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

markodarko wrote:

well these are all bokeh test. My test is comparing the smoothness, clarity and how each bokeh diffuses.

I see what you're trying to achieve, but without the foreground subject the tests are frankly meaningless because they do not show the background:foreground separation qualities which is the whole point of bokeh. Bokeh on its own does not a picture make.

The only thing I really care about with bokeh is whether it's nervous to the point of distraction, which to my eye the Canon 35mm f/2 IS is borderline in the examples I posted, but the Sigma is not.

In the examples you posted, if I were a betting man, and just to play devil's advocate I'd say that the Sigma is not focused in the same place as the other two lenses. Looking at the photos it also suggests that they were taken at quite a small aperture judging by the size of the out of focus circles, either that or the focus point was quite far away. Would that be correct? Without the full image it's hard to tell and more importantly it's hard to tell whether the bokeh has a positive or negative effect on the in focus subject matter - which is what the point of my post was, not what bokeh looks like in isolation when pixel peeping.

Cheers,

Mark.

I am so tired of explaining to sigma defenders....  All the information are in that thread I posted.  The test is fair both images nailed the focus at the middle of the palm tree trunk.

What you did in your post is pixel peeping too.  Honestly, who compares images in 100% in real life if he or she isnt pixel peeping?