# Photozone comparison of Canon 35L vs. Sigma 35mm F/1.4 'Art'



## ahsanford (Sep 30, 2013)

Hey all,

Photozone finally got around to testing the extremely well-reviewed Sigma 35mm F/1.4 'Art' lens on a FF body. (Their FF test camera is a 5D2, btw.)

Of note, that now gives us an aperture vs. sharpness breakdown that's pretty simple to read. See attached. As their test went, the Sigma was an astounding performer wide open, esp. in the corners compared to the Canon. Note the stretchy-fonted Canon section is not stretchy from data-doctoring -- I just stretched that chart to better line up left to right with the Sigma data for comparison purposes. (Raw link below for skeptics. )

Keep in mind that I believe that they only test one lens. Not everyone has LensRentals' statistical power.

For the record, I do not suffer from sharpness syndrome, in which the sharpest lens is deemed 'the best'. So I encourage folks to read the _whole_ reviews...

Sigma: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff
Canon: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff

...and read about other items, like handling, focus shifting, 'nervousness' of the bokeh, distortion, chromatic fringey stuff, etc.

Or better yet, rent both and see for yourself. Despite the very strong sharpness-per-dollar argument made by an overwhelming majority on this forum, there are many who love their 35L and are holding out for a (weathersealed!) 35L II rather than to go after Sigma's terrific new offering. 

- A

...


----------



## candyman (Sep 30, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> ........
> For the record, I do not suffer from sharpness syndrome, in which the sharpest lens is deemed 'the best'. So I encourage folks to read the _whole_ reviews...
> 
> 
> ...




I am with you. 
And as always it depends for everyone on the specific combination of their camera and their lens that is showing performance characteristics that will satisfy or not.
The sigma has very strong cards


----------



## lucuias (Oct 1, 2013)

I tried both and I pick up canon version due to sigma mute colour.Somehow unexplainable I can't manage to get the sigma to mimic canon's colour in post.


----------



## Alrik89 (Oct 1, 2013)

I'm glad, that Sigma is offering some real competitors now. The same goes for Tamron.
Heck, with the Sigma 85mm 1.4, the Sigma 35mm 1.4, the Tamron 24-70mm and the new Tamron 70-200mm you get 4 extraordinary lenses for roundabout 4.000€. 
If you buy Canon-only, the you would spend 5.600€ (including the 85mm 1.8!). Well, normaly i am not stingy. But the new lineup of Sigma and Tamron really gives me a headache - in a positive way.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 1, 2013)

Alrik89 said:


> But the new lineup of Sigma and Tamron really gives me a headache - in a positive way.



There shouldn't be any headaches suffered because of this. Competition is something very good for all of us, even if we have to wait some time for Canon's response, at least now Canon have a reason to update their lenses to stay competitive.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 1, 2013)

Sigma does have the benefit of 14 years of technological increases, so this isn't surprising. Sigma's putting the heat on the OEMs, so this is good news for us consumers.


----------



## wsheldon (Oct 1, 2013)

candyman said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...



+1

PZ also just reviewed the new Canon 35 f2 IS, so that's an interesting comparison too (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff?start=1). Pretty good resolution and borders on the wide end too, compared with the Canon 1.4, but not up to the Sigma. They also concurred with other reviewers on the nice bokeh wide open. Now that this lens is more sensibly priced in relation to the Sigma, we've got good choices all around.


----------



## Pi (Oct 2, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> So I encourage folks to read the _whole_ reviews...
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...and read about other items, like handling, focus shifting, 'nervousness' of the bokeh, distortion, chromatic fringey stuff, etc.



I did, and I can see that Klauss is acting as a lens tester, not as a photographer. The bokeh of the Sigma (and that of the Canon) deteriorates considerably from the center to the borders. In the center, it is perfect for the Canon, I guess that same applies to the Sigma. He tests too close to the center for his test to be of any value. Unlike sharpness, bokeh away from the center is really important, and in the center maybe not so much. 

The first photo in his samples gallery is much more informative about that than the play cards.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 2, 2013)

lucuias said:


> I tried both and I pick up canon version due to sigma mute colour.Somehow unexplainable I can't manage to get the sigma to mimic canon's colour in post.



It's an odd thing about the color and general sense of subject "pop." The MTF charts, etc don't explain it, but I see it when I view numerous photo's of both lenses.


----------



## Martin (Oct 2, 2013)

I dream about 50 1.4 from ART Sigma. I would pay twice the canon price for it. Waiting for those lens so much. Keep my fingers crossed for sigma.


----------



## tphillips63 (Oct 2, 2013)

I bought the canon about six months before the sigma came out and if it had already been out that would have been my first non canon lens.


----------



## Pi (Oct 2, 2013)

Martin said:


> I dream about 50 1.4 from ART Sigma. I would pay twice the canon price for it. Waiting for those lens so much. Keep my fingers crossed for sigma.



Well, I dream about a modern 50/1.4 from Canon. Both the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 are antiques, and need to be retired. The 50L is great, but there is a place for a bit slower modern 50mm prime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2013)

Photozone has had the lens online and tested on a Nikon FF body (D3). The general results should not change, the actual resolution numbers will, but not by a whole lot. The fact that the resolution curve shape is slightly different merely tells us that different lens samples perform differently. In both cases, the corners and edges are very good.



On a Nikon FF D3.


----------



## tiltshift (Oct 3, 2013)

great lens. used to own a 35L now i got the sigma. Pros and cons. I am happy with certain aspects of the sigma and miss others from the canon.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 3, 2013)

Martin said:


> I dream about 50 1.4 from ART Sigma. I would pay twice the canon price for it. Waiting for those lens so much. Keep my fingers crossed for sigma.



I wrote to Sigma asking them about which future lenses they will make under the "art" label. They have not responded to me so far. :-[


----------



## dil_power (May 13, 2014)

tiltshift said:


> great lens. used to own a 35L now i got the sigma. Pros and cons. I am happy with certain aspects of the sigma and miss others from the canon.



Hi "tiltshift" I was wondering if you would mind telling us which aspects of the Canon you miss... I am about to buy the Sigma but really not too sure whether to get a used 35L instead...

Thanks!


----------

