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

markodarko wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Focusing too close makes small AF differences more significant. It seems that your Sigma shot is slightly front-focused compared to the Canon, for example. That would increase the blur radius. It may also change the character and the size of the blur.

Well, being the impatient kind I couldn't wait until tomorrow so I setup my own "scene" with some backgrounds to mimic complex foliage - well, to the best of my ability with what I had to hand, that is.

I took your advice and this time setup the tripod at approx. 2m (actually, it's around 1.5m if I think about it) from the focus point but you can see from the helmet shot that the frame size isn't far off. Both lenses were manually focused on the chess piece in the helmet and ETTR exposure was used once more. As there's no natural light (it's dark here) or strong foliage, I've cropped the images cinematically to fill the width of my screen to try and better show the differences. (Incidentally, the pseudo "foliage" in question in this scene is the orange cushion and the patterned jacket - although as it turns out the hem of the seat is a good illustrator of the bokeh too)

Anyway, here you go... You'll really need to view the original size images for this one.

Thanks. The Sigma is smoother even in the center. On the other hand, there is not so much difference there, see the yellow ballon. When you get closer to the borders, things change. Compare the blur of the night light in the lower right corner. Also, the sagittal lines with the Canon look worse. That is common with all wide lenses but the Canon is wide open which makes it worse.

This pretty much shows that the 35/2 is not as f/2 as a faster lens stopped to f/2. Nothing particular about the Canon 35/2, this is common. I have noticed that my primes are smoother at f/4 than my f/4 zooms, for example.

Constructive thoughts always welcome but obviously "THE SIGMA BOKEH CAN'T MATCH THE CANON 35mm f/1.4L II!", that aside, I think it looks pretty darn smooth to my eyes. Certainly a massive step-up from the f/2 IS. If anything I think this scene illustrates it even better than the original post...?

The IS is a huge plus, of course but there is reason I do not own the 35/2.