35mm for Canon

Phil V

Phil V

Messages
25,294
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
The choice seems to be (in price order)
Canon EF 35mm f2
Sigma 35 mm 1.4
Canon EF35 f2 IS
SIGMA 35 1.4 art
Canon 35 1.4L

I'm thinking the best bang for buck is the older Sigma, am I correct?
 
Phil V said:
The choice seems to be (in price order)
Canon EF 35mm f2
Sigma 35 mm 1.4
Canon EF35 f2 IS
SIGMA 35 1.4 art
Canon 35 1.4L

I'm thinking the best bang for buck is the older Sigma, am I correct?
Click to expand...

Never used the older Sigma Phil but I've been using the Sigma 35 1.4 Art for weddings and it's fantastic. I was renting a Canon 35 1.4 L - which you'll know is at least twice the price - and ditched it for the Sigma.

The thing is built like a bloody tank and just feels 'right'. There have been a few in the classifieds of late for £400-£450.
 
I have the 35mm sigma art and it is a fantastic lens. A few reports with some dodgy focusing but its easily sorted buying the dock for the new range of sigma lenses and adjusting it to suit.
 
I think the Zeiss 35/2 is the most impressive 35mm lens that I've used but it's manual focus and that might not fit with your criteria, Phil.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I think the Zeiss 35/2 is the most impressive 35mm lens that I've used but it's manual focus and that might not fit with your criteria, Phil.

Bob
Click to expand...
You're right Bob, it's a lot of years since I thought Manual focus was a worthwhile exercise :)
 
Phil V said:
The choice seems to be (in price order)
Canon EF 35mm f2
Sigma 35 mm 1.4
Canon EF35 f2 IS
SIGMA 35 1.4 art
Canon 35 1.4L

I'm thinking the best bang for buck is the older Sigma, am I correct?
Click to expand...

Is there an older Sigma 35mm f1.4? I owned the older Sigma 30mm f1.4, it's a DC lens and APS-C only. Is that the one?

If it is... I thought mine was a very good lens and useable from f1.4 and I only sold it when going from a 20D to a 5D. If you're not talking about that lens just ignore me.
 
woof woof said:
Is there an older Sigma 35mm f1.4? I owned the older Sigma 30mm f1.4, it's a DC lens and APS-C only. Is that the one?

If it is... I thought mine was a very good lens and useable from f1.4 and I only sold it when going from a 20D to a 5D. If you're not talking about that lens just ignore me.
Click to expand...
The original didn't have the 'Art' moniker, like the first 50mm and the current 85. I've no idea how much has changed other than the name though.
 
I'm not sure there was a pre Art 35 1.4. As mentioned there is a 30mm 1.4 APSC lens.
 
If you can find a used Canon 35mm f/2 (mk 1, non IS) they are the bargain of the century. Stunning IQ even wide open. I love mine and picked it up for £150. And it was only 6 months old at the time according to the date code. The new IS version and the Sigma Art have the edge in terms of edge performance and vignetting but looking at the shots there isnt too much in it IMO (and 3 times the price!). The best of the bunch is the Sigma Art, but best bang for buck is the mk1 Canon :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think there was an "old" Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Phil.

The Sigma Art is very, very sharp and it feels well built. Personally I think the AF is a bit hesitant compared to the Canon - but then everybody's is - and I don't think it handles OOF backgrounds quite as well. (YMMV on that point.) Great value though.
 
Sigma art owner here , best lens I own and I also have a bag of L glass
 
Stood corrected on the Sigma.

You're not making this easier folks.
 
Another vote for the Sigma Art here, it's hardly left my camera since I got mine.
 
Another vote for the 1.4A lens, fantastic glass, built like a tank, accurate focus when fully calibrated with the dock, sharp as sharp gets (minor detriment to oof areas). Agree with Stewart the focus isn't as rapid as some but it's not a deal breaker.
 
I really like the newer Canon 35/2 IS, very nice lens indeed. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Sigma, with IS and super-sharp. Depends how you value IS vs the extra stop of aperture really.

If it was me, not sure what I'd get. Prolly the Sigma at the end of the day, for DoF at 1.4 in your line of work. On FF obviously LOL
 
First FF arrives today. The low light ability of the crop Canons has left me no choice (I was hoping the 7dII would do it). It'll be expensive by the time I've finished, and probably means a couple of years or more of transition (2 x 6d's and a 5dIII, at least 3 lenses).
 
Phil V said:
First FF arrives today. The low light ability of the crop Canons has left me no choice (I was hoping the 7dII would do it). It'll be expensive by the time I've finished, and probably means a couple of years or more of transition (2 x 6d's and a 5dIII, at least 3 lenses).
Click to expand...

Sounds good (y) Unless going the smaller/lighter route with APS-C, FF is the better way for weddings IMHO. Apart from advantages in low light and shallow DoF, one of the other reasons I use FF is cropability. I was doing quite a few kids and family-type portraits at the time, and very often there would be a good solo portrait to be cropped out of a wider view. You can do that with FF and retain enough image quality for most purposes :)
 
Phil V said:
First FF arrives today. The low light ability of the crop Canons has left me no choice (I was hoping the 7dII would do it). It'll be expensive by the time I've finished, and probably means a couple of years or more of transition (2 x 6d's and a 5dIII, at least 3 lenses).
Click to expand...

A assume that you are a full time or at least part time pro? and if so our needs and priorities will be different.

Personally I'm, lucky enough to be able to buy whatever I want but I'm limited by my conscience and also I see little benefit in owning the worlds best kit and I'm happy with kit which is merely pretty good :D I often buy more on specification and handing and "look" rather than outright and ultimate quality so I'd probably go for the Canon f2 for a couple of reasons... it's compact (the Siggy looks to be a right lump) and reasonably priced and I wouldn't really need the ability to go to f1.4 in a wide lens, I'd use my 50mm f1.4 if I needed f1.4.

If you absolutely need a 35mm that'll do f1.4 then that'll narrow the choice down but if you can manage with f2 then I'd be asking myself if any additional ultimate quality offered by the class leading f1.4's will be significant, will help you get the job done and will be noticed by your customers.
 
woof woof said:
A assume that you are a full time or at least part time pro? and if so our needs and priorities will be different.

Personally I'm, lucky enough to be able to buy whatever I want but I'm limited by my conscience and also I see little benefit in owning the worlds best kit and I'm happy with kit which is merely pretty good :D I often buy more on specification and handing and "look" rather than outright and ultimate quality so I'd probably go for the Canon f2 for a couple of reasons... it's compact (the Siggy looks to be a right lump) and reasonably priced and I wouldn't really need the ability to go to f1.4 in a wide lens, I'd use my 50mm f1.4 if I needed f1.4.

If you absolutely need a 35mm that'll do f1.4 then that'll narrow the choice down but if you can manage with f2 then I'd be asking myself if any additional ultimate quality offered by the class leading f1.4's will be significant, will help you get the job done and will be noticed by your customers.
Click to expand...
Yes it's for wedding work.
The Canon f2 is tempting, but I'm swayed by some gorgeous shallow DoF images at 1.4.

I'm not lucky enough to be able to choose whatever kit I want, which is why I was hoping to stay with the croppers. But it's not to be :(
 
That's narrowed the choice down nicely then :D and I suppose the Sigma may well be the sensible f1.4 choice.
 
35L

it actually focusses properly, consistently and accurately, the sigma I owned did not, but was sharp down to 1.4, the canon is not as sharp

the 35 f2 is less sharp than the 35L, but it's sharp enough, I only shoot the 1.4 at 1.8-2 anyway so aperture differences are marginal and it's a lot lot bigger
the buzzy focus motor is a problem though

personally i'd say get the 35 f2, old one or the new one with IS (more for the quiet focus rather than the IS)
 
I have the 35 f2 which I find great for occasional use as it is nice and crisp with great contrast wide open and I really like the compact size. However if I was using it regularly under pressure in critical situations the old school AF would annoy me!

I wish either canon or sigma would decide to do a modern set of cheap small moderately fast primes. The classic 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 all with USM type focus and no IS at sensible prices would sell like hot cakes!
 
a1ex2001 said:
I wish either canon or sigma would decide to do a modern set of cheap small moderately fast primes. The classic 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 all with USM type focus and no IS at sensible prices would sell like hot cakes!
Click to expand...

Yup, but please add 85 and 135mm and a longish macro, 100-150mm or so.
 
Canon are releasing a L ii version of the 35mm F1.4 which should bring down the price of the original.

I have the original and its hands down the sharpest of all the L lenses I have. I love it.
 
woof woof said:
Yup, but please add 85 and 135mm and a longish macro, 100-150mm or so.
Click to expand...
Canon already do an 85mm USM with no IS.

And a fine lens it is too!
 
odd jim said:
Canon already do an 85mm USM with no IS.

And a fine lens it is too!
Click to expand...
Indeed they and I guess the 50mm f1.4 fits the bill too it's just the 35mm where we have the lack of choice ie big bulky heavy expensive f1.4's expensive modern is lenses or ancient buzzy lenses of a decent size and weight!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Indeed they and I guess the 50mm f1.4 fits the bill too it's just the 35mm where we have the lack of choice ie big bulky heavy expensive f1.4's expensive modern is lenses or ancient buzzy lenses of a decent size and weight!
Click to expand...
I'd disagree to a point, I'll recommend the Canon mk1 again! Small, very light and brilliant IQ even wide open. Not sure they still produce it now with the mk2 but used they are the bargain of the century and even new they weren't too expensive.

Not looked at the current prices of the mk2 though...
 
Last edited:
a1ex2001 said:
Indeed they and I guess the 50mm f1.4 fits the bill too it's just the 35mm where we have the lack of choice ie big bulky heavy expensive f1.4's expensive modern is lenses or ancient buzzy lenses of a decent size and weight!
Click to expand...

I passed on their 50mm f1.4 too, too old a design with (IMVHO) too many question marks over performance and quality. Anyway, getting off topic here.
 
woof woof said:
They do one but I'm not sure it fits the brief and when I owned Canon I passed on it.
Click to expand...
It's one of my favourite lenses on FF, (along with the 35) apart from a bit of CA (no more than any fast prime) I couldn't ask any more from it. I can see why Canon don't do an alternative - they don't need to.
 
Thanks folks, though inconclusive in your opinions, it seems the Sigma is now on my want list.
 
odd jim said:
It's one of my favourite lenses on FF, (along with the 35) apart from a bit of CA (no more than any fast prime) I couldn't ask any more from it. I can see why Canon don't do an alternative - they don't need to.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of opinion and if you're shooting Canon you have quite a limited choice really if you want AF. As I said, I passed and went for the Sigma.

I haven't kept up with Canon developments since I sold up and moved on but from what I remember a number of the Canon lenses I should have been interested in were average performers, behind the third party alternatives and overdue a redesign or replacement. I'm sure they could do better at 50 and 85mm if they got round to it, Sigma managed to quite easily.
 
woof woof said:
.... I'm sure they could do better at 50 and 85mm if they got round to it, Sigma managed to quite easily.
Click to expand...
It has to be remembered, Alan, that Sigma's potential market is around 2-1/2 times that of Canon when they're allocating their R&D funds based on forecast returns.

Bob
 
woof woof said:
I passed on their 50mm f1.4 too, too old a design with (IMVHO) too many question marks over performance and quality. Anyway, getting off topic here.
Click to expand...

Your right but second hand it is very cheap and reviews very close to the sigma non-art 50mm. My fear is when canon do update it we will so a 50mm f1.8 IS as that would be more in tune with their recent releases.

Phil V said:
Thanks folks, though inconclusive in your opinions, it seems the Sigma is now on my want list.
Click to expand...

The 35mm art really is the one to get if you have the budget and don't mind it being pretty big and heavy!

woof woof said:
It's a matter of opinion and if you're shooting Canon you have quite a limited choice really if you want AF. As I said, I passed and went for the Sigma.

I haven't kept up with Canon developments since I sold up and moved on but from what I remember a number of the Canon lenses I should have been interested in were average performers, behind the third party alternatives and overdue a redesign or replacement. I'm sure they could do better at 50 and 85mm if they got round to it, Sigma managed to quite easily.
Click to expand...

The only sigma lenses that are significantly better are also significantly more expensive!
 
a1ex2001 said:
Your right but second hand it is very cheap and reviews very close to the sigma non-art 50mm. My fear is when canon do update it we will so a 50mm f1.8 IS as that would be more in tune with their recent releases.



The 35mm art really is the one to get if you have the budget and don't mind it being pretty big and heavy!



**The only sigma lenses that are significantly better are also significantly more expensive!**
Click to expand...
But while it's good (I'm referring to the 85), as are all Sigma primes, it's not **significantly** better!

The Canon is awesome and I suspect @woof woof had a suspect copy as I couldn't ask more from mine. I don't even see why it needs an update? Optically its stunning, and the AF is fast and silent. The only thing I'd add I guess is IS, but that would add significant cost.
 
Last edited:
Phil I'm assuming it's full frame you're after but if not the Sigma 18-35 1.8 art is a stunning lens (it does work on FF, but possible vignettes) it's not f1.4 obviously but built like a tank, awesome image quality & ideal for weddings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top