# Sigma 35 Art vs EF 35 IS in real life



## Foxdude (Aug 26, 2014)

Hello guys!
I have been shooting with Sigma 35mm Art lens about a year now, and i love it. Extremely sharp, nice build quality, contrast etc. 
Still, it is a bit heavy and bulky, and I have been looking for EF 35 IS. 
I know Sigma is bit better when shooting test charts, but have anyone switched from Sigma to Canon and used them side by side? If so, have you regretted the switch? Do you miss F1.4? I mean is Sigma really noticeably better IN REAL LIFE? 
Image stabiilizer would be very welcome, also weight and size reduce is nice. 

Edit: I also have 40mm pancake. How does the 35mm IS compare on that?


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2014)

I have the 35 f/2 IS, the 40mm pancake, and the 28mm f/2.8 IS. The 35 is my favorite of those three. It is great for video, the IS makes the footage very stable. f/2 is pretty damn good for low light and not bad for bokeh.
I'm not a big fan of the pancake. The 28 is a great lens but I should have bought the 24 to go with the 35 instead.

The 24 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS would make a great pair. Both are light weight and a pleasure to use, and they produce wonderful results


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 28, 2014)

On POTN I've seen a few people who switched over to the 35 IS from the Art and prefer it. Although I don't own the Art, I've used my friends and although undeniably sharp he did have AF issues. 

I've seen reviews that say the Sigma is sharper and other say they're equal which is what I'm inclined to believe. I doubt you would notice a different in real world shooting aside from maybe a slightly less shallow DOF. Funny enough my friend who has the Art usually shoots at f2 or lower due to his AF issues so it's just like having the Canon. 

The 35 IS is my most used and favourite lens, the IS wasn't something I was really interested in but it really comes in handy. I also prefer lighter lenses too, I have back problems so a FF body and an Art lens would be trouble for me.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 28, 2014)

I am renting a copy of the Canon 35mm F/2.0 IS this week. Using the center point on my 5D3 it focuses perfectly every time with zero AFMA. Using the outermost focus point, the focus drifts a little front or back, but not much.

It feels strangely light on the 5D3 at first, but you get used to it very fast.

I shoot mostly people, so I'm not all that interested in extreme sharpness. If I needed a 35 prime I would not hesitate to buy this lens over the Sigma or the Canon L. I'll be testing it some more this week.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 28, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I am renting a copy of the Canon 35mm F/2.0 IS this week. Using the center point on my 5D3 it focuses perfectly every time with zero AFMA. Using the outermost focus point, the focus drifts a little front or back, but not much.
> 
> It feels strangely light on the 5D3 at first, but you get used to it very fast.
> 
> I shoot mostly people, so I'm not all that interested in extreme sharpness. If I needed a 35 prime I would not hesitate to buy this lens over the Sigma or the Canon L. I'll be testing it some more this week.



Maybe since it's a rental copy it's been bumped around a bit and that could be the cause of the front/back focus.

I use mine on a 6D and I hardly use the center point, I mostly use the middle points between the very outer and center with no issues (the only errors are usually user error, I have shaky hands). 

Once you're done renting, are you going to buy it?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 28, 2014)

dlee13 said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > I am renting a copy of the Canon 35mm F/2.0 IS this week. Using the center point on my 5D3 it focuses perfectly every time with zero AFMA. Using the outermost focus point, the focus drifts a little front or back, but not much.
> ...


The 35mm f2 IS is an excellent lens. DxO ratings are just 1 point behind Sigma 35A. I have not seen anyone who switch from either one to the other. Both are darn sharp and performance in low light is very good, with some litle advantage on the Sigma 35A in bokeh and AF speed.
I prefered the Canon 35 f2 IS because is lighter and very convenient for street photography due to smaller size. IS comes handy and has come to rescue when long exposures are required hand-held. If your thing are weddings and fast moving objects I'd rather have considered the Sigma 35A instead.
I had the 40mm pancake and sold it after purchased the 35mm f2 IS, no regreats.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 28, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > drmikeinpdx said:
> ...



I think it's only in Transmission that it falls behind the Art in the DXO review. That and a few other reviews are what helped me decide to get the 35 since it's a cheaper, light alternative that's just as sharp. From what I've seen, quite a few reviews prefer the bokeh of the IS, but the Sigma is pretty closer and much better than the 35L.


----------



## Foxdude (Aug 29, 2014)

I think I have read all the reviews and comparisons between these lenses. I love Sigma, but I'd liike to love Canon more. Sigma is absolutely great, but if this Canon can do almost the same at half the weight, sligthly cheaper and with added IS, I'm really seriously considering to sell Sigma to fund 35IS. I think I can sell my 40mm pancake same time, I think 35IS is small and light enough to be nice walk-around lens. Sigma 35 art is not.
Lately reading Dustin Abbott's great review of this EF35 IS, it will invite me to buy Canon, too.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.


----------



## Foxdude (Aug 29, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.



I have had Sigma about a year now, and AF works perfectly at least on my 6D. I secretly hope there to be some AF issues, then it would be very easy to justify the switch ;D
Anyway, I'm getting closer and closer..


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 29, 2014)

Foxdude said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.
> ...


That's good to hear and it doesn't seem like too many people have reported issues with the Sigma. I have the Canon 24L II which many people on here say has lousy AF and I have yet to have any issues, so I think it's luck of the draw sometimes with any lens.


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I have yet to read one bad word about the Canon, but have heard mixed reports of the Sigma, at least in terms of AF.



The only bad thing people tend to say about it was regarding it's high price. At it's launch price I can see why people went with the Sigma over the Canon but at it's current price I would choose the Canon any day. 

I'm also a fan of Sigma, I loved my old Sigma 50mm f1.4 up until I got the 35 and sold the 50. Heavy lenses can be appealing but for people like me with back problems or others who have to carry the lenses around for hours at a time, it can be a bit of a turn off.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 31, 2014)

dlee13 said:


> Once you're done renting, are you going to buy it?



Funny you should ask that... I just got an email from LensRentals.com offering to sell me the lens for about 25 dollars more than what I could buy a new one for. Wonder if they get many buyers that way? Maybe I get to keep the nice padded case they use for shipping. Didn't read all the fine print before I deleted the message.

I still have the lens for a few more days, so far I like it. It makes nice bokeh if I'm close to the model, like within 3-5 feet.

A purchase decision depends on how much I think I will use it. For me, it would mostly be an indoor lens for available light glamour/boudoir shoots. $550 for a professional grade lens isn't a lot if you get a reasonable amount of use out of it.

I just posted some photos on my blog comparing the 35 with a 50 and an 85 if you want to see them. I'd post some here, but they are not appropriate for this forum.

Warning... NSFW....adults only: http://tinyurl.com/m5x7tsf


----------



## dlee13 (Aug 31, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> dlee13 said:
> 
> 
> > Once you're done renting, are you going to buy it?
> ...



I checked out your blog and nice photos! I think the 35 would work good for you since you have the 85. You could always sell your 50 and use the 35/85 combo since it's a popular one. 

I see you added the Gaussian blur for that full body shot. Since your shots are indoors you wouldn't get a very shallow DOF but I've used the 35 outdoors for full body shots of my gf and the blur I get is very similar to what you created in Photoshop. 

That's a decent deal but would you prefer a brand new one that hasn't been rented out? You said that copy has slight focus issues so it might be better to get a brand new one. 

Also one last thing. You said on your post you can't use peoples photos so you had to hire a model. Maybe you could offer certain clients a discount if you're able to feature their images on your page.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 1, 2014)

drmikeinpdx, nice photos!
Now I have been thinking back and forth what to do, and finally I'm now selling my Sigma. Once it finds a new owner, I'm going to buy EF35 IS. Waiting for that


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 1, 2014)

Thanks for the compliments!

I'm still trying to decide if I need a 35mm prime in my arsenal. I have a couple of zooms and a 40 pancake that do almost the same thing. There's no doubt that it's a nice lens, but I don't see myself using it enough to justify a $500 investment right now.

I think I'll wait for the end of year sales and see if I can get one at a good price. I'm also waiting for Canon to come out with a stabilized 50mm lens in the same series. Well, I can always dream!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 1, 2014)

I currently own both and continue to use them respectively for varying purposes. 

IMHO, it really is dependent upon how you shoot and the look you are going for most of the time. I know a lot of guys that love being able to shoot at wide open and super fast all the time. If you happen to be one of those guys, the 35/2 IS is not going to give that to you. That being said, f2 is plenty fast for most applications and the IS allows you to shoot at super slow shutter speeds handheld which is always awesome.

Being able to shoot at 1.4 and remain sharp is really about the absolute only reason you would want the sigma over the canon (albeit a major reason for many including myself).

Otherwise, during regular usage, the canon is definitely easier to use and yields a much higher percentage of keepers than the sigma (in my experience).

The canon has proven to be much more consistent in all conditions with regard to AF and keeper rate. The IS has allowed me to shoot as slow as 1/10th. Optics are updated and very good. Plenty sharp at f2. Super light and compact. Cheaper. 

But I remind you, f2 is not 1.4 (obviously). So if you liked shooting at 1.4 for a significant portion of your images, know that f2 in most of those same shooting instances will not be shallow looking enough for you. Otherwise, I think you are making the right decision in the swap.


----------



## Treetownie (Sep 1, 2014)

Has anyone who has downsized from a Sig-non 35/1.4 to 35/2 found they miss the bokeh/shallow d.o.f. and/or extra f-stop in low-light? To me the extra f-stop of the 35/2 vs the 40/2.8 makes up for its comparative extra size (the 35/2 is still relatively small), but I'm wondering how especially people-shooters compare the size/is advantage of f/2 vs the potential artistic advantage of f/1.4.


----------



## Treetownie (Sep 1, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I currently own both and continue to use them respectively for varying purposes.
> 
> IMHO, it really is dependent upon how you shoot and the look you are going for most of the time. I know a lot of guys that love being able to shoot at wide open and super fast all the time. If you happen to be one of those guys, the 35/2 IS is not going to give that to you. That being said, f2 is plenty fast for most applications and the IS allows you to shoot at super slow shutter speeds handheld which is always awesome.
> 
> ...



Thanks John - this is a great answer to my question even before I finished typing!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 1, 2014)

Treetownie said:


> Thanks John - this is a great answer to my question even before I finished typing!



No prob. Glad I could help.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 2, 2014)

I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4


----------



## JohnUSA (Sep 9, 2014)

How's the focusing of the Canon in low light? I've been eyeing the Sigma but like the IS of the Canon and the price. I shoot with a 5D3 which seems to help some lenses focus in low light and accuracy.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 9, 2014)

I think you would be happy with either lens, but see no reason to own both.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 9, 2014)

JohnUSA said:


> How's the focusing of the Canon in low light? I've been eyeing the Sigma but like the IS of the Canon and the price. I shoot with a 5D3 which seems to help some lenses focus in low light and accuracy.



I rented both lenses when they were new for about a week, using them on a 6D or 5DIII (I forget which) mostly in very low light (after sunset in winter), and although that probably isn't long enough to get much sense of AF accuracy, I never had a problem with either one. But, since you mention low light, there is one issue where the Sigma seemed unquestionably superior - coma. Few review sites address this, but this one does:

http://www.lenstip.com/365.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_35_mm_f_2_IS_USM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

http://www.lenstip.com/359.7-Lens_review-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

If coma is a big enough issue for the sort of things you photograph, the Sigma seems preferable; otherwise the Canon might be more appealing. (I couldn't decide and while I was dithering Adorama had a ridiculous short-lived sale on the 28mm IS, so I bought that instead....)


----------



## Ruined (Sep 9, 2014)

Foxdude said:


> I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4



Why not sell the Sigma 1.4, buy the Canon 35mm f/2 IS + 24mm f/1.4 L or 50mm f/1.2L for shallow DOF work?


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 11, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to have both Sigma 35 And 35IS, but I'm, just hobbyist, and it's little hard to justify having two 35mm primes. Especially hard it is to explain that to girlfriend... One option is to sell 40mm pancake and replace it with 35IS, it is still light enough to carry around. 35mm is my favorite FL, so even having two 35 primes is an option, like JohnDizzo15. I love 35mm FL and 1.4 to make a little artistic look even when shooting bigger objects, like this Caddy. Sigma 35 @1.4
> ...



I have thought the same. My Sigma 35 is now on sale. When it finds new owner, I'll buy 35IS, and later add a fast 50mm or 85mm lens. 35+85 would be sweet combo. I also like macro and close-ups. I have 100L which I love, so maybe 35IS + 100L might work well, too.


----------



## dlee13 (Sep 12, 2014)

Foxdude said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...



It all depends on your shooting style but having a 35 and a 50 can be unnecessary. Currently I only have my 35 IS and 100L is and I find it to a good combo. It Canon release a new 85mm 1.8 I'll probably get that, but at the same time the 100L does a great job on portraits.


----------



## Khufu (Sep 14, 2014)

To throw a bit of a curveball for those who are trying to decide what's best... Sigma's (now old) selection of fast, wide primes are freaking awesome! They do a 20, 24 and 28mm, I think all at f/1.8 and the price increases as they get wider. I shoot with the 24mm f/1.8 and I'm honestly blown away with the results I get from it every time - oh and it focuses stupid-close, with expected W/A distortion of facial features etc, but what you can achieve with a ("macro" of sorts) close focusing, wide angle, fast lens like this really is fantastic. I'll try to dig out a decent example or two but I've got an image here from this past Friday which was shot with that lens on a 5D3, though cropped for composure...

Also - I'm torn with the 35mm IS thing too. It really is a bit slow/deep-field for my ideals but I'd also like something relatively fast and stabilised for video - aaargh ;D

...but for me, whilst I do see the general appeal of the 35mm FL, I go for a slightly less conventional Sigma 24mm f/1.8, Sigma 50mm f/1.4 & Canon 100mm f/2 trio for "Arty"/Low Light Event and Life-documenting photography... and for arty stills I feel this is a wonderful sort-of-budget set-up  (oh, and Tamron's amazing, discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for UWA!)

recent image from the 24mm f/1.8 as mentioned above:


----------



## Khufu (Sep 14, 2014)

Again, I know this is a thread about the 35mm lenses but I was intrigued to see the results shared by drmikeinpdx (great work, btw!) and the thoughts regarding shooting in tight spaces and trying to achieve shallower DoF, and feel inclined to share what I feel are advantages of maybe considering wider, fast primes... apologies for the rubbish compression (they're facebook server images) but this might offer some perspective on the 24mm perspective, which unfortunately isn't at f/1.8 when considering Canon's Stabilised offerings - more "aaaargh!" 

I'll not clutter the forum with lots of embedded images so here's a few shots from the 24mm Sigma, for those who care to click!

** https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t31.0-8/857084_10151325590728977_1824944742_o.jpg
** https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/998616_10151510141658977_1597403139_n.jpg?oh=000e030c0640fdff0bc0aff7efc51646&oe=548ADF5F&__gda__=1422860880_ea1f30801fce5f5a879af80c9e55e65c
** https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10455236_10152196440088977_9118970523587077111_n.jpg?oh=cf336881899b5617b96e0aa2f6fef5b7&oe=549A553E&__gda__=1419685672_2db2800a27537de4c1ae6ee41f9e0a1c
** https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/1273518_10151649373228977_165448402_o.jpg


----------



## Foxdude (Mar 9, 2015)

So, I sold the Sigma, and have been using the EF 35 IS about 2 months now.
To compare them, here are few my thoughts. First, I didn't use them side by side, but I feel they are equally sharp, even wide open. Or at least the difference is that small I can't see that on 40 inch TV, or zooming in in computer.
F 1.4 would be nice sometimes, but I haven't missed that too much. I much prefer the smaller size and weight. You definetely feel the difference, it is so much nicer to carry around. IS is also nice to have. Bokeh seems to be a little pleasant in Canon. 
I agree, there is pretty bad coma, until you stod down to F4. Doesn't bother me, though.
I have no regrets at all, I also pocketed some money when sold Sigma and bought the New EF35 IS. 
With all that hype around Sigma Art lenses, I would say this Canon is just as good. Even better overall, when we think versatility, weight, IS, size, price...
Unless you really need the F1.4, or you like to shoot test charts wide open and print them large, I would say the Canon EF 35 IS is a better choice. Just my thoughts


----------



## dlee13 (Mar 10, 2015)

Foxdude said:


> So, I sold the Sigma, and have been using the EF 35 IS about 2 months now.
> To compare them, here are few my thoughts. First, I didn't use them side by side, but I feel they are equally sharp, even wide open. Or at least the difference is that small I can't see that on 40 inch TV, or zooming in in computer.
> F 1.4 would be nice sometimes, but I haven't missed that too much. I much prefer the smaller size and weight. You definetely feel the difference, it is so much nicer to carry around. IS is also nice to have. Bokeh seems to be a little pleasant in Canon.
> I agree, there is pretty bad coma, until you stod down to F4. Doesn't bother me, though.
> ...




I see quite a few people switching over now. There is a guy in the Flickr group for this lens that just switched from the Sigma and he's pretty much said exactly what you did. His main issue with the Art was the size of the lens. If you want to see the discussion you can have a look if you like https://www.flickr.com/groups/canon35mm_is_usm/discuss/72157644351053006/
Glad to see you're happy with the Canon 35 IS, I know after one year of owning mine I love it to bits!


----------

