# just hit the purchase button



## anthonyd (Mar 11, 2014)

I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!

A.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!
> 
> A.



I would have wished you luck had you got the Sigma given the AF performance can be a bit troublesome. With the 24-70 II you shouldn't need luck, it is the as close to a perfect lens you can have in this FL range.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!
> ...


+1
It is my most used lens and the performance is outstanding. I don't think I have a single bad images I can blame the lens for (I have lots of them though ). Have fun!


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> anthonyd said:
> 
> 
> > I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!
> ...



There are quite a few users that would disagree with you


----------



## Menace (Mar 11, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> I had saved money for the Sigma 35f/1.4 A, but my tax return was higher than I expected, so I just ordered the Canon 24-70f/2.8 II instead!!! Wish me luck!
> 
> A.



Well done. Its a joy to use 

Btw, You don't need luck.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > anthonyd said:
> ...



I'm sure there will be a few. TBF, I did choose my words carefully ... no?


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



In fact my comment was about the perfection of the 24-70 II ;D

There are some people who have problems with the 35A, but on a scale perspective, probably not more than those who had problems of various nature with the Canon (coating peeling off, zoom clicking sound, copy-to-copy inconsistency etc..).

My Sigma had backfocusing problems only at medium distances (5-10m). In close and infinity focus it was spot-on out of the box. It's the reason why the USB dock is great: it lets you AFMA at different distances. At the moment I'm strugling a bit with the Canon 24-70 f/4 L: it seems to have a similar problem and I wasn't able to correct it yet because at some distances it works great, at other distances it doesn't, and there is no single value that can fit all situations. I need to spend quite some time on FoCal to find the best compromise.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Haha ... I thought so too but only later and didn't bother editing my post ;D

The point though is that you usually suffer "bad luck" if you get a bad Canon lens - a very high percentage of Canon lenses work find right out of the box, but you need "good luck" to get a Sigma lens that works great right out of the box. 

Sigma is improving but given that they have to reverse engineer the Canon AF to get their lenses to work on EOS bodies, the AF feels a bit of a let down compared to the Canon lenses. 

Additionally, from personal experience, I've found that if a Canon lens does not work properly on a Canon body, I can send both to Canon for calibration. With a third party lens, Canon refuses saying it's the third party problem while the third party blames Canon. So basically, I feel safer with Canon gear


----------



## Eldar (Mar 11, 2014)

When the Sigma 35 Art is well focused, the IQ is very good. But the AF is not consistent. When I got it last summer and the days were long and light was good and I normally used f5.6 or thereabout, it was excellent. In November days are shorter, light dimmer and f-stops wider and I got more and more out of focus images. I did a new AFMA (Focal) and focus had drifted 7 points. Whether that was a one-off or something that I can expect to happen again is yet to be seen. 

My Canon 24-70 f2.8L II has been outstanding from day 1. I have not had any of the problems other report. Like some other posters here, I am also a bit reluctant to buy non-Canon lenses, due to reverse engineered AF solutions. Sigma does seem to have something going though.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 11, 2014)

To my mind, you can't have a FF Canon without a 28-70.... It seems like the perfect lens, closely followed by a 70-200..


----------



## J.R. (Mar 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> To my mind, you can't have a FF Canon without a 28-70.... It seems like the perfect lens, closely followed by a 70-200..



28-70? Looks like a CR1 to me Don


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > To my mind, you can't have a FF Canon without a 28-70.... It seems like the perfect lens, closely followed by a 70-200..
> ...


OOPS! I meant 24-70 

You know what they say.... If you haven'st screwed up, persevere...


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 12, 2014)

One of best zoom in Canon line up. Period 

1st photo - my 3yrs at school, book fair. jpeg straight out from camera.
2nd photo - @ f2.8, The treasure box


----------



## jprusa (Mar 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> One of best zoom in Canon line up. Period
> 
> 1st photo - my 3yrs at school, book fair. jpeg straight out from camera.
> 2nd photo - @ f2.8, The treasure box


+1


----------



## wsmith96 (Mar 12, 2014)

Congrats on your purchase!


----------



## R1-7D (Mar 12, 2014)

I wish you luck with the crap QC issues on the 24-70. It's a great lens, but watch for clicking when zooming.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 12, 2014)

Congrats! We got a larger tax return but instead of buying the camera equipment we wanted to, we have to pay it on a new baby and insurance and copays and all that other fun stuff that comes along with it.


----------



## PVS (Mar 12, 2014)

I have both lenses. They are nice company to each other on 5dmk3, that 1.4 matters a lot when there's not enough light. My 24-70mk2 doesn't show any clicking problems and IQ is on par with any prime lens, from corner to corner. Sigma needed +5 AFMA and still exhibits slight front focus issues at mid distances (2m to 5m) while L zoom needed -2 AFMA at wide range and +1 at longer range. Don't know why but sigma's coating seem more pleasing to my eye. You'll love your 24-70!


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 13, 2014)

Kudos. I'm not that big of a fan of the focal length... so I'm staying with my 24-105 until the reviews for the sigma 24-70 f/2 come out... provided the lens ever comes out. 

At that point... I'll make my choice... but who knows maybe canon will finally release their 24-70 f/2.8L IS...


----------



## Menace (Mar 13, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 1st photo - my 3yrs at school, book fair. jpeg straight out from camera.



Gorgeous


----------



## Sanaraken (Mar 13, 2014)

I have a clicking noise on my 24-70II, but it still take sharp photos.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 13, 2014)

You will love this lens


----------



## gbchriste (Mar 13, 2014)

Love mine! Coupled with the 70-200 2.8L II makes a perfect combo.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 13, 2014)

I think that's a perfect piece of advice - "Just hit the purchase button" - since there is few things more aggravating then wanting something but too afraid to buy it.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 13, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> I think that's a perfect piece of advice - "Just hit the purchase button" - since there is few things more aggravating then wanting something but too afraid to buy it.


When I had roughly your gear I want to upgrade to the 70-200 f 4L... what's on your wishlist?


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Mar 13, 2014)

I have both the Sigma 35A and the 24-70 II. Both are great, but I find that the zoom is on my camera most of the time.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

Sure the 24-70 ii has the best autofocus and is the sharpest zoom. But is its bokeh better than the Sigma 35 art? From the-digital-picture comparisons...the Canon's bokeh is really not any better than the Tamron's. It's just that the Tamron cannot autofocus consistently at all, much worse than the Sigma Art, at least according to TDP. The previous Canon 24-70 f/2.8 i had the best bokeh of any f/2.8 zoom, it seems to me. And as has been stated before, it also didn't flare as bad, and its hood was far more useful. It also cost less. So really, sharpness and focus accuracy are what the ii does best, but definitely not bokeh smoothness. Sure its adequate, but is it smoother than the Sigma's? I doubt it. The Canon 35L might have the smoothest bokeh of all, or at least it looks like it does. 

But I'll grant you, as wide/normal focal length zooms go, the 24-70 ii is really the only f/2.8 one to get (unless you don't need ultimate sharpness and most of your images are full of bokeh, in which case the older version is the one to seek out). I had considered the Tamron, but I definitely am not considering it after reading TDP. If it focused as well as the Canon, then it actually _would_ be the one to get. But it never could.


----------



## EricFiskCGD (Mar 13, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> EricFiskCGD said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's a perfect piece of advice - "Just hit the purchase button" - since there is few things more aggravating then wanting something but too afraid to buy it.
> ...



Keep in mind that I just got into professional photography after decades of being a mere amature photographer. I’m a graphic designer by trade and I don’t feel like my work is really 100% mine when I use other people’s stock photographs. I want to have just enough equipment so that when a project call for a shot I can take it myself.

What I really NEED is a macro lens for some up close product shots and a really good wide-angle lens and for the time being that would round out my gear. In short – one of each catagory on this page would be ideal.

Beyond that I really need more lighting gear.

What I really WANT is equipment that will help me in Astrophotography; just a good telescope and a mount for my camera.

Do you have anything on your wish list left?


----------



## gary (Mar 13, 2014)

Its my go too, all around sound performer, a stellar lens. I have no problems with clicking and IS well lets just say that I have never noticed that I didn't have it.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 13, 2014)

Menace said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 1st photo - my 3yrs at school, book fair. jpeg straight out from camera.
> ...



Thanks Menace


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 13, 2014)

EricFiskCGD said:


> Do you have anything on your wish list left?



That's a really good question... and I don't know that I have an answer... I'd like fun customers... hey Joe... we'd like you to come and photograph these naked models. DONE! 

But in regards to gear... I kinda want a sigma 50 art... I kinda want a 200-400 1.4x... I kinda want the reported sigma 24-70 f2 lens if it actually exists... but all in all.. I feel pretty set with what I have. 

I had a 135 L for less than a week before I sold it... and I didn't really get an opportunity to run it through its paces to seed if I really liked it or not... so maybe that again... and I made 175 on the transaction... so I really not complaining.

All in all... I probably don't NEED anything and that affects my wanting something.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2014)

I too just hit the purchase button, my largest photo buy ever, took quite a bit of hemming and hawwing and considering FL's etc etc. 
The first thing to do was to rule out the fleeting latest appetizing gear that really does not suit my strengths or will not aid my in the best directions.
The only item I will be getting that isn't a sure thing for me is the Big Ron, so I will put it through it's paces from the gitgo if I need to facilitate a return to B&H. And if it doesn't thrill me well, there's the the cash for a 2nd body dedicated to Alt lenses (Lensbaby, Holga, Fisheye) I have been wanting.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Mar 13, 2014)

slclick said:


> I too just hit the purchase button, my largest photo buy ever, took quite a bit of hemming and hawwing and considering FL's etc etc.
> The first thing to do was to rule out the fleeting latest appetizing gear that really does not suit my strengths or will not aid my in the best directions.
> The only item I will be getting that isn't a sure thing for me is the Big Ron, so I will put it through it's paces from the gitgo if I need to facilitate a return to B&H. And if it doesn't thrill me well, there's the the cash for a 2nd body dedicated to Alt lenses (Lensbaby, Holga, Fisheye) I have been wanting.


What is "the Big Ron"? What is "FL's?


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 13, 2014)

Bruce Photography said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I too just hit the purchase button, my largest photo buy ever, took quite a bit of hemming and hawwing and considering FL's etc etc.
> ...



I think fl's are focal lengths... but I have no idea what a big Ron is.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Tamron 150-600.....typing out 'focal lengths' might be a great way to beef up my finger and arm strength for that Long Tammy.


----------



## dash2k8 (Mar 14, 2014)

Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 14, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.



+1, well said and succinct.


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 14, 2014)

Thanks everybody for the nice comments and advice. I surely do want the 35A as well, as I do portraits a lot, but I have a 50/1.4 for that, a good general purpose zoom was missing from my arsenal more than a prime that can do subject separation well.
The lens arrived by the way and Ι have to say, I'm happy with it already.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 14, 2014)

awinphoto said:


> Congrats! We got a larger tax return but instead of buying the camera equipment we wanted to, we have to pay it on a new baby and insurance and copays and all that other fun stuff that comes along with it.



Geez, man...get your *priorities *in order, eh?


----------



## Click (Mar 14, 2014)

Menace said:


> Well done. Its a joy to use
> 
> Btw, You don't need luck.



+1

Congrats on your purchase.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 14, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.



Agreed regarding both lenses.......with regard to optics.

"unless you are shooting at f1.4"

The issue though, is that part one of the more important reasons you buy a fast prime is to be able to shoot it fast. I personally had issues with several copies not only with varying distances, but varying lighting as well when shooting at or near wide open. This is a problem I had personally never experienced with the 35L. As a matter of fact, the Canon was the most consistently accurate fast prime I've ever had when shooting wide open. 

I absolutely disagree that you "should" be manual focusing when shooting wide open with a fast prime as a general rule. While there may be times when it is needed, it generally is not.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 19, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Both lenses are excellent. No need to compare the two to justify the purchase of one or the other. If there's enough money, buy both! The focusing issue on the Sigma can be mostly rectified via the USB dock and microadjustment in-camera, so it's not like it will make or break a project unless you are shooting at f1.4, in which case you should be manual focusing anyway. Cheers.
> ...



So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 19, 2014)

"So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"

Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.

The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 19, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> "So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"
> 
> Yeah. Two copies actually. The second one was worse than the first which is when I decided to give up. I kept the 35L for a while longer until I eventually decided it would be more useful to just have the 35/2 IS since I already had the other fast primes close to the FL.
> 
> The Sigma was amazing optically which is why I wish I could be guaranteed a copy that marries well to my body.



What body do you have? Do you have AFMA?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 19, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > "So you sent the Sigma back and kept the Canon?"
> ...



When I had the copies of the Sigma, I had a 5d3. They were both AFMA'd with Reikan FoCal. At the time, the dock had not yet been released so I didn't have the ability to modify the three distance values in lens. However, with the single distance calibration in body I did have, I was still getting inconsistent AF at roughly that distance depending on the lighting I was in during real world usage. As stated earlier, the second copy was even worse than the first which is when I threw in the towel.

At the time, I had spoken to a tech in their New York office and was told to send both the body and lens in together which I had actually given some consideration to since the optical quality of the lens made it so attractive.

Putting the accuracy issue aside, both S35 copies I had were still noticeably slower to AF than the copy of the 35L I had which in all reality was the most consistently accurate AF'ing lens I owned. The speed difference was not the deal breaker though since the Sigmas still did reasonably well in that regard (albeit not as fast).


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 21, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



But what I want to know is, were the bokeh background highlights in the "transition zone", as smooth as the 35L? And if not, how much more coarse were they?


----------

