Canon 35mm f/2 IS vs Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art bokeh comparison

timotale wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

timotale wrote:

sigma's bokeh is no match to 35L II!

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56642803

You did some very nice tests in that thread -- much appreciated! And, yes, the 35 / 1.4L II does come out on top in all of the examples you posted. The question is how many are willing to pay twice the price for the 35 / 1.4L II over the 35 / 1.4A, given that $1800 vs $900 is a very different "twice the price" than $800 vs $400.

In my opinion, the Canon 35 / 2 IS and/or Tamron 35 / 1.8 VC will represent the better balance of IQ, features, size, weight, and price for the majority. Of course, it's not what's best for the majority that matters, but what's best for you that you can afford and are willing to spend, so for some that means the 35 / 2 IS, for others the Sigma 35 / 1.4A, and for others, still, the 35 / 1.4L II. It's very nice to have so many great options for 35mm primes!

Dustin Abbott posted a review for the tamron here....

http://dustinabbott.net/2015/10/tamron-sp-35mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-review/

I returned the Tamron 45 / 1.8 within 30 minutes of having received it because of the CA and the AF speed, and the 35 / 1.8 VC appears to be pretty much the same. Either one by itself was not a deal breaker (for me), but both together were a problem. Others may feel differently (obviously), but I'm just saying that the differences in CA and AF speed compared to my Sigma Art lenses was not trivial (to me). I really, really, really wanted to like the lens and had high expectations from all I read, so it may have been those high expectations that made the issues seem all the more troubling for me.