Canon 35 f2 vs Sigma 17-50?

Started May 18, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobby1781
Regular MemberPosts: 230
Like?
Re: Comparisons that may help in your decision
In reply to graphikal, May 18, 2012

I spent a day shooting they 35L and the 35F2 side by side on 2 different 60D's

First, I have not used the 17-50 Sigma, but the 17-55IS (which is really excellent) the 35F2 outperformed it at F2 vs the zoom at f 2.8, both at 2.8 the prime excelled (obviously). From F4 on, the prime's advantage seemed to close to matter in the real world and now it was the lacking lens without stabilization.

It was far far far from mushy wide open, and was sharper than the 50 1.4 we had at wide open.

I wouldn't recommend the 35L for one reason, you don't have microfocus adjustment on your camera. Neither did ours, and on one body at 1.4 you could see there was a ever so slight consistant front focus compared to the other body.

From F4 on you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the L and the F2.

Build quality - optics were so close, but here...well I don't think these lenses can or should be compared here. The 35L is going to be really hard to not just grin when you pick it up...it's just beautiful (subjective) when you pick up the 35F2 after that, you almost want to shake it to see if anything is lose.

The 35F2 is also very very usable wide open, where you Sigma probably is pretty sharp in the center, but not at all in the corners, the 35F2 is going to be much much sharper across the frame at F2, and both at F2.8 the prime will have some pretty darn good corners.

The AF is louder, but whenever people talk about this, I wonder how they feel about their shutter/mirror sound? People talk about whining and buzzing and then nothing about the SNAP SNAP SNAP that comes thundering in after it.

AF is actually the loudest of any lens I have used (which is not a ton, but several Caonon primes) but it was also CONSISTENT, at least for us. The L's AF speed was actually nothing to write home about, quieter and faster, but I didn't feel it was fast enough to be a game changer if something was moving fast. The 17-55IS focuses faster.

In my experience after the weekend, if money was no object, of course I would have picked the L, it's amazing. However, since money does matter, and they are so drastically different in price, I easily and without hesitation decided "well the 35F2 is the one to get"

When, IF, you get a FF then worry about the lenses for it. That 35F2 won't break the bank, it's a great lens, and its sooooo much smaller and lighter plenty of people own BOTH. You can sell it with your crop, or keep your crop and have a great little second body with a great lightweight lens on it.

just my thoughts- yes you will see a difference in edge/corner sharpness over your zoom, however the Sigma is suppose to be great in the center wide open, and if you are shooting and framing without much on the edges this might not matter. If you are gonna shoot products, landscapes (i know you would stop down, but from my research the Sigma doesn't gain much in the corners stopping down and the 35 is already excellent here).

Also, I can't confirm this, but crop bodies supposedly can't acheive the same light as full frame below (i think 1.8) so while you gain the shallower depth, the camera actually just bumps the ISO to increase the shutter, but it won't show in the EXIF or on the camera, you will just be able to see a little more noise than you should have at the ISO you set.

With the money you save, you could get a 600RT flash and REALLY start to push your skill so when you get a FF you are able to use the tool better.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow