35mm next week and see how it feels on the 1.3 crop and FF. :thumbs:
 
I love my 35/1.4L both on the 5D and the 7D. Had the sigma and was never happy with it...

And the 85/1.8 is great too. But the 135/2 takes the cake. 50mm is nit for me :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top