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

markodarko wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

markodarko wrote:

timotale wrote:

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

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

With respect, I fail to see the relevance that has to this thread.

Well, I think it's good to know that, at least in the test in the OP, the 35 / 1.4A and 35 / 2 IS have rather similar bokeh characteristics, and that in the tests in the link, that the 35 / 1.4L II came out ahead. So, while you might not see the relevance, others might appreciate the heads up.

The whole point of my posting was to illustrate how the Sigma's background-foreground separation, in my opinion, is better than the Canon 35mm f/2 IS. The foreground image just "pops out" better.

OK.

A collection of corner shots only showing specular highlights does nothing - unless of course people are genuinely interested in looking at out of focus parts of the image. I'm not. I'm interested in seeing how the foreground subject is affected by the background - hence the test, and hence why it's irrelevant.

OK, sure, but others, if not you, may find the other test photos more than a little relevant.  For example, let's say someone posts a thread comparing the 24-70 / 2.8L and the 24-70 / 2.8L II.  I don't think a link to a thread with a comparison of one or both of these lenses to the Tamron 24-70 / 2.8 VC is irrelevant, although someone who will buy only Canon would find it irrelevant.