That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

Started Apr 22, 2013 | Discussions
kipling Regular Member • Posts: 431
That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

I have been looking for a used 35mm 1.4L because I tried one a few years ago and was impressed with the colour of the images. Now I read reviews of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and the consensus seems to be that technically it is superior, or at least equal, to the Canon. And cheaper. Certainly seems to be sharper at f1.4.

But my experience with "L" lens is that their colour, contrast or whatever, is great, and maybe more important than sharpness. Sharpness can be measured but the "look" that I'm speaking of is a purely subjective thing. There would be plenty of room for disagreement.

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

Cheers

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee Veteran Member • Posts: 6,092
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

The red ring?

-- hide signature --

Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

 Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list:Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Canon PowerShot S90 Panasonic FZ1000 Canon EOS-1D X Sony Alpha NEX-7 +22 more
rebel99 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,025
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4
1

i am not a fan of 3rd. party lenses at all with the exception of may be zeiss lenses. from my experience, if you can afford the "L" lens, buy it. or wait till you can afford it

cheerz.

OP kipling Regular Member • Posts: 431
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

The red ring?

-- hide signature --

Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.

I am actually looking a bit further than the red ring.

MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

From what I have READ, Sigma for now, has beat Canon as far as look and sharpness.  I am sure if Canon releases a new version of that lens is will be better.

Here is MY issue with Sigma and Tamron AF lens. Canon lenses for some reason, as in they AF communication with their lenses, are better BY FAR then Sigma and Tamron.

The AF speed of a native Canon lens is always faster in most cases..

kipling wrote:

I have been looking for a used 35mm 1.4L because I tried one a few years ago and was impressed with the colour of the images. Now I read reviews of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and the consensus seems to be that technically it is superior, or at least equal, to the Canon. And cheaper. Certainly seems to be sharper at f1.4.

But my experience with "L" lens is that their colour, contrast or whatever, is great, and maybe more important than sharpness. Sharpness can be measured but the "look" that I'm speaking of is a purely subjective thing. There would be plenty of room for disagreement.

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

Cheers

MOD schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

photokandi
photokandi Forum Member • Posts: 97
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4
1

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

 photokandi's gear list:photokandi's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 +1 more
MOD schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

Perhaps - as I prefer to go for Canon glass usually - so maybe I'd have already gotten the Canon. But in this case, I wouldn't be so sure if I was you, particularly considering thispost of yours, where you talk about how much you rate sharpness! If you like the sharpness of the 24-70, then you'll definitely like the Sigma 35 - it's sharper.

sean lancaster
sean lancaster Veteran Member • Posts: 7,250
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4
2

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I am not married to Canon (I had a Nikon D70 for many years and a Sony for a spell after that). But I wanted to figure out lenses before I bought into my next system (I ended up going with the Canon 6D, fwiw). And, I spent hours comparing the Canon 35/1.4 to the Sigma 35/1.4 on Flickr looking at the shots I like to shoot (largely wide open using available light). My conclusion is that I liked the Sigma better. I did not compare these lenses at f/5.6 or f/8 so perhaps the Canon becomes the choice - I honestly don't know. But I don't buy a fast prime to stop down as there are plenty of good lenses at f/8 that are cheaper.

 sean lancaster's gear list:sean lancaster's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton Sony FE 28mm F2 +4 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I recently sold my Canon 35 1.4 after acquiring a Sigma 35 1.4. Truth in advertising, I bought the Sigma to use on my Nikon D800.  Nonetheless, I was rather disappointed with the Canon's high level of CA especially at large apertures.  I had been hoping for an update before switching to Nikon.

So far, the Sigma hasn't let me down.  In addition to sharpness, it produces fantastic color and contrast.  I have no doubt that I'd choose it over the Canon 35 if I wanted a 35mm for my Canon photography (I still shoot Canon but only use 2-3 lenses).

OP kipling Regular Member • Posts: 431
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

gatorowl wrote: right now.

I recently sold my Canon 35 1.4 after acquiring a Sigma 35 1.4. Truth in advertising, I bought the Sigma to use on my Nikon D800.  Nonetheless, I was rather disappointed with the Canon's high level of CA especially at large apertures.  I had been hoping for an update before switching to Nikon.

So far, the Sigma hasn't let me down.  In addition to sharpness, it produces fantastic color and contrast.  I have no doubt that I'd choose it over the Canon 35 if I wanted a 35mm for my Canon photography (I still shoot Canon but only use 2-3 lenses).

Thanks for that. Colour is seldom mentioned in reviews. From what you say it does seem that the Sigma is a real competitor for the Canon.

turbsy
turbsy Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

MASTERPPA wrote:

From what I have READ, Sigma for now, has beat Canon as far as look and sharpness.  I am sure if Canon releases a new version of that lens is will be better.

Here is MY issue with Sigma and Tamron AF lens. Canon lenses for some reason, as in they AF communication with their lenses, are better BY FAR then Sigma and Tamron.

The AF speed of a native Canon lens is always faster in most cases..

kipling wrote:

I have been looking for a used 35mm 1.4L because I tried one a few years ago and was impressed with the colour of the images. Now I read reviews of the Sigma 35mm 1.4 and the consensus seems to be that technically it is superior, or at least equal, to the Canon. And cheaper. Certainly seems to be sharper at f1.4.

But my experience with "L" lens is that their colour, contrast or whatever, is great, and maybe more important than sharpness. Sharpness can be measured but the "look" that I'm speaking of is a purely subjective thing. There would be plenty of room for disagreement.

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

ChCheers

None of that is true. How is the communication between first party lenses better by far?  And how can something always be faster in most cases. Mothers are many third party lenses  that are just as fast to autofocus as first party.

 turbsy's gear list:turbsy's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D800 Nikon D300 Nikon D50 Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +11 more
MASTERPPA Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

Because the AF data is proprietary and Canon does not give it away. It has to be reverse engineer by Tamron, Sigma, etc.. Every 3rd part lens I have used, and it was the best of the group, I notice always was a little slower, or not as accurate as the Canon lenses. (when compared to the L lens)

None of that is true. How is the communication between first party lenses better by far?  And how can something always be faster in most cases. Mothers are many third party lenses  that are just as fast to autofocus as first party.

Alastair Norcross Veteran Member • Posts: 6,286
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

gatorowl wrote:

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I recently sold my Canon 35 1.4 after acquiring a Sigma 35 1.4. Truth in advertising, I bought the Sigma to use on my Nikon D800.  Nonetheless, I was rather disappointed with the Canon's high level of CA especially at large apertures.  I had been hoping for an update before switching to Nikon.

So far, the Sigma hasn't let me down.  In addition to sharpness, it produces fantastic color and contrast.  I have no doubt that I'd choose it over the Canon 35 if I wanted a 35mm for my Canon photography (I still shoot Canon but only use 2-3 lenses).

I love everything about my 35L, except for the CA wide open. While it is easily fixed in post, it would be better not to have it in the first place. Does the Sigma have significantly less CA wide open? As for sharpness, I'm sure that the tests are correct, and the Sigma is slightly sharper, but I really can't imagine wanting or needing more sharpness than I get from my 35L. If I was choosing now between the Canon and Sigma, I might well go for the Sigma, but I don't think it's worth the trouble of selling my 35L to get the Sigma.

-- hide signature --

Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 Alastair Norcross's gear list:Alastair Norcross's gear list
Canon G7 X II Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS M6 Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) +19 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 13,798
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

sean lancaster wrote:

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I am not married to Canon (I had a Nikon D70 for many years and a Sony for a spell after that). But I wanted to figure out lenses before I bought into my next system (I ended up going with the Canon 6D, fwiw). And, I spent hours comparing the Canon 35/1.4 to the Sigma 35/1.4 on Flickr looking at the shots I like to shoot (largely wide open using available light). My conclusion is that I liked the Sigma better. I did not compare these lenses at f/5.6 or f/8 so perhaps the Canon becomes the choice - I honestly don't know. But I don't buy a fast prime to stop down as there are plenty of good lenses at f/8 that are cheaper.

agree, one buys these lenses to shoot f1.4-f2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM +8 more
MAC Forum Pro • Posts: 13,798
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

Alastair Norcross wrote:

gatorowl wrote:

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I recently sold my Canon 35 1.4 after acquiring a Sigma 35 1.4. Truth in advertising, I bought the Sigma to use on my Nikon D800.  Nonetheless, I was rather disappointed with the Canon's high level of CA especially at large apertures.  I had been hoping for an update before switching to Nikon.

So far, the Sigma hasn't let me down.  In addition to sharpness, it produces fantastic color and contrast.  I have no doubt that I'd choose it over the Canon 35 if I wanted a 35mm for my Canon photography (I still shoot Canon but only use 2-3 lenses).

I love everything about my 35L, except for the CA wide open. While it is easily fixed in post, it would be better not to have it in the first place. Does the Sigma have significantly less CA wide open? As for sharpness, I'm sure that the tests are correct, and the Sigma is slightly sharper, but I really can't imagine wanting or needing more sharpness than I get from my 35L. If I was choosing now between the Canon and Sigma, I might well go for the Sigma, but I don't think it's worth the trouble of selling my 35L to get the Sigma.

yes, the sigma has less ca - you can see the diff here

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=121&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the canon has the faster focus speed though

-- hide signature --

Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

 MAC's gear list:MAC's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS Rebel T7i Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 35mm F2 IS USM +8 more
turbsy
turbsy Contributing Member • Posts: 888
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

MASTERPPA wrote:

Because the AF data is proprietary and Canon does not give it away. It has to be reverse engineer by Tamron, Sigma, etc.. Every 3rd part lens I have used, and it was the best of the group, I notice always was a little slower, or not as accurate as the Canon lenses. (when compared to the L lens)

None of that is true. How is the communication between first party lenses better by far?  And how can something always be faster in most cases. Mothers are many third party lenses  that are just as fast to autofocus as first party.

I know that engineer doesn't license the ef mount.  and I am aware of the reverse engineering  but In the last few years I have not seen any issues from higher end third party lenses.  Can you give me an example of a lens from a third party that is less accurate?

 turbsy's gear list:turbsy's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Nikon D800 Nikon D300 Nikon D50 Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro +11 more
Schwany
Schwany Forum Pro • Posts: 10,129
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

Depends on whom one is disagreeing with. I wouldn't want to disagree with a moderator. Bad things could happen. he he

I neither agree nor disagree, or care really, but I wouldn't buy a Sigma lens under any circumstances. That is my narrow minded biased personal choice, which should be allowed with or without the proper charts and blog links.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L USM +14 more
carlk Forum Pro • Posts: 15,940
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

I remember some hot debates years ago on this subject but they ended with no one can tell in blind tests which has better color between L and non-L lenses.  There might be some differences in the old days but it's a non-issue this day and age with advanced coating not to mention pp software that can produce pretty much any color you want.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Nikon D800E Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 50D Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +6 more
carlk Forum Pro • Posts: 15,940
Re: That "L" lens "look" - Canon v Sigma 35mm1.4

photokandi wrote:

schmegg wrote:

kipling wrote:

So what do you think? Does any undefinable quality of the Canon lens overcome the technical superiority of the Sigma lens?

I have used both and settled with the Sigma. I liked it just a bit more - and value wise, in my personal opinion, it is a clear winner.

But, as you say, it is very subjective, and there certainly is room for disagreement (as there should be in any rational discussion about which of two fine lenses is better!)

I totally agree with you that sharpness isn't everything. And if I already owned the Canon, or the Zeiss, then I wouldn't consider trading for the Sigma. I'm fairly certain that all these 35's are more than capable of delivering top quality images.

If both lenses were the same price I doubt you would have the Sigma on your camera right now.

I also doubt the L myth can survive if both lenses can fetch the same price.

 carlk's gear list:carlk's gear list
Nikon D800E Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 50D Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads