# swap 35 art for 35 f/1.4L II?



## niels123 (Jan 19, 2016)

I have the 35ART from Sigma en I love the focal length and imge quality. However, there is two things which I don't like about this lens:

1) Focus at greater distance gives (much) softer images compared to close focus. I also have the Zeiss Otus 55 and 85 and in this aspect there is a substantial difference between the Zeiss lenses and the 35 art.

How much better is the Canon 35L II at greater focus distance compared to the 35 art?

2) With high contrast backgrounds, backfocus is a serious problem and I see it in a lot of my photos with light/colorful backgrounds. I use the lens on a 5D III and 7D II and I did the focal calibration with both camera's.

I know that the art lenses are known for there focussing issues. How consistent is the autofocus with the 35L II form Canon?

Input is appreciated ;D


----------



## Eldar (Jan 19, 2016)

I got rid of the 35/Art, due to focusing inconsistency. Optically it is a great lens, apart from its bokeh, which I was less happy with.

Since I like the focal length, I have now bought the 35/1.4L II. To begin with I had focusing issues with it and had it with CPS twice. They persistently claimed that it was nothing wrong, even though I had enough controlled shots to show the conterary. However, after a little more use, it has turned very consistent. Don't ask me how ... Optical quality and mechanical build is excellent and to me it is worth the price. 

(I also have the two Otus lenses, but I doubt I'll be getting the 28/1.4 when it is released. It is simply too big and heavy)


----------



## niels123 (Jan 19, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I got rid of the 35/Art, due to focusing inconsistency. Optically it is a great lens, apart from its bokeh, which I was less happy with.
> 
> Since I like the focal length, I have now bought the 35/1.4L II. To begin with I had focusing issues with it and had it with CPS twice. They persistently claimed that it was nothing wrong, even though I had enough controlled shots to show the conterary. However, after a little more use, it has turned very consistent. Don't ask me how ... Optical quality and mechanical build is excellent and to me it is worth the price.
> 
> (I also have the two Otus lenses, but I doubt I'll be getting the 28/1.4 when it is released. It is simply too big and heavy)



Thanx for your reply. It's so frustating when you have excellent images with severe backfocus that are now useless...

I'm quite tempting to get my hands on the Otus 28, although it's highly unlikely that it will happen this year.


----------



## davidcarlyon (Jan 24, 2016)

Is the backfocus because it's actually focusing on the background, or does it seem to be focusing a certain distance behind the intended subject, often leaving nothing at all in focus?

If it's the former you're experiencing, it may be more because of the camera's autofocus sensor being inadequate. I have this problem with all my lenses, Sigma 50mm ART, Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II, Canon 35mm f/1.4 II (not as much with the Canon 16-35mm f/4, because the narrower aperture means the DOF usually covers the errors if they occur). It's when the subject is too small that it's most likely to happen to me, I figure, because the sensor sweeps over both the background and subject, and too often chooses the former. My 35mm f/1.4L II does this.

My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART does seem to exhibit more inconsistency even apart from the background-grabbing, so I've learned to take extra shots to account for it - and sometimes use Live-View to make sure I get the shot.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2016)

niels123 said:


> I have the 35ART from Sigma en I love the focal length and imge quality. However, there is two things which I don't like about this lens:
> 
> 1) Focus at greater distance gives (much) softer images compared to close focus.



Frustrating. Had the same with my Sigma 50mm ART with having to choose between sharp either at short or long distance. Used the Sigma dock. Dialed in separate MA for the four distances the dock suggested. Problem solved. 

It is now spectacular on the 5DS/R.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 24, 2016)

davidcarlyon said:


> Is the backfocus because it's actually focusing on the background, or does it seem to be focusing a certain distance behind the intended subject, often leaving nothing at all in focus?
> 
> If it's the former you're experiencing, it may be more because of the camera's autofocus sensor being inadequate.



Its generally a struggle to consistently nail AF with high contrast back-lit subjects. Even true for my 300mm f/2.8 IS L II and a 5D-series camera.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 24, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I got rid of the 35/Art, due to focusing inconsistency. Optically it is a great lens, apart from its bokeh, which I was less happy with.
> 
> Since I like the focal length, I have now bought the 35/1.4L II. To begin with I had focusing issues with it and had it with CPS twice. They persistently claimed that it was nothing wrong, even though I had enough controlled shots to show the conterary. However, after a little more use, it has turned very consistent. Don't ask me how ... Optical quality and mechanical build is excellent and to me it is worth the price.
> 
> (I also have the two Otus lenses, but I doubt I'll be getting the 28/1.4 when it is released. It is simply too big and heavy)



Eldar, apart from the different focal lengths, how do you think the 35LII compares to the Otus lenses in regards to sharpness, contrast, color and bokeh?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 25, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I got rid of the 35/Art, due to focusing inconsistency. Optically it is a great lens, apart from its bokeh, which I was less happy with.
> ...


I have not used these lenses side by side enough to give a solid opinion on that. Too many lens reviews get lost in sharpness. But when you reach a sharpness level like these lenses, it is a non-issue. colour, contrast, CA, flare etc. are areas that separate the great from the good. I have not done enough comparable shots to give a solid opinion on how they compare, other than all being great. They are also different focal lengths, so bokeh is difficult to compare.

If someone held a gun to my head and forced me to rank them, I´d say that the Otus lenses are a bit a head optically, but the Canon lens, with weather sealing and AF, at less than half the price and fantastic optics, is a better buy. I use them for different things though.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 25, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Comparing different focal lengths and pictures taken in different circumstances and light isn't exactly easy, but I highly appreciate that you give us your opinion anyway. I do follow what you say about sharpness. I had the Zeiss 50mm f/2 macro planar, but sold it after getting the 5Ds (since it doesn't have a matte screen for manual focus). The Zeiss wasn't sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 LII at 50mm and f2.8, but it produced more desirable images, due to contrast and color, I think. The 35mm f/2IS is really sharp at smaller apertures, but it's images lack some "pop" to them. I hope that the 35LII can give me a Zeiss-like "pop" that I miss from the 50mm f/2 Macro planar.

Expecting Otus quality from the 35LII would be optimistic, but if it's almost there, I guess the 35LII will make me happy, when I at some point will be able to afford it.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 25, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...


I am using a precision matte screen on my 5DSR. You can order it from www.focusingscreen.com. It works very well and the exposure offset is easy to control. Well worth it, if you are using manual focus lenses.


----------



## bobby samat (Jan 27, 2016)

can't compare the two lenses because i've never used the sigma.

been using the new 35mm 1.4 L2 for a few months and have been pretty impressed with the af at 1.4 at any shooting distance - close or far.

zero backfocus or focus shoft issues for me. i intentionally shot a few portraits into the setting sun the first night i was using it and was very surprised how well the af handled the situation.

very happy with my purchase so far.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 27, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Thank you for the suggestion, but I like AF too much to go back to manual focus Zeiss. My Zeiss didn't get as much use at it should.


----------



## cookestudios (Feb 10, 2016)

I reviewed the new Canon for Fstoppers, and honestly, the difference in AF performance and drawing was worth it to me. In particular, when shooting weddings, the Sigma seriously interrupts my flow because I can't trust the AF on it. The Canon was a pure joy to use, on the other hand.


----------



## JuliusCaesar88 (Feb 11, 2016)

Guys, new to this forum. I hope you can help me. I have some money saved to get a 35mm 1.4, and right now I'm torn between the Canon mark 1 and the Sigma Art series. My budget is up to $1000 so I could buy the Sigma new or the Canon actually cheaper than the Sigma used on eBay in great condition. I have bought used lenses on eBay before without a problem. The thing that I am afraid of with the Sigma is the autofocus isuues, I just want something that works out of the box. Any help will be appreciated.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 35ART from Sigma en I love the focal length and imge quality. However, there is two things which I don't like about this lens:
> ...



THIS. Thank you for writing the post I was just about to do myself. Same situation, lens and dock settings. Completely took care of my 35 Art (now my wife's) Close was great out of the box and over 15ft it became less so. I don't know if I used all four points for adjustment, maybe as the closest three are pretty close.... but still, the dock is invaluable.


----------

