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

Great Bustard wrote: To be honest, I think we are all picking nits, here -- it's not the equipment that's holding people back from getting great photos.

Amen to that. I guess what I didn't disclose as to why I was looking at the Sigma in the first place over the Canon is that as I'm shifting my main focus to cinematography and so I figured that the extra stop of light from f/2 to f/1.4 could be a real asset for me in dimly lit locations whilst maintaining a low ISO, the "better" (in my opinion) bokeh is a bonus which I thought I'd share as it'd be interesting to photographers.

On the back of this Sigma tests I've done (these being just bokeh tests) I've decided to keep it because I think the extra stop will genuinely be useful now that I know it's still usably sharp wide open with less vignetting than the Canon has at f/2. I've also ordered the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 A and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 A for those reasons and the reason I never went for the Canon 35L II is because I can get all three for only a little bit more than the 35L II on its own. It's a no-brainer really.

My other concern with the Sigma when I ordered it was how well it would cope with manual focusing with such a short throw (I think it's around 100º) but as it turns out it's actually ok as the focus ring is very smooth and precise with zero slack - which is more than could be said of my recently sold 17-40L! ;-))

I could post some 24mm and 50mm comparisons in the same vein as this one if anyone's interested but alas my comparison lenses are now limited. My other half has a nifty fifty, a 24-105 f/4 L (so could do 24 and 50 on that one) and a 16-35 f/4 L (24mm). Not the best choice of lenses to compare against really as aside from the nifty fifty they're all f/4, but if anyone's interested, let me know.

Cheers,

Mark.