Photog on a budget: Canon 35/2 IS vs Sigma 35/1.4 ART

I currently shoot with a 5D (the first one).
All I have right now is a 50/1.8 II that came with it when I bought it. It's fine, but I'm more comfortable with the 35mm focal length. I'm wondering, given that I don't readily have much cash to drop often, should I hold out and get the Sigma 35mm ART or settle for the 35mm F2 IS?
I know eventually I'll get the Sigma anyway, but I'll be needing a 35mm soon and I can't make up my mind.

Anyone have any common sense or just ideas to throw my way?

5D does not have microfocus adjustment.  putting an f1.4 lens from a 3rd party manufacturer is just asking for AF headaches on the 5D.

jacson wrote:

I currently shoot with a 5D (the first one).
All I have right now is a 50/1.8 II that came with it when I bought it. It's fine, but I'm more comfortable with the 35mm focal length. I'm wondering, given that I don't readily have much cash to drop often, should I hold out and get the Sigma 35mm ART or settle for the 35mm F2 IS?
I know eventually I'll get the Sigma anyway, but I'll be needing a 35mm soon and I can't make up my mind.

Anyone have any common sense or just ideas to throw my way?

For me it boiled down to less weight and IS v how often i'd need/want 1.4.  I bought the Canon in the end as I wanted something slightly wider than a 50 that I could carry around even 'just in case' as a standard prime.  Plus the Canon is a fair amount cheaper.

AF is very fast and accurate on the Canon 35F2 IS, and the lens is sharp. It is very useful on full frame, and also on crop.

It is probably my most used lens. You need to ask yourself just how often you will want to be able to shoot at F1.4-F1.8, and if it matters to you. Depth of field is pretty shallow at those apertures, and this can be good or bad, depending on what you are shooting.

I have found that I have been able to get shots at very slow shutter speeds with the Canon, as it has really great IS. The lens is also light and compact compared with the Sigma. If there were a Canon 35F1.4 the same size and weight as the 35F2, I would be tempted by it. As it stands, I can't see replacing the Canon 35F2IS with the Sigma 35. This is a great focal length, and I have 3 - 35s. I keep them around. I have the older Canon 35F2 as a backup, and the Tokina 35F2.8 macro lens for crop.

If you must have F1.4, consider the Canon 35F1.4, version 1. However, I would hesitate to put an F1.4 non-CAnon lens on a camera without microadjust, and I have no idea whether the Sigma dock will work properly with all Canon bodies.

You can't go wrong with the Canon 35F2 IS, unless you must have F1.4. For most of my needs, the Canon 35F2IS is great.

jacson wrote:

I currently shoot with a 5D (the first one).
All I have right now is a 50/1.8 II that came with it when I bought it. It's fine, but I'm more comfortable with the 35mm focal length. I'm wondering, given that I don't readily have much cash to drop often, should I hold out and get the Sigma 35mm ART or settle for the 35mm F2 IS?
I know eventually I'll get the Sigma anyway, but I'll be needing a 35mm soon and I can't make up my mind.

Anyone have any common sense or just ideas to throw my way?

Budget or not my vote for 35 f2 IS!!!

I had the Sigma 35mm but after hours of USB calibrating, I never got it totally right, my copy just had an AF mind of its own.

I got the Canon 35mm f2 IS and am VERY happy.  Its just as sharp and its colors feel a bit warmer to me.  Not to mention IS and a 100% working AF system.  Another thing to realize is the Sigma is a big big lens, its basically the size of a zoom.  So its size was also surprisingly off putting to me as I buy primes to lose weight.

Spotted Cow wrote:

kevindar wrote:

5D does not have microfocus adjustment. putting an f1.4 lens from a 3rd party manufacturer is just asking for AF headaches on the 5D.

The dock can be used to MFA the lens at different shooting distances to be able to more accurately MFA the lens than with just the body MFA.

that is indeed a good point, if he buys the Dock.  I have never used one, so dont know the effectiveness of it.

The 5D has an OK focus system to start with, not a great one.  having owned all 3 iterations of 5d, there was a huge jump in accuracy and percision of AF with fast lenses with 5d3. but thats not what the OP is asking.

I can wholeheartedly recommend the Canon 32/2 IS. Buy it, you won't regret it. This is my standard lens on my 6D that lives on it. If i have to dig any negatives for it, it would be higher than usual vignetting but i don't see it in Lightroom as i have set it to auto-fix using the lens profile as soon as i import my photos.

Sorry I'm late (working).
To offer some more info, I'm definitely a fan of shallow depth of field. With 35mm (as opposed to maybe 85mm), the dof drop off going from 1.4 to 2 is more significant for sure. And I guess I'm just worried I won't like the separation as much at the aperture.

However, from all that you all have told me, it is worth it. Also, I definitely hadn't considered AFMA issues with the Sigma, which is making me heavily rethink that decision. Because from what I've heard since it came out, you can hardly get a copy that doesn't require it. So that's a big factor (no point to a lens that sharp if you're out of focus).
But with the 35/2 being so sharp plus IS, which will be helpful for my late night excursions, I think that will be the one I go with. Thanks a ton for the input.

jacson wrote:

Sorry I'm late (working).
To offer some more info, I'm definitely a fan of shallow depth of field. With 35mm (as opposed to maybe 85mm), the dof drop off going from 1.4 to 2 is more significant for sure. And I guess I'm just worried I won't like the separation as much at the aperture.

However, from all that you all have told me, it is worth it. Also, I definitely hadn't considered AFMA issues with the Sigma, which is making me heavily rethink that decision. Because from what I've heard since it came out, you can hardly get a copy that doesn't require it. So that's a big factor (no point to a lens that sharp if you're out of focus).
But with the 35/2 being so sharp plus IS, which will be helpful for my late night excursions, I think that will be the one I go with. Thanks a ton for the input.

I've got the Sigma 35 1.4 Art and have used it on my former 5d II and current 6d. I love it. I did have the play the Sigma lottery to get a good copy (i.e. One that did not require "massive amounts of MF adjustment). For me, the 3rd try was a charm. Still, I had to use the Sigma dock to really dial in the sharpness. So, you would probably need to factor this into the purchase ($50) if you change your mind and opt for the Sigma.

One thing to keep in mind. The dock has 4 separate adjustments that you can make on the 35 to help correct front/back focus at various distances: 1 foot, 1 foot to 1.5 feet, roughly 2-3.5 feet, roughly 4 feet to infinity. The last distance is the tricky one. Mine required a different adjustment factor at the closer end of this last range than it did towards the infinity end of the range. So, I had to pick which end of this range was more important to me in terms of razor sharp focus at 1.4. Apparently this is common with the Sigma 35. Roger Cicila at Lensrental commented on this in his write up of the dock. See link below. Something to be aware of.

I love the Sigma though...a great option. It is very shap wide open. Stop down "just a bit" to f/2 or f2.8 and IQ is off the charts...very sharp and contrasty.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock/

I saved for the 35mmL Mk2 and what a lens and my favorite lens so far!

Just go for a brand new 35mm Mk1 for U$999 while stock last.