# Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS the Sigma 35mm f/1.4



## dswatson83 (Jan 2, 2013)

Finally, a good review between these two lenses:

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/90-canon-35mm-f2-is-vs-sigma-35mm-f14

Canon 35mm f/2 IS VS Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Lens

Look, there is no issue that the 35mm f/2 IS is a good lens. The problem is just about every prime lens is great at f/2...even the 50mm f/1.8. And with build quality hardly better than other $400 lenses, I just don't get why I would pay $850 for this lens vs the Sigma or Canon f/1.4. We already know Canon can make lenses with IS for $130 so why the extra cost? I'm worried at what Canon is doing and i'm so glad Sigma and Tamron are starting to give us the lenses we want with great performance & build for a cheaper price.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm not a video guy....so I'll would take the new sigma sharp @ f1.4 over f2 with IS. That's just me.


----------



## EvilTed (Jan 2, 2013)

I tried the Sigma and returned it.
I had a lot of out of focus shots with it wide open.
It actually felt harder than the 50 1.2 to get right.
It also weighs a ton, which isn't much use as a walk around for me.

Glad to see the Canon is as sharp, so I'll wait a couple of months for it to drop $200 @ B&H and pick one up.

ET


----------



## brad-man (Jan 2, 2013)

I have the sigma and love everything about it. Of course it's heavy. It's a beautifully machined hunk of metal & glass. I'm just surprised that they didn't put an o ring at the lens mount. The fit and finish of all its parts certainly APPEAR to be at least very water resistant. I guess some time in the future I'll find out


----------



## preppyak (Jan 3, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> We already know Canon can make lenses with IS for $130 so why the extra cost?


Glass has to fit the full-frame view, not APS-C, which is a big factor in the size of the glass, etc. Cheapest full-frame IS lens from Canon prior to their primes was what, 70-300 at $650ish?

Also, any lens Canon releases from here on out has to hold up to 40+ MP on full-frame, which is more demanding on the design. Notice that all the new primes are much sharper than their predecessor and generally sharp across the frame.

But even if I was a video person, I might go for the Sigma anyway. The extra stop can be key for darker scenes, and either a rig (if you're walking around) or a tripod negates the need for IS.


----------



## AdamJ (Jan 3, 2013)

dswatson83, please stop this charade - these reviews are by you! I'm personally ok for you to link us to them because they seem to me to be be perfectly honest and straightforward assessments but you're not doing yourself (or Sigma, for that matter) any favours by making out that you're a third party.

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## TommyLee (Jan 3, 2013)

it is handy to have an overview (this is not a very detailed review) of these two lenses...
to see how Sigma's great effort ... looks against the (IMO) overpriced Canon
but these are just generalities... like a few minutes on lens caps and hoods....

I will need to see Photozone and SLR Gear analysis and graphs.....
just to see what they ....really...... offer... in performance

but I doubt either is for me.....
I will likely wait for the Canon 35L f1.4 II announcement on ~January 8th ...
and see what it promises to deliver ...
will need the Photozone and SLR reports on that too..

BUT
I could see ordering the new 35L II the moment it is offered.

This is a chance for Canon ...to come through ..like they did on the 70-200 II
and I believe they are there already with the product

if it is the new standard over all 35s...then
I would get that lens right now.... at ...an expected 2x the price... of these other two
if I am going to get an overpriced lens ...then it has to be over-performing ...above ALL the others...

... and I bet it will

Just my thinking on this

TOM


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 4, 2013)

I agree that if Canon throws out another 35mm f/1.4 soon, it will be a great lens. I still think i'd be fine sticking with the Sigma given how good it has been and the likely $1500+ price of a new Canon 35mm f/1.4. I just felt like Canon didn't even challenge themselves with the 35mm f/2. What prime doesn't look good at f/2, how hard is it to put IS in a prime if you can easily do it in zooms, and then lets charge double the amount as typically charged for this type of lens. 
Even Roger from lensrentals.com said he thought the Sigma was amazing...and he would mostly only care for sharpness, build, and reliability.


----------



## barracuda (Jan 4, 2013)

A reputable review of the 35 f/2 IS vs. the original 35 f/2 non-IS from TDP:

"The Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens results are remarkably better than the results from the replaced Canon EF 35mm f/2 Lens in the mid and peripheral (corner) areas of the image circle."

http://the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=3895


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 5, 2013)

AdamJ said:


> dswatson83, please stop this charade - these reviews are by you! I'm personally ok for you to link us to them because they seem to me to be be perfectly honest and straightforward assessments but you're not doing yourself (or Sigma, for that matter) any favours by making out that you're a third party.
> 
> Welcome to the forum!



+1000

Well said


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 5, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> I just felt like Canon didn't even challenge themselves with the 35mm f/2. What prime doesn't look good at f/2, how hard is it to put IS in a prime if you can easily do it in zooms, and then lets charge double the amount as typically charged for this type of lens.



How did they not "challenge themselves" with the 35/2 IS? The new lens is dramatic improvement over the original 35/2 —
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=824&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=122&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What prime lens doesn't look good at f/2? How about the original Canon 35/2? How about the Canon 28/1.8? How about the Sigma 20/1.8? How about the Nikon 35/2? Just look at the fuzzy corners on those lenses. The new Canon 35/2 IS is a dramatic improvement over those lenses.

The new Sigma 35/1.4 looks outstanding, but it's a much bigger and heavier lens that offers an extra stop of light. It's a direct competitor to the 35L, not to the new 35/2 IS. Not everyone is looking for the biggest, heaviest 35mm lens they can find. Canon has a unique offering with the 35/2 IS.


----------

