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

timotale wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

timotale wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

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.

From the reviews i knew these two lenses were not what I had hoped.

If neither CA nor AF speed are crucial, I think the Tamrons are the best balance of IQ, features, and price.

Canon still offers the best 35mm fov troika: 35LII, 35IS and M22/2.

For me, personally, the best balance is the Sigma 35 / 1.4A (I really love that lens). But were someone to offer to either let me keep my lens or choose another 35mm prime in exchange for my lens at no expense to me, I'd take the 35 / 1.4L II.

Stop fooling yourselrf, buster. I know, you know, we all know sooner or later you will own the Canon.

'Tis possible. However, assuming I could get $600 for my 35 / 1.4A, that means I'd be out $1200 upgrading to the 35 / 1.4L II, and there are other lenses (and/or a new body) I would rather put that money towards. So, any upgrade to a 35 / 1.4L II would likely not happen until there were a 35 / 1.4L III and/or Sigma 35 / 1.4A II. I mean, money is far from a trivial factor with regards to the 35 / 1.4L II for me. Were I disappointed with my 35 / 1.4A, that would be a different story. However, as I said, I'm more than a little happy with it.

How much do you think the 35L mki worth now? I got mine used from craigslist for 1000 and sold it yesterday for 850 including a bw filter. Is this a reasonable deal?

Sure (aside from the fact that were I the buyer, I'd have gotten a 35 / 1.4A instead). But I think I'm missing a point you're trying to make.

Oh no, I wasn't trying to make any point. Just wanna hear your opinion.

Ah.  Well, like I said, I think it's a fair deal, just that, were I the buyer, I'd have gotten a 35 / 1.4A instead.