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

MyReality wrote:

Statements above about the image "popping" are subjective and have no meaning except to the person making them. The "popping" result is not measurable.

Yes, that's why I said in my post that it was all subjective and that it was in my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion, aren't I?

It is an indication of your bias towards the sigma lens. An expensive lens HAS TO BE better than a cheaper lens, doesn't it?

On the contrary. Even after these tests and seeing that the images "pop" more (again, in my opinion) from the Sigma, I still don't know if it's enough of a difference to justify the purchase over my Canon 35mm f/2 IS as that's still a cracking little lens.

The canon 50mm/1.8 II will out resolve and have less distortion than most zooms costing 6 times as much at that focal length.

Ha! Mr. Rockwell, is that you?

Yes, at f/4 a nifty fifty is quite sharp towards the edge of the frame and at f/5.6 it's great! At f/1.8-2.8... No thank you. It couldn't out resolve a pizza anywhere other than the centre. And even then it suffers from heavy ghosting.

In real life you will not see the difference.

On the web, no. If you take photos just to put on FaceWipe or to keep them locked away on your hard drive for no-one to see, then I completely agree. Have a billboard printed up or a 24" fine-art print that was taken with a nifty fifty at f/1.8 and depending on the subject matter I think you'd see its shortcomings quite quickly.

Now, as for real life differences between these two Canon and Sigma lenses - I would have to agree with you. I think it's only in this kind of comparison that you'd notice things. In isolation you'd be none the wiser I'm sure.

Cheers,

Mark.