# Speaking of 35's - Sigma 35 Art vs. Canon 2.0 IS?



## Cory (Aug 28, 2015)

Any recent opinions on the Sigma 35 1.4 Art vs. the Canon 2.0 IS (especially on a crop body)? I try to keep my gear to a minimum/highest quality and am thinking of swapping out my Canon 2.0 IS for a Sigma 35 Art. I just really like the contrasty look of Sigmas. I get that with the Canon, but the Sigma seems to have that as a signature.
35mm is my most often used focal length for general almost everything.
Just wondering if I'm stupid or not before I do anything potentially stupid.
Thanks.


----------



## Arty (Aug 28, 2015)

The Canon 35 F2IS is my favorite lens on full frame and crop. It is sharp and has fast and accurate AF, and that is a clear advantage over the Sigma. I prefer the size and weight of the Canon. I find it competes with good macro lenses in terms of how sharp it is.
I have no plans to replace this lens. I don't especially want F1.4. If you want more background blur, use the Canon 85F1.8.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 28, 2015)

.
I use the Sigma 35A on a 5D3 -- nothing is better and no problems.

I would not use it on a crop frame body. That gave me all sorts of trouble with AF. When it was good, it was good, but AF was not dependable.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 29, 2015)

Cory said:


> Any recent opinions on the Sigma 35 1.4 Art vs. the Canon 2.0 IS (especially on a crop body)? I try to keep my gear to a minimum/highest quality and am thinking of swapping out my Canon 2.0 IS for a Sigma 35 Art. I just really like the contrasty look of Sigmas. I get that with the Canon, but the Sigma seems to have that as a signature.
> 35mm is my most often used focal length for general almost everything.
> Just wondering if I'm stupid or not before I do anything potentially stupid.
> Thanks.



I get what you are saying with the contrasty look. I've done nothing more then attached a friend's 35 f/2 IS and fired off a few test shots. Shooting it felt very similar to my EF 28 f/1.8. However I recently picked up the Sigma 35mm and I am very happy with it on a 6D. I long considered the EF 35 f/2 IS but decided to "go big or go home". Some complain about the autofocus but I have no big complaints yet. I have done lots of shots wide open at f/1.4 and it is sharp and it hits!

What body are you thinking? For a prime the Sigma Art is a large lens and it would feel unbalanced on a Rebel size body. But like a 70D/7D it would work well.


----------



## Luds34 (Aug 29, 2015)

One more thought... my approach was from one who owned neither. Both are such good lenses that I think if I had one it would be tough to justify swapping one out for the other. I obviously picked the Sigma Art as that is my personal preference... but if I already had the Canon 35 f/2 IS it would probably be quite tough to trade it in.

In short, one (you, me, the next guy) would really have to have a preference for the f/1.4 to make the exchange. Which not to be giddy like a kid at Xmas, but to pixel peep on the subjects eyes and see them razor sharp and yet see awesome bokeh... it is something not easily reproduced by too many lenses.


----------



## bholliman (Aug 29, 2015)

I have a 35 f/2 IS and love it. I would not want to give up the convenient size and terrific AF even if the Sigma's IQ is slightly better.

Soon we will have the new Canon 35L II to make the 35mm prime market even more competitive. Looks like an awesome lens that will set new standards based on the MTF curves! I may consider the 35L II at some point. I've held off on Sigma Arts due to concerns about auto focus speed and accuracy.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 29, 2015)

Arty said:


> The Canon 35 F2IS is my favorite lens on full frame and crop. It is sharp and has fast and accurate AF, and that is a clear advantage over the Sigma. I prefer the size and weight of the Canon. I find it competes with good macro lenses in terms of how sharp it is.
> I have no plans to replace this lens. I don't especially want F1.4. If you want more background blur, use the Canon 85F1.8.


Size and weight matters to me more than slightly better contrast


----------



## sdsr (Aug 29, 2015)

Leaving aside the obvious differences between 1.4 and 2.0 and Sigma AF accuracy issues, the most significant advantage the Sigma has in terms of image quality as far as I'm concerned is its superior control of coma. If you don't need 1.4, and don't take the sort of photos where coma matters, the Canon seems preferable to me.


----------



## pdirestajr (Aug 29, 2015)

I had the Sigma 35 Art first, then sold it and bought the Canon 35 IS once it's price dropped. I like the Canon 35 for it's smaller size. Both have great image quality. Canon's AF and IS are also fantastic.

I did keep my Sigma 18-35 for crop cameras. Rarely take that lens off my 7D.


----------



## Cheekysascha (Aug 30, 2015)

I'd go for the Sigma 35 personally, it just seems like a more versatile lens that can be used for better low light etc.. but the lighter weight of the Canon 2.0 is very appealing too


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2015)

The only 'negative' of the f2 IS is the strong vignetting on FF cameras wide open (which I actually kind of like and is easy to remove in post when I don't want it and is nearly as bad on the Sigma anyway), on crop cameras the effect is much more mitigated.

For me the choice was simple, reliable and consistent AF, universal perpetual EOS compatibility, and IS, over bigger heavier but one stop faster Sigma.

If you need the speed you need the speed, for some shooting situations the f1.4 is a necessity, only you can decide how critical that one stop is for your shooting situations, but don't think the f2 IS is a slouch, or that the f2 IS lacks character because it doesn't, just look at Dustin Abbott's review to illustrate that!

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/03/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-review/

Personally I find the IS more useful than the extra aperture.


----------

