# Canon 35 2.0 IS vs Sigma 35 1.4



## tatsu (Feb 22, 2013)

I know this topic has sorta been beaten to death, but I'm still having a tough time with it. Everyone says to get the Sigma unless you need the IS, which I feel maybe I do. Or maybe wait for a 35L II or 50L with IS. Or just wait for price drops on the 35 IS?

I take mostly event or food/beverage photos in poorly lit restaurants/bars, handheld, on a 5D mkIII. In that case, does it make sense to take the lower IQ for the IS? Or go with the Sigma and always pump up the ISO?

For non-studio, non-tripod, low light situations, does that change people's recommendations? Or is resolution/fstop always king? 

Any thoughts welcome.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 22, 2013)

My personal opinion - either the 35/2 IS or the 35L. I own the L and I use it often wide open and next to wide open. The 35/2 IS has IS. I would not worry so much about sharpness differences but I am curious to see whether the 35/2 IS can match the "clarity" of the L.

The bokeh of the Sigma can be very problematic. I would not buy it. With fast lenses, bokeh is maybe more important than sharpness.

BTW, we may see a 35LII soon but it will be expensive.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 23, 2013)

Simple. For events the Sigma will rule. For low light static shots of food the Canon wins


----------



## risc32 (Feb 23, 2013)

REally, this is easy. if you are shooting things that move in low light get the sigma. if it's low light and it dosen't move go for the f2 IS. If you shoot both and you can't justify buying both, you'll have to decide what is more important to you. That is, would you prefer Higher ISO shots of moving things or higher iso shots of stationary things? I wouldn't worry about bokeh or sharpness, they are both very good. 

Also, don't believe that the sigma is bokeh defective. I can show you examples of the canon 50L and 85L that are a mess. There really isn't much in it with these sharp 35mm lenses anyway, and the sigma is just fine. I've been shooting my Sigma and LOVING it since it hit the streets.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 23, 2013)

I had the 35L ...for a few yrs...sold it
and then wanted the 35 I.S. or Sigma.....

as is said here by others ...if you need I.S.....you need I.S.
and you start at f2........

I shot a 35L, Sigma35 1.4, and 35 I.S ....and distagon at the counter
a few situations

distagon had nice bokeh over the others
canon35L next .. with Sigma almost the same(neither is as good as 85L or 135L)
then 35 I.S.

the Sigma was almost one stop sharper than 35L
Sigma @ f1.4 ~ Canon 35L @ f2
the 35 I.S was close to those other two....by about f2.8 or f4

I bought the Sigma....and I do love it...performs better than the canon 35L did for me...for years
and it was great

I went into this thinking I wanted the 35 I.S. ...but it was not as impressive as I had hoped
and I like to have I.S. (I do think the I.S. is a good lens...but sigma got me)

I liked getting f1.4 sharp performance....
and on a 5D3 it is great


a couple samples
the bokeh is just fine.... IMO

just my thoughts


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

The Sigma bokeh (and that of about any other lens) is problematic in the "transition zone". Well blurred background looks good with any lens but when you are close to the focus plane, things change. The 35L has busy bokeh as well; I have seen poor bokeh of Leica lenses, etc., but the Sigma seems to be a champion. 

Here is an example from FLICKR (not mine), f/2, 5DII:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 23, 2013)

Plamen said:


> Here is an example from FLICKR (not mine), f/2, 5DII:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/


Wow, that is unexpected. Background bokeh does not look good there. It should be nicer at f/2. Very confusing.


----------



## tatsu (Feb 23, 2013)

Thanks everyone for your advice. But I have to say I'm even more conflicted than ever. The Sigma is obviously sharp as heck, but based on the transition point and images I've seen, the bokeh concerns me still. 

What's everyone's take on an upcoming 35L II? Is that going to happen any time soon? I thought it was rumored for Jan but then just never materialized.


----------



## tatsu (Feb 23, 2013)

Also, any thoughts on when the 35 IS might drop in price? It feels slightly overpriced for a non L.


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 23, 2013)

Plamen said:


> The Sigma bokeh (and that of about any other lens) is problematic in the "transition zone".
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/l/in/photostream/



You appear to be citing photozone.de. In their images (e.g. of the reed grass), I don't see the "transition zone" issues, especially when compared with the corresponding images in the 35L test which are unarguably less pleasing. It doesn't strike me as a valid reason to disregard the Sigma.

The flickr image doesn't tell us anything about the Sigma relative to the Canons since there are no comparative images.

In the interests of balance, viewers of this video voted the Sigma's bokeh best in a blind comparison.

Battle of the Bokeh - Canon, Nikon Sigma 35mm f/1.4


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 23, 2013)

Perhaps u should rent each lens for a day and see urself which one u prefer.


----------



## sjp010 (Feb 23, 2013)

tatsu said:


> What's everyone's take on an upcoming 35L II? Is that going to happen any time soon? I thought it was rumored for Jan but then just never materialized.



I was thinking about this recently. I wonder if the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 caught Canon with their pants down. They can reasonably release an IS f/2 35mm that is optically inferior to the Sigma, because there are differentiators between those lenses (IS, smaller size & weight, etc). But a non-IS 35LII would be a direct competitor to the Sigma, so it had better be a LOT better for the price they're likely to charge! And how much better than the Sigma can you realistically get?

Anyway, given recent market developments, I wouldn't be surprised if the 35LII is a ways off now. I could be totally wrong though.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 23, 2013)

sjp010

yes - I believe this is the case..
the run up to Sigma release... Canon 35L II rumor was whispering

the timing was... it seemed like the 35L II was about to be announced
when suddenly Sigma released 35 and it was raved about....still is

I felt like Canon quickly pulled their 35L II because it was not as good as Sigma
and sent the 35L II BACK to dwg board.... I have no proof but the events seemed to fall that way

it was expected to see a 35L II... but Sigma upstaged them

me ...I bought the Sigma after checking them out and digging thru reviews..
Sigma is great and both Canon 35L and Sigma have ..just ok bokeh ..Canon maybe an edgein SOME scenarious

MY comittment to myself is if Canon NOW comes out with a 35L II that BEATS Sigma ...
I will sell Sigma and get 35L II....
also Canon ...if they ever get competitive here ...the should feel they have to trump Sigma...
...
I will wait ...using the Sigma ....for the ? ... $2200 35L II ... ?
that's my feeling about what happened and what will happen...


----------



## risc32 (Feb 23, 2013)

that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L. When the stars align just right, or wrong, things can look bad, but in my exp the sigma is just fine in the bokeh department. As i bet the 50L is also. actually, i'm not sure i've ever seen decent bokeh from any leica lens, but that's another topic. 

my take on the canon 35mmL v2. it'll won't be released anytime soon, it'll cost somewhere north of 1800 US, it'll be just slightly better than the sigma and have weather sealing. 

another thing is the build, the canon 35mm IS isn't really built any better than the old 35mm f2, and that wasn't very good. personally, i would have a hard time speeding that much money on it, esp with the great build on the sigma, but i stand by my first recommendation of choosing the lens based on your subject matter's movement, or lack there of.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> You appear to be citing photozone.de.


No, they are citing me.  I have been critical about Sigma's bokeh before they published their review. 


> In their images (e.g. of the reed grass), I don't see the "transition zone" issues, especially when compared with the corresponding images in the 35L test which are unarguably less pleasing. It doesn't strike me as a valid reason to disregard the Sigma.


Look at the image with the garbage bin in the foreground; the grass on the right of it. As I said, the Canon has a similar problem but not that bad, IMO.


> In the interests of balance, viewers of this video voted the Sigma's bokeh best in a blind comparison.
> 
> Battle of the Bokeh - Canon, Nikon Sigma 35mm f/1.4



This is far from the transition zone. Not challenging enough.

Here is a shot with problematic bokeh with the 35L, f/1.4 (my image): It is more or less a torture test. Look for the double lines there. If I wanted to convince you that the 35L had a wonderful bokeh, I would have posted a different image, like this one or this one (both f/1.6). But that would have been either cheating or lack of knowledge because the first one contains foreground blur only (which tends to look good with most well or over corrected lenses), and in the second one, the transition zone is small and does not dominate the image.

So the bottom line is - it takes more than one or two samples to understand what a lens can and cannot do.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

risc32 said:


> that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L.



Oh, no. The 50L is better in terms of bokeh (and much softer) by a mile. I can post pictures, if you like, where I pushed it hard to test the transitions. 

You can find poor examples of bokeh with any lens. But with wide lenses, situations like the one I posted are just too common.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 23, 2013)

risc32 said:


> that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L. When the stars align just right, or wrong, things can look bad, but in my exp the sigma is just fine in the bokeh department. As i bet the 50L is also. actually, i'm not sure i've ever seen decent bokeh from any leica lens, but that's another topic.
> 
> my take on the canon 35mmL v2. it'll won't be released anytime soon, it'll cost somewhere north of 1800 US, it'll be just slightly better than the sigma and have weather sealing.
> 
> *another thing is the build, the canon 35mm IS isn't really built any better than the old 35mm f2, and that wasn't very good*. personally, i would have a hard time speeding that much money on it, esp with the great build on the sigma, but i stand by my first recommendation of choosing the lens based on your subject matter's movement, or lack there of.



With all due respect, this is patently untrue. The build quality of the new lens is roughly on par with the 100L Macro, sans the weather sealing. Of the two, it is my intention to buy the Sigma, but that assessment of the build quality on the Canon is just not true.


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 23, 2013)

risc32 said:


> that shot of the cowboy looks much like the stuff i've seen from the canon 50L. When the stars align just right, or wrong, things can look bad, but in my exp the sigma is just fine in the bokeh department. As i bet the 50L is also. actually, i'm not sure i've ever seen decent bokeh from any leica lens, but that's another topic.


The 50L has fantastic bokeh, in my opinion. The 50L shot at f/2 (same as that cowboy shot) is pretty darned good. As you say, when the stars align just right or wrong, an otherwise good lens can look bad. Anyway, it's hard to compare a 35 and a 50.

And I agree with TWI by Dustin Abbott on the build quality of the new 35/2 IS. Distinctly better than the old 35/2.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 23, 2013)

Plamen

I think you have explained this well with some samples ....

------------------

I used the 35L for years and had 'good' bokeh ..mostly.. from HOW I shot...
a lot depends on where you select/place the background....(and foreground)....when you compose

IMO neither the Sigma (just bought it) nor the 35L have great bokeh in all shots...
they have good down to mediocre in many shots- IMO

Sigma gets a bad rap - IMO

////

but my real reason here is to say 
this in an opportunity for Canon 35L II to really work the bokeh...I mean assuming they get sharp at f1.4 like Sigma does now

make Bokeh the difference.....

c'mon Canon ...you are up ... design a new top-dawg...


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> but my real reason here is to say
> this in an opportunity for Canon 35L II to really work the bokeh...I mean assuming they get sharp at f1.4 like Sigma does now
> 
> make Bokeh the difference.....
> ...


I could not agree more. I am afraid that they may go the other way - to "beat" the Sigma and to sacrify the bokeh for more resolution.


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 23, 2013)

You can't have your cake and eat it...

The designers either go for a creamy, dreamy (read soft) look wide open or they go for a sharp look.
You can always make a sharp lens soft (vaseline) but you cannot go the other way 

Personally, I think bokeh is way overrated and the majority of Canon's old lenses are not sharp enough.
Kudos for Sigma for taking it in the right direction.

BTW, I sold my 50 F/1.2 because it was too soft wide open and I've had and returned two samples of the Sigma because it has focus inconsistencies and it was no sharper than my 24-70 F/2.8 II @ F/2.8.

I'll wait for the Canon 35 F/2 IS to drop $200 like the 24 and 28 did or get the 35 F/1.4L II if it ever materializes.
I'm shooting a Leica Summicron 50 F/2 on a Leica MP film body at the moment and really enjoying the experience...

ET


----------



## AdamJ (Feb 23, 2013)

Plamen said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > You appear to be citing photozone.de.
> ...


Perhaps you have, though not on this site.



Plamen said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > In their images (e.g. of the reed grass), I don't see the "transition zone" issues, especially when compared with the corresponding images in the 35L test which are unarguably less pleasing. It doesn't strike me as a valid reason to disregard the Sigma.
> ...


We would need to see the same image shot with the Canon to make a comparison.



Plamen said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > In the interests of balance, viewers of this video voted the Sigma's bokeh best in a blind comparison.
> ...


At least it has validity by being a comparison of the same view.



Plamen said:


> Here is a shot with problematic bokeh with the 35L, f/1.4 (my image): It is more or less a torture test. Look for the double lines there. If I wanted to convince you that the 35L had a wonderful bokeh, I would have posted a different image, like this one or this one (both f/1.6). But that would have been either cheating or lack of knowledge because the first one contains foreground blur only (which tends to look good with most well or over corrected lenses), and in the second one, the transition zone is small and does not dominate the image.


I understand the transition zone to be the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, like the grass in the image of the rubbish bin. The busy background in this fairground image is in the distance.



Plamen said:


> So the bottom line is - it takes more than one or two samples to understand what a lens can and cannot do.


Indeed. But if one is criticising the bokeh quality of one lens against another, comparative images of the same subject are more reliable evidence than isolated samples.


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

Here is one direct comparison. I would be more curious to see what happens 2-3 m behind the tree though.


----------



## TommyLee (Feb 23, 2013)

AdamJ
you are sort of right about the distance...I think ...they all have a bad distance...IMO

here is one I just shot...that shows the 'bad' distance...baskets on the left

just a quick shot ...not art

then 3 that show the distant bokeh is smoother
////////////////////////

BUT Canon 35L from my experience with it would have been just a little smoother..
but not buttery like a 85L II..

35 is not bokeh king..

I believe Canon COULD find a compromise between bokeh and BEATING Sigma sharpness..
and with weather sealing..
go for the standard $2300 new lens charge

I'll take one if it makes my socks catch fire...

I believe the Sigma 35 I just bought is better than the 35L I just sold..
otherwise I would be unhappy.......ha!

it is close enough...I say... with Siggy sharper by ONE STOP

IMO


----------



## Plamen (Feb 23, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> [The busy background in this fairground image is in the distance.


It does not matter (much) where it is. It matters how much it is blurred. In this case, the "transition zone" goes more or less to infinity. In the shot with the beer bottles, the background is pleasantly blurred and it is just 3-4m away, if I remember well. 

In the boy with the Cowboy hat shot (Sigma), the background is very far and the bokeh is still bad. DPReview has nice portrait shots with the Sigma where the background is close but the main subject is much closer, and the background is well blurred. 

Focus a 34/1.4 lens wide open at 4m, or so, and you are trouble with the background. Focus it even farther away, no problem.


----------

