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

J A C S wrote:

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.

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

Yes, I know what you mean about zooms and primes. In fact I've just sold all of my L zooms with a view of replacing them with primes as I always felt the compromise - not to mention the vignetting and distortion wide open at f/4. For example, I may have a f1/1.4 prime which I may not use wider than f/4 for most shoots, but at f/4 it blows any f/4 Zoom that I had out of the water both in terms of vignette (there isn't any) and sharpness.

Of course, it's also good to have the option to go wider when you need to which is the ace up the Prime's sleeve.

Having said all that, I have taken a fancy to trying out the 24-70 f/2.8 II as that seems to be a less compromised zoom than most as far as I can tell. I had a 70-200 f/2.8 II a few years ago and whilst impressive, it was just too heavy to be practical for me back then so it never got used.

As for this Canon vs Sigma test, to be honest there really isn't much in it in real-world usage, it's only when you put them in difficult situations that difficulties occur with lenses. I guess it's all about knowing your kit and when to best use it, and for the Canon, it's to avoid complex backgrounds that could cause nervous bokeh when wide open.

Thanks for your help.

Cheers,

Mark.