canon 35mm f2 IS VS Sigma 35mm f1.4 VS Canon 35mm f1.4 L

A

Ashling

Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I love shooting primes, and I'm looking to expand my lenses and get a 35mm...and can't decide between the three lenses above! Will be used for a mixture of group shots (wanting to break into wedding photography) and already have a 50mm and 135mm.

I understand that a £1,000 lens is going to be better overall than a £500 lens, and in some situations the wider aperture will be useful, but as it's not going to be my primary lens I'm struggling to justify spending more than I need to.

Does anyone have any real world experience (as opposed to test charts!) in how these perform, as I would really appreciate some feedback from people who use these professionally.

Thanks so much
 
I'm not a fan of Sigma, too many broken lenses in the past and too many compatibility issues over the years, although lots of folk love them.
My 1.4L is a super lens and if you can afford one you wont be disappointed, (Until you try a 24mm f1.4L)!
Think I'd rather have 2-3 stops worth of IS than an extra stop of aperture that will seldom be used though. Be great in Church were folk aren't moving around much anyway.
 
The Sigma is a new better built and STUNNING lens. It's the one I would go for!!!!
 
I had bad copies and good copies of Sigma lenses in the past. I was after a 35mm F1.4 lens to replace my Nikon 24-70mm F2.8. I was so convinced that I was going to buy the Nikon 35mm f1.4 until I had a go at the Sigma. I took many photographs using both lenses and IMHO the Sigma performed better in every aspect. I went for the Sigma and I am very happy with it. The one negative the Sigma has is that it doesn't have the rubber seal around the bottom of the lens.
 
Another vote for the Sigma - went for a UK sourced one for £700 for their 3yr warranty.

Its my first sigma lens - been Canon all the way before (6 L grade lenses), I was eyeing up the Canon 35mm f1.4 (going from a f2.0), however I've not been disappointed - focus has been spot on, its sharper than Canon, and about a third cheaper (UK sourced).
 
Sigma 35/1.4 is the better lens (though they're all excellent) but none of them has image stabilisation.
 
I love my Sigma 35mm 1.4. In fact, I spent most of today photographing Kathmandu leaving the 24-70mm in my room.

Same as you, it wasn't going to be an every day lens so couldn't justify the Nikon version at over £1,100 but now tempted to get rid of the 24-70mm and get a 24mm 1.4 to work alongside it.
 
HoppyUK said:
Sigma 35/1.4 is the better lens (though they're all excellent) but none of them has image stabilisation.
Click to expand...

That's not true the new canon 35mm f2.0 has is and usm focussing it's the way they are going with the prime refresh. For the price I'd find the extra for the sigma f1.4 unless your big on video or light weight then the f2.0 is not a great buy.

The old f2.0 non-is is a great lens but the af and build are a bit poor.
 
a1ex2001 said:
That's not true the new canon 35mm f2.0 has is and usm focussing it's the way they are going with the prime refresh. For the price I'd find the extra for the sigma f1.4 unless your big on video or light weight then the f2.0 is not a great buy.

The old f2.0 non-is is a great lens but the af and build are a bit poor.
Click to expand...

So sorry, you're quite right - new Canon 35/2 has IS! Momentary brain fade, apologies :bonk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top