Canon 35mm F2 IS USM or Sigma 35mm 1.4 for street photography?

Hi,

Can anyone help me decide between the Canon 35mm F2 IS USM and the Sigma 35mm 1.4? Maybe any of you owns both lenses, and can share some insights?

My intended use is mainly street photography. I will be using the lens with my Canon 5D markII to record a research I will be doing in South America, with the intention of publishing the images on the net and eventually in print. I might use it also to capture some video, but still photography is certainly the priority. My plan is to shoot in available light, in all kinds of urban conditions - not very sure what I will be facing there - including at night.

I have been trying both lenses and I can't really make a decision. The Canon has a great build (though not as nice as the Sigma), it weighs much less and is much smaller, making it much less conspicuous with the 5D. The Sigma has been receiving all those rave reviews, including from photographers I know, and it is faster. But the Canon has IS... And right now I can find the Canon 35% cheaper than the Sigma.

I've read dozens of reviews online, and though all attention seem to be focused on the Sigma, the (few) reviews about the Canon are all positive. Some go as far as saying that the Canon's image quality rivals that of the 35mm 1.4L, which sounds quite amazing. Anyone here can vouch for that?

Anyway, trying both lenses hasn't really helped - holding that thick, heavy piece of metal and glass that is the Sigma is quite a cool experience... And I haven't done all that much street photography in low light, so I'm not sure if the 3 extra stops I can get from the Canon's IS will be more useful than the 1 stop I will get from the Sigma, considering that stopping motion is the final aim.

Any comments, suggestions, insights?

Thanks in advance!

Canon 35mm f/2 IS or non-IS. The Sigma is big.

You've some contradicting points so it's better to straight them out

1) Still photography is priority

2) Stopping the motion is final aim

For #1, you will have better bet with IS. For #2 you want the fastest available shutter speed at all times, which means you need the 35/1.4

The 35IS/2 is probably more compact and good to carry around.

So weight your needs and decide base on priority.

While it was good at close up ranges, it was terrible at distances, even misfocussing at times.  Up close it might have been slightly better than my 50 1.4 but you had to pixel peep to see it and hardly worth the extra money to me.  I compared it to my 17-40 at F4 and 35 and there was very little difference there too.  I don't know if I got a dud, but quite frankly the hype didn't match my expectations.

I would go with the canon 35mm IS - the stabilizer will let you experiment with some motion blur. ie you could hand hold it at 1/15th or 1/10th and take a shot of a stationary person in a fast moving crowd - much harder to pull off with the sigma without a tripod
Also it's smaller/lighter and should be a very sharp lens from what i've read

Remember not to be afraid of high ISO as well, try shooting at f11 or f16 at 1600/3200 ISO in bright sunlight, some lenses render differently when stopped down - I use a voightlander 21mm f4 on a sony-5n for street/market shooting and while it's great wide open it has a really nice feel to it when stopped down alot - just something worth experimenting with

I've got the new Canon 35 f2 and although initially puzzled by it, I now absolutely love it. In the beginning, using a 6D, I simply shot in P on center focus, and was disappointed in the results, always out of focus. Then I read something here about using multi-points, I tried it, and it was a different lens, producing great results. Bottom line, it was my error.

On to Sigma. In over 43 years of photography, I have owned about two dozen Sigmas, and I have been disappointed in every one of them. From finishes flaking off to continually breaking aperture stop down springs, I finally gave up on Sigma. The new ones may be, and hopefully are, better.

The original 35/2 non-IS is a dog. Only heavily stopped down did it begin to perform. The new 40/2.8 is much better. I own both.

I haven't tried the new 35/2 IS but all reports point to a seriously improved lens.

I recently rented the Sigma 35 1.4, and the results were fantastic. Out of focus areas, front and back were superb, and in focus areas were sharp with lots of micro contrast. Reminded me of Summilux results. It was BIG and heavy - for it's size I might as well strapped a big zoom on the end. And on my 5D2, it consistently missed focus with anything but the center point.