# Best 35mm wide open????



## MonteGraham (Sep 22, 2013)

Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

The only non-L lens I have is the Sigma 35/1.4, which I bought just to check if it actually delivers what the reviews said. And it does. The only other AF alternative is the Canon 35 f1.4L, which has received a fair share of criticism for being outdated. But if you drop chart reading and just look at the images that lens produces, you´ll see some stunning stuff. The only alternative beyond these two is the manual focus Zeiss. I have not used this lens myself, but it is difficult to imagine a Zeiss lens with poor performance wide open.

I have attached a picture of the local lion, shot with the Sigma wide open.


----------



## Pi (Sep 22, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??



The critical part of the bokeh is when the blur is just a few pixels wide. Once the radius is large enough, you are not going to see much difference. Unfortunately, those are the typical examples of "good bokeh" often presented. 

I would study the Flickr groups. IMO, Sigma pushed the design too much, and to gain sharpness, they compromised the bokeh. The Canon has its problems with the bokeh as well. To make things worse, the typical double lines might be maximized for radially oriented lines, and minimized for perpendicular ones, for example. So one comparison can be misleading.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> MonteGraham said:
> 
> 
> > Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??
> ...



I'm no expert on optical design, I only judge from what I see. If you could explain how sharpness ruins bokeh, it would be most appreciated. I don't see the connection.


----------



## Pi (Sep 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I'm no expert on optical design, I only judge from what I see. If you could explain how sharpness ruins bokeh, it would be most appreciated. I don't see the connection.



It depend on how the spherical aberrations are corrected or not. See p.36 here: http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b8b6f/embedtitelintern/cln_35_bokeh_en/$file/cln35_bokeh_en.pdf.

Also, see the conclusions on p.40, in italics, the pictures on pp. 41-42, and the comments there.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no expert on optical design, I only judge from what I see. If you could explain how sharpness ruins bokeh, it would be most appreciated. I don't see the connection.
> ...



Thanks, that should keep me occupied for awhile


----------



## distant.star (Sep 22, 2013)

.
As others have said, there are really only two AF choices (and if you're using a 5D3, why would you consider a non-AF lens?).

For images shown on ordinary computer screens, you will see no difference between the Canon f/1.4 L and the Sigma f/1.4 A. The data worshipers will scream the Sigma is sharper while the professional eyeballers will warn Canon has better bokeh. If your practice involves prints at 16 X 20 or larger, you may want to study such arguments as you _*might *_see a slight difference.

Since I would rarely, if ever, print large, I went with the Sigma because it kept $400 more dollars in my wallet at the end of the day. And I've been entirely satisfied.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 22, 2013)

If you buy the new Sigma, get the dock. Sigma lenses can be adjusted at multiple distances to have accurate autofocus on a given Canon body. Unfortunately, its only one body, but its still a good thing.

Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent. Here is a image of the bokeh for the Nikon version on a Nikon FF body. 
It will not be different on a Canon FF body.








Here is the Canon L for comparison Its not nearly as nice to to bokeh fringing.


----------



## Pi (Sep 22, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.


There is a reason I warned against making generalizations from one comparison only. Here is an example of less than excellent bokeh:






You must have used a lens extensively to know its weak and strong sides. The bokeh performance can really surprise you in many situations.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 22, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The only non-L lens I have is the Sigma 35/1.4, which I bought just to check if it actually delivers what the reviews said. And it does. The only other AF alternative is the Canon 35 f1.4L, which has received a fair share of criticism for being outdated. But if you drop chart reading and just look at the images that lens produces, you´ll see some stunning stuff. The only alternative beyond these two is the manual focus Zeiss. I have not used this lens myself, but it is difficult to imagine a Zeiss lens with poor performance wide open.
> 
> I have attached a picture of the local lion, shot with the Sigma wide open.



Nice shot, and love the "local lion" bit


----------



## fegari (Sep 22, 2013)

Take a very close look at the Sigma 1.4. It packs the more bang for the buck than any other 35mm imho.

Not only it is probably the cheapest high performing 35mm prime, it is right at the top, fighting for number 1 or 2 spot in all the reviews I could manage to read. 

At the end I got one and I can´t be happier that I did not get neither the zeiss nor the canon´s equivalents =)


----------



## Eldar (Sep 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.
> ...


Which lens is this? I have used the Sigma extensivly for many months under very varied conditions and I have not seen anything like this. I would rather say that it produces very good bokeh compared to the other lenses I have. And most people would rate them as good.


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 22, 2013)

fegari said:


> Take a very close look at the Sigma 1.4. It packs the more bang for the buck than any other 35mm imho.
> 
> Not only it is probably the cheapest high performing 35mm prime, it is right at the top, fighting for number 1 or 2 spot in all the reviews I could manage to read.
> 
> At the end I got one and I can´t be happier that I did not get neither the zeiss nor the canon´s equivalents =)



Thats what im reading too. But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name.. Sometimes 3rd party lens scare me for the future. You know Canon is stingy with their technology. so im not sure if a 3rd party lens will become obsolete 2 camera bodies from now. The only way i would jump in on a 3rd party is if it was that much better!! but from what im reading it neck and neck and to me the future wins out all the time. im just looking with real world advise from someone who actually shot both lens and can give me a honest critique on both.


----------



## ugly_bokeh (Sep 22, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Thats what im reading too. But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name.. Sometimes 3rd party lens scare me for the future. You know Canon is stingy with their technology. so im not sure if a 3rd party lens will become obsolete 2 camera bodies from now. The only way i would jump in on a 3rd party is if it was that much better!! but from what im reading it neck and neck and to me the future wins out all the time. im just looking with real world advise from someone who actually shot both lens and can give me a honest critique on both.



If you are worried about obsolescence from the standpoint of body compatibility, I think the firmware for that Sigma lens can be updated, which hopefully prevents such an issue.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/06/sigma-optimization-pro-and-usb-dock

In addition to the article above, Roger Cicala at Lensrentals has written (at least) a couple other relevant pieces regarding 35mm lenses specifically.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/fun-with-thumbtacks-for-advanced-photogeeks

When I was shopping for a 35mm lens (shortly before the article at that third link was published), I went with the f/2 Zeiss and have no regrets. Since that time, though, the f/1.4 Zeiss was released and so was the f/1.4 Sigma. Buying right now, the decision would definitely be more difficult....


----------



## Pi (Sep 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Which lens is this? I have used the Sigma extensivly for many months under very varied conditions and I have not seen anything like this. I would rather say that it produces very good bokeh compared to the other lenses I have. And most people would rate them as good.



This is the Sigma, source: http://www.camerastuffreview.com/sigma-lens-review/sigma-35-mm-1-4-review

I have posted a few other poor bokeh shots before, both from the Sigma and from the Canon. My point was that those nice blown highlights you see very often are misleading. 

Here is another example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebaebajpn/8705959796/#

And this is the Canon:http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebaebajpn/8705959796/# The highlights are OK but look at the tree on the left. Now, a typical comparison would pixelpeep the color fringing of the highlights in the forest on the back but will miss the tree.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 23, 2013)

clearly for me the 35 sig is waayy better than my 35L (was)...
I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...

then I tasted a ... sharp-wide-open.... lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...

now I am really spoiled...

used my 24mm f1.4 mk I last night and ...uh ...I forgot how weak it can be wideopen...
nice but ..it ain't a sigma 35 class of lens.... I did try the 24L II and it was a bit better on a few rentals....
but not like this sigma is....

if the sigma 24 rumor is true...I will try that one too

I might add if CANON finally redesigns / releases the 35 II ...they DID NOT release (when they saw the new sigma) ...if it is better - I will get it...

I await Canon's move on this

TOM


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 23, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> clearly for me the 35 sig is waayy better than my 35L (was)...
> I sold the 35L BEFORE the sigma...and loved that canon a lot...
> 
> then I tasted a ... sharp-wide-open.... lens with little fringing/CA.....the sigma...
> ...



With not many options im waiting for Canon's move on this one.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.
> ...


 
Its a matter of opinion, there is no measurement of bokeh. Generally, round is a good start, but there are so many things that can be evaluated, cats eye, onion skin, and as in your example, LoCA..

For a wide angle and fast lens, the Sigma is one of the better ones. I'm definitely not a Sigma fan. However, a 35mm f/1.4 is not going to match longer focal lengths.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 23, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??



You are going to get quit a few Sigma suggestions. This is normal, it is a popular lens that many can afford.
Pride in ownership will generate fanfare. Many answers come from what they own, not what may be best.

But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.

You could probably buy the Sigma or the Canon L and be very happy with it. Maybe soon there will be a Cannon 35mm f/1.4 L II.


----------



## Pi (Sep 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its a matter of opinion, there is no measurement of bokeh. Generally, round is a good start, but there are so many things that can be evaluated, cats eye, onion skin, and as in your example, LoCA..



Actually, the LoCA is not such a problem. What grabs the attention are the bright edges in the following direction: \ (it is more horizontal than that). This is a crop from the lower right corner, so what you see are double edges along radial lines. The Canon does the same, and the problem is more pronounced near the borders.


----------



## Dick (Sep 23, 2013)

I see people praising the Sigma 35. You can surely go for that. I have a copy of that lens & I love the images it produces when focused spot on. I have not taken any photos with it that would suck because of "bad bokeh". Nailing the focus is a much greater issue.

Getting the AF to work may be problematic. Basic AFMA tests gave me a horrific value that only made things worse. I tested the lens on real subjects and ended up with a value that seems to work nicely. I'd say that you cannot really trust the focusing even when you have the correct AFMA in place. In servo mode the lens tends to be really slow and on a 5D3 you end up with plenty of OOF photos. There is no scientific research behind my statement, but I'd claim that especially with servo you can trust the 35L's AF much more. This might in the end be more important than the additional sharpness of the Sigma 35.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Optically, the Sigma looks very good, and the bokeh is excellent.
> ...



the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II, but this shot below is ALSO how well it can do.... you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..

here I see
smooth and nearly identifiable secondary figures...smooth transitions...all judgement of course

love mine


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 23, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Nice Photo!


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 23, 2013)

As someone said, you'll likely get a number of suggestions based on what people have themselves. But what is the best? Do you always have to go for the best? Do you have the wallet for that?

I have my 35L which I am very happy with, it makes me happy every time I put it on the camera. Always brings home very nice artistic pictures. Maybe not perfectly sharp every time, but I am not always after that. I think you should get yourself a Sigma though. It seems to be the one everybody talks about as the best, so it should suit.

It feels good that I could mention my favourite lens that I've taken my best pictures with in my last post here.

Just remember that it's not always about getting the sharpest picture.

All the best to you guys and take care!


----------



## Mika (Sep 23, 2013)

About the bokeh picture Pi posted, I have seen many lenses (including Canon 50/1.2 and 24-70) produce equally bad background blur. In fact, most objectives do have this effect at some object and background distance and brightness combo.

Just learn when it happens and work around it; I can't think of an easy way (or better said, feasible way) to eliminate this effect in lens design.


----------



## Pi (Sep 23, 2013)

Mika said:


> About the bokeh picture Pi posted, I have seen many lenses (including Canon 50/1.2 and 24-70) produce equally bad background blur.



Examples (with the 50L)? I have pushed it to get bad bokeh but not nearly as bad.


----------



## Pi (Sep 23, 2013)

TommyLee said:


> the sigma 35 CAN get busy...and not handle busy backgrounds as well ...as ...say the 85L II, ut this shot below is ALSO how well it can do.... you have to be careful with any lens if you are shooting for bokeh..



The trick is to avoid the transition zone. In your case, it is empty air, which is good.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 24, 2013)

Nice Photo!
[/quote]

thanks.... MonteGraham
I like these people...and this shot
my daughter, her mother ...my replacement - NewDad - ha!..
all very nice folks....
I -old dad- had just been fed by NewDad.... a master Chef...

this 35 Sigma is PERFECT for these liv room shots... I just love it for that....

sometimes it is as good (bokeh) as the 135 / 85....

but the king is the 85 for sure...it solves all lo light problems...

I swear the 35 bokeh CAN BE very smooth....
sometimes it is awful with leaves ...repeating small stuff..etc

thre lenses ...... 14L, 35 Sigma, 85L II = case closed
IMO


----------



## lucuias (Sep 24, 2013)

I personally tried both Canon and sigma and I end up getting Canon 35mm F/1.4 L because of:-

-I have doubt of Sigma focusing accuracy
-I prefer Canon colour,sigma colour seems to be pale and cold side.


----------



## Mika (Sep 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mika said:
> 
> 
> > About the bokeh picture Pi posted, I have seen many lenses (including Canon 50/1.2 and 24-70) produce equally bad background blur.
> ...



I think Photozone has the worst 50/1.2 shot that I have seen and know for sure it is 50/1.2

Here you can find another example, but I'm not certain whether this is taken with 28-70/2.8 or 50/1.2. I'm leaning towards the zoom for some reason.

But I reiterate that none of this is actually seriously detrimental for photography, you'll just need to know when this happens and avoid it.

ps. 50L can refer to another 50 too...


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 24, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.



This is really interesting as pretty much every comparison I've seen shows the Zeiss being the worst of all the 35 1.4 lenses.

Edit: Scratch that, I was thinking about the 85 1.4. I may have to rent a Zeiss 35 now.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 24, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??



I don't think anyone's suggested yet that you look at the Digital Picture review of the Sigma. There you will find a bokeh comparison, in particular a comparison of specular highlights among several 35mm f/1.4 lenses at f/4. Based purely on his samples I would agree with him that the Canon 35 f/2 IS wins, followed by the Sigma. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

I rented both those lenses together a while back and thought both of them conjured up superb bokeh wide open, barely distinguishable; they're the only 35mms for Canon I've tried. (If I were buying one, I would plump for the Sigma because of its far superior coma performance.)


----------



## Pi (Sep 25, 2013)

Mika said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Mika said:
> ...



The first one is bad, the second one is OK. But they cannot beat this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#


----------



## Mika (Sep 26, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mika said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Hehe, that's indeed pretty harsh. I'll have to try that myself some time. So far I've been pretty satisfied with Sigma 35/1.4. I think the other photo does have a pretty ugly background blur too. It distracts my eye from the subject (as does yours). Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.


----------



## Pi (Sep 26, 2013)

Mika said:


> Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.



When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 26, 2013)

[/quote]

When it comes to bokeh, I find PZ to be pretty useless. I do not find their sharpness charts much useful either.

I own the 35L. Tell me what you want me to prove to you - that it has great bokeh, or that it has poor one. I can prove both with examples.
[/quote]

Pi
this is such an accurate comment...thanks for summarizing all this in such a short statement......

yes...we start with some superb equipment....but then....
I am sure a lens' owner is responsible for SOME of the blur quality...by selecting what works in the background..... it must be a lot like getting a good sound out of a musical instrument...all these variables.... distance, repeating objects, different size objects, light angles...

that is part of the mystery...ain't it grand?

IMO


----------



## Danielle (Sep 26, 2013)

I shoot my zeiss distagon 2/35 wide open all the time, one great lens and certainly not lacking. Cheaper than the f1.4 version by about $1000. And I find f2 enough considering how much more I'd pay. The 2 zeiss distagon 35mm options are different though. One is not simply faster than the other, they are different.


----------



## kirillica (Sep 26, 2013)

It is strange you are not considering 24L2. It's not 35mm, but much nicer than that (I personally found 35mm not usable to me)


----------



## Ruined (Sep 26, 2013)

I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS. It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality. Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.


----------



## meli (Sep 26, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> MonteGraham said:
> 
> 
> > Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??
> ...



Ah yes, confirmation bias, you should see how strong it is with those that think that since they bought the most expensive toy then it must be surely the "best".


----------



## infared (Sep 26, 2013)

Ruined said:


> I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS. It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality. Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.



Yes...this looks like the best buy and offers the smallest , lightest form-factor for an Canon AF lens...and the IS is a bonus!

I went for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4...I saved about $600 compared to the Canon and have been WOWED with the images coming out of my DIII. The build quality seems great and it is a really nice looking lens as well. The bokeh is just fine for a WA lens....but if that is what I want from an image I am going to pick up a large-aperture normal or tele as the amount and quality of the bokeh can't be beat.


----------



## nda (Sep 26, 2013)

imho... keeping i mind i don't have a 35mm prime, but i do have the 50L and 24-70II and imho the Canon 35mmf/2IS is best on my 6d its wonderful, it's not 1.4 but it does have IS and there's been a recent price drop


----------



## wsheldon (Sep 26, 2013)

infared said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I'd get the new Canon 35mm F/2 IS. It looks superb wide open aside from some easily correctible vignetting on FF, and if you value DXOMARK (i know some do, others don't) they rate it as Canon's best 35mm lens overall for image quality. Plus it is only $599 and the IS is nice to have at any FL.
> ...



Same thing here. I bought the Sigma for its build and the ability to use f1.4-2.0 and I'm extremely happy with it, but the Canon 35 2.0is looks to be a great deal after the price drop. At the same price as the Sigma (when adding a hood) I wasn't so sure, but now the value proposition is much better and I may have gone that way if I had it to do over.

The Sigma balances fine on the 6D (better than the 24-105 IMO), but a lighter lens with similar IQ and the same or better bokeh at f2.0 (which is often more practical than f1.4) would be welcome. Higher coma in the corners would be annoying, but not a deal breaker for many, and as already said vignetting isn't a big deal these days and can even help some shallow DOF images.

Good to have such strong lenses to choose between.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 26, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Thats what im reading too. But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name.. Sometimes 3rd party lens scare me for the future. You know Canon is stingy with their technology. so im not sure if a 3rd party lens will become obsolete 2 camera bodies from now. ...



I am not sure I understand your point here.

To my thinking, if a future 5dmk5 that comes out in 2017 is incompatable with a 2013 sigma lens, then it will be incompatable with a 2013 canon lens. No matter which lens you bought in 2013, it would need some updating. It comes down to how easy and expensive it is to update the 2013 lens. I kinda like the idea of the Sigma USB dock and anticipate that other lens manufacturers will be coming out with their docks soon.

Do you think it is possible that a 2013 Canon lens would work in a "2017 5dmk5" camera but a 2013 Sigma lens wouldn't? I can't imagine that happening. I could be wrong.  ;D 

There are many reasons to choose Canon lenses over Sigma lens, but future compatabity issues shouldn't be one of them. Not with the lenses being constructed these days. 



> But what has me leaning towards the Canon is of course the "Canon" name



Just my opinion, but buying a lens simply because it has the name Canon on it is as unwise as buying a lens simply because it has the name Sigma on it. No lens company makes the "best" lens across their entire line. Especially when "best" depends on the individual photographer and their requiements.

Especially these days, it is important to evaluate each lens separately and base your purchasing decision on how this specific lens performs. There are people who are interested in re-selling their lenses. I never do this so my opinons don't incorporate re-sale.

I buy Canon lenses when the Canon lens meets my requrementes. I buy Sigma lenses when they meet my requirements. I try to keep an open mind about the lenses being made today. These third-party lenses sometimes (not all the time) are better (how ever the individual photographer interprets it) than the camera manufacturer's lenses. Sometimes the camera brand is better. And even sometimes they are the same. ;D

One thing I have found out is that buying a lens these days is a lot more complicated than back in the film days. LoL Sometimes I feel we have too many good choices.


----------



## Mika (Sep 27, 2013)

Pi said:


> Mika said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's 35L doesn't seem to fare much better according to Photozone, can't say for myself since I haven't used 35L.
> ...



Well, if I really wanted to characterize an objective, I'd put it in the MTF bench at work. Or start counting wavefront fringes in a double pass interferometer setup. Or check the actual lens performance from construction data. But online sites are far more convenient for referencing and save me from quite a bit of hassle. 

So I don't have a great interest in finding out which one of the 35s has the best or worst bokeh in which situation. The point was that the difference between Sigma's and Canon's are comparatively small, and in some situations the other is better than the other and vice versa.


----------



## Pi (Sep 27, 2013)

Mika said:


> But online sites are far more convenient for referencing and save me from quite a bit of hassle.



I did not say anything about online sites in general. I prefer the visual test on TDP to the charts on PZ.


----------

