35mm lens poll.

Steve W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Suppose you were in the market for a lens that covered the 35mm focal length. Which would you choose:

• Canon 35 / 1.4L II ($1799, 3.2 x 4.2 inches, 760g)
• Sigma 35 / 1.4A ($799, 3.1 x 4.8 inches, 811g)
• Canon 35 / 2 IS ($599, 3.1 x 2.5 inches, 335g)
• Another 35mm prime (please specify)
• A zoom that covered the 35mm focal length (please specify)

Thanks for participating!

The weight of the Sigma is incorrect. It is not 811 grams, but rather 665 grams.

Thanks for the correction! I have no idea why I wrote 811 grams. Weird!

If the Sigma 50A is any indication, better IQ means more weight (?).

I expect the 35 / 1.4L II to perform better, IQ-wise, than the 35 / 1.4A. How much better, of course, will be seen, hopefully, in a side-by-side comparison such as this one comparing the 50 / 1.2L and 50 / 1.4A.

I intend to buy it and if I do not sell my 35L, that I really like (and if I do not get banned), I will post comparisons. I never liked the Sigma 35A but I will try the Sigma 50A some day.

I am quite the fan of my 35 / 1.4A -- perhaps I'm easily pleased. However, I'm sure that a 50 / 1.2L II looms in the relatively near future (1-2 years) and I might consider replacing my 50 / 1.4A with that, depending on size, weight, price, and differences in IQ (while I am happy to have traded the 50 / 1.2L for the 50 / 1.4A, despite the 50 / 1.2L having been my favorite lens for so long, I do much prefer the form factor of the 50 / 1.2L to the 50 / 1.4A).

I've had the 50L for awhile and I love it but like all gear heads had to feed the compulsion and try the 50 / 1.4A. I used FoCal to do a Micro Fine Adjust on both the 50L and 50A and the 50A should up a little sharper in the tests but the 50L was smaller and very well behaved so I decided that the 50A didn't offer me enough to make the switch.

The reason I chose the 50 / 1.4A over the 50 / 1.2L was, ironically, stopped down edge sharpness, which I usually could give a squat about since I tend to shoot mainly at wide apertures. However, there are times I stop down, so...

Many would say that one would choose one over the other for the wide open performance, and I would tend to agree, but comparisons such as this one convinced me I wasn't giving anything up in that arena.

But, mainly, my experience with the 35 / 1.4A was so positive that I had no reservations about selling my 50 / 1.2L for the 50 / 1.4A. That said, for sure, the form factor of the 50 / 1.2L is definitely superior.

With all of these upgrades it will have to make a difference to justify a 2X cost increase it will take to move from my existing 35L to the 35L II. At least I don't feel compelled to run out immediately. I will wait and see since since I want to see what the 5D IV is.

For me, I'm curious what the 6D2 brings to the table. I want to go to the A7RII, but it's too pricey at the moment.

One thing I learned was never compare two lenses for sharpness on a Canon unless you've done a thorough MFA on both lenses. You can get enough of a difference to give you false results unless you do a very thorough MFA first. If one of them is a Sigma make sure you have the USB dock as well. When your all done I reran FoCal to let it tell me who the sharpness winner was before i did any real world tests.

For a flat scene, absolutely. However, if you're shooting a 3D scene at a "wide enough" aperture, then you can compare sharpness even if the AF misses, based off of sharpness of the portions of the scene within the DOF.