# Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Sets New Benchmark for Excellence



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 18, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-sets-new-benchmark-for-excellence/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/03/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-sets-new-benchmark-for-excellence/">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>From DXOMark</strong>
I know you may be getting tired of hearing it, but the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG lens</a> is an astounding accomplishment by Sigma, or any manufacturer for that matter.</p>
<p>DXOMark has reviewed the lens and has found it to be a new benchmark for excellence, and the fact that it’s under $1000 is icing on the cake.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark:</strong>

<em>“Sigma has stated previously that it was upping its game with new pro-level lens designs and the new 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM is not only on a par with OEM lenses optically it surpasses them in most areas, especially in both acutance and resolution.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>*Note:</strong> The review is for the Nikon mount version, but it should be identical to the Canon mount version as far as performance goes.</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-Nikon-Mount-the-definitive-high-speed-35mm-wide-angle-lens-for-DSLRs" target="_blank">Read the entire review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Buy the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG for Canon $899</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## pierceography (Mar 18, 2013)

I'm really thinking about picking one of these up. As far as primes go, the 35mm range would be a pretty attractive addition to my prime kit (currently have the Sigma 50mm, Canon 85mm and 135mm). I was going to go with the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, but after reading a bunch of these reviews that praise Sigma's 35mm, for a 50% cost savings and performance boost it almost seems stupid to not go for the Sigma.

Perhaps I can get some hobby paint and put a red ring on it. ;-)


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2013)

Tamron 24-70 VC
Tamron 70-200 VC 
Sigma 35mm 1.4

These lenses are giving canon a serious run for my monies.


----------



## jonjt (Mar 18, 2013)

Any commentary on the auto-focus performance?


----------



## preppyak (Mar 18, 2013)

jonjt said:


> Any commentary on the auto-focus performance?


dpreview liked it

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/5



> There's nothing to complain about with regards to handling either. Focusing is fast, silent and positive, and we've found our Canon-mount test sample to be very accurate too (although this being an F1.4 prime, you've got to take great care over where you place your focus point). The manual focus ring is smooth and precise, and allows the focus position to be adjusted after autofocus. Several small-but-useful touches, such as a ridged grip on the underside of the barrel, and even a redesigned, unusually-positive centre-pinch front cap, all add to the usability. Sigma has clearly put a lot of thought into every aspect of the lens's design.



If you dont need weather sealing, this seems to be the way to go


----------



## e-d0uble (Mar 18, 2013)

I've certainly done some complaining about Sigma lenses in the past, but I rented this sucker for a week and it's quite good. I had Sigma's 30mm f/1.4 lens for APS-C and it was hit and miss in terms of focus reliability. Not so for the 35mm f/1.4 on full frame. The week was up too quickly for me to get a variety of situations shot, but the 35mm was ideal for shooting a band in crummy lighting. The lens also has a great finish, size and weight to it. I deliberately shot the band wide open the entire time and was impressed by the results. I'll likely grab this lens sometime this year.

http://stinkfoot.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2935
http://stinkfoot.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2932


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 18, 2013)

For me, the lack of weather sealing by Sigma is the lost opportunity here. 

Yes, I know the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is not weather-sealed. But the lens is old enough where it makes sense to me to wait and see if they release a weather-sealed update any time soon. If the Sigma had been, I'd not hesitate for a second to pick up a lens with better IQ at a significantly lower cost regardless of what Canon has up its sleeve.


----------



## rdalrt (Mar 18, 2013)

jonjt said:


> Any commentary on the auto-focus performance?



Exactly. I am a sports shooter. Fantastic optics are of no use to me if the thing can't focus quickly and accurately. And based on my previous experiments with Sigma lenses, they are very much lacking in that dept. So, its only Canon USM for me.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 18, 2013)

Anyone here used it for stills and can comment on it?

Employees of a local store, which I generally respect for their knowledge, say the shop got two copies, and every time they sell one, the buyer dislikes it & returns it to the shop. One did say videographers like it.

This sounds to me like a hint the optics are good, but there's something wrong with the electronics, like maybe it can't autofocus well.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 18, 2013)

Having been burned by Sigma a few times, I'm still a skeptic. If you have a problem, you are caught between them and Canon, since they may just say that their product meets specs while the two put together don't work.

Still, I hope that they do have there act together. Obviously, there is currently a lot of profit in high end camera lenses, and Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina are going after it.

Resale value is a different story, in 10 years, what will the value be? Pretty low, if you look at 10 year old 3rd party lenses.

Competition is a good thing.


----------



## jeffabbyben (Mar 18, 2013)

Autofocus is fast even in poor light. I used it at a poorly lit high school basketball game with excellent results. I have no complaints at all about this lens. It is stellar. I think the resale argument doesn't hold water. Solid build, superior optics, accurate and fast autofocus etc. I think the people who own the current canon 35mm 1.4 will have the problem with resale. Why pay near new price when you can get a new higher quality product for much less. This is my only non canon lens and I love it.


----------



## MK5GTI (Mar 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Tamron 24-70 VC
> Tamron 70-200 VC
> Sigma 35mm 1.4
> 
> These lenses are giving canon a serious run for my monies.



L lens are overrated


----------



## Craig Richardson (Mar 18, 2013)

I am waiting for an in-depth analysis of focus shift before I plunk down any money. Once bitten, twice shy.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 18, 2013)

Regarding weather sealing...do any 35mm primes offer it? I didn't think they did. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L doesn't appear to offer weather sealing.

I am heavily considering buying a full frame body soon, and am torn between buying a zoom and buying this Sigma 35mm prime. The IQ of this Sigma, along with its aperture speed...absolutely blow away all zooms other than perhaps the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 version 2...where the resolution might either be equal, or not much different (at various apertures from f/2.8 and smaller).

Ideally I wanted to wait until a true deal was offered with a body plus 24-105 kit, because that lens is a world beater, given its IQ at its price. But obviously it would be very inferior to the Sigma 35mm prime (at that focal length), for not much less money (especially absent a true deal on the kit). The advantage is the zoom ability, obviously...and to a lesser extent, the IS.

I don't recall the 24-105 I used, having weather sealing of its own, but I could be wrong. Certainly some dust will enter the internal elements via the telescoping zoom...but I think it might have had a small amount of foam or felt at that joint as well (might be wrong on that too). However, even if it did, it wouldn't be 100% effective.

Regarding resale value, I happen to think this particular Sigma lens will hold its value very well for many years to come (especially considering the price when new, is a true value, as opposed to Canon's aging offering.) It looks like I'm not alone. 

I have owned, and currently own, several Sigma lenses of various types, and have only had autofocus issues with one of them. I've had no other issues at all. I also own, and have rented, top quality L glass, including supertelephotos. All of the Sigma lenses I've owned or used, have been either the equal of comparable Canon lenses (including L lenses), or else offer 97% of the image quality for anywhere from 75%, down to 50% of the price. Snobbishness towards the Sigma brand is becoming less relevant all the time nowadays. The redheaded stepchild of Japanese camera and lens companies, is rapidly rising to prominence.

There can surely be no serious doubt, that this Sigma 35mm f/1.4, is superior to Canon's current 35mm f/1.4L. Perhaps Canon will be forced to finally bring their updated version to market. Or perhaps not, they seem to be more interested in making cheaper, smaller, less useful rebel-like bodies for the masses.


----------



## TW (Mar 18, 2013)

I had thought that Canon would have released a 35mm f/1.4 L MkII by now, but I wonder if they had to go back to the drawing board when Sigma released this lens? Canon would look pretty silly releasing a new MkII L lens that does not even meet, much less beat a current Sigma lens available for well less than half the (likely) price!  :-\ :-[ :-[


----------



## brad-man (Mar 18, 2013)

I picked up this lens in the middle of December and can't find _anything_ that needs improvement. People keep complaining about weather sealing. The only Canon L prime I have is the 100 macro and it is sealed. Are the others? In any event, I don't care. This Siggy is sharp in all circumstances, focuses very quickly, is built like a tank and is most beautiful to look at. I am more than satisfied with the bokeh. 'Nuff said.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 18, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Regarding weather sealing...do any 35mm primes offer it? I didn't think they did. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L doesn't appear to offer weather sealing.
> 
> I am heavily considering buying a full frame body soon, and am torn between buying a zoom and buying this Sigma 35mm prime. The IQ of this Sigma, along with its aperture speed...absolutely blow away all zooms other than perhaps the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 version 2...where the resolution might either be equal, or not much different (at various apertures from f/2.8 and smaller).
> 
> ...



The 24-105 is weather sealed. Mine sits in my bag though, since I picked up the SP24-70VC. It was _my_ first L and I don't know if I can part with it...


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

TW said:


> I had thought that Canon would have released a 35mm f/1.4 L MkII by now, but I wonder if they had to go back to the drawing board when Sigma released this lens? Canon would look pretty silly releasing a new MkII L lens that does not even meet, much less beat a current Sigma lens available for well less than half the (likely) price!  :-\ :-[ :-[



I think Canon will come back with a strong upgrade...not just because of the Sigma's entry, but also because it is a key focal length for photojournalists.

The arrival of the sharp Sigma does not make the old workhorse 35L suddenly any less useful. The 35L is no less sharper than it was the day before the Sigma release. In fact, when the 35L was first released 15 years ago...yes...that long... it was on top of the pile, ages ahead in its category by every measure. Even today, the 35L is no dog...it still continues to perform well. I will not deny, however, it is a bit dated today and could stand an update. 

I am sure the upgrade from Canon will be equally stellar as the original ground breaking 35L was at its release ...of course it will also carry a bloated price


----------



## callmeasyoulike (Mar 18, 2013)

I tried two copies and on both autofocus was accurate and pretty fast (5D II / 7D) - nothing to complain about.
Optical the lens is perfect to me, never saw such a great performance at 1,4.
The first copy had a squeaking HSM so I returned it. The second one ist much better in terms of squeaking )
I heard that HSM sometimes can be "squeaky".
Some samples if you like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157632986987422/


----------



## Apop (Mar 18, 2013)

I really want this land for 'street' photography when i am at home

The price is very attractive but, I wonder if the 24-105 would be a better choice for me as it can also serve a purpose on safaris.

Maybe the 35 mm can also..., It must be lovely on a 5dIII or d800


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 18, 2013)

We should ALL be grateful to Sigma for making such great lenses at half the price of Canon. Competition is good for putting a little price pressure on Canon, and it should push them to work harder on quality too.

I always carry a two gallon Ziploc in case of rain, and it's big enough to hold my 5D3 with a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II. Weather sealed or not, I ain't shootin' in the rain, thank you. Singin' maybe, but not shootin'.

Now, Canon, please stop worrying so much about lenses and give us a new flash commander that has radio and optical and AF, and some alternatives to the lovely but massive 600ex-rt.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Mar 18, 2013)

This is great! It's great to have these great lenses coming out by 3rd party to compete with Canon. Competition is excellent. I think Canon products have been overly-pricey and they need to come down a notch.

If I didn't have my Zeiss 50mm f1.4, I would totally consider this lens...


----------



## BruinBear (Mar 18, 2013)

callmeasyoulike said:


> I tried two copies and on both autofocus was accurate and pretty fast (5D II / 7D) - nothing to complain about.
> Optical the lens is perfect to me, never saw such a great performance at 1,4.
> The first copy had a squeaking HSM so I returned it. The second one ist much better in terms of squeaking )
> I heard that HSM sometimes can be "squeaky".
> Some samples if you like: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157632986987422/



My sigma 35 doesnt squeak but i have a 17-40 that sounds like there's a small mouse inside operating the AF. Works perfectly otherwise though.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 18, 2013)

warning the sigma 35 has a major problem!



... it makes all your other lenses look bad  

but seriously it's an amazing lens fast and accurate AF
the best AI servo performance i've seen from a sigma lens
razor sharp wide open and just gets sharper when stopping down

I'm really looking forward to seeing what they release next I hope they upgrade the already great 85 optically as from f1.4 to f2 it could use some improvement and it's AF in servo mode could do with an improvement


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

Sorry, couldn't resist...



BruinBear said:


> My sigma 35 doesnt squeak but i have a 17-40 that sounds like there's a small mouse inside operating the AF. Works perfectly otherwise though.



Did I hear "there is a small mouse inside operating the AF???"


----------



## BruinBear (Mar 18, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist...
> 
> Did I hear "there is a small mouse inside operating the AF???"



How long have you been waiting for a chance to use that picture hahaha. ;D


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 18, 2013)

BruinBear said:


> RS2021 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, couldn't resist...
> ...



Bwahaha...that's why I couldn't resist! It was a discard from some time ago...and I was dyin' to put it to some use. LOL


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 18, 2013)

Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1056/(brand)/Sigma/(camera1)/483/(lens2)/797/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 18, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1056/(brand)/Sigma/(camera1)/483/(lens2)/797/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436



Most probably. Here's the extended version using a D700 comparing it with the 5D2 version for Canon.


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/1056/%28lens2%29/797/%28lens3%29/1057/%28brand1%29/Sigma/%28camera1%29/483/%28brand2%29/Canon/%28camera2%29/436/%28brand3%29/Sigma/%28camera3%29/441

You'll notice that almost all characteristics are the same except the sharpness. Camera resolution have an effect to the lens performance. Lens sharpness for a D700 is 10 but for a D800, its 23. But this doesn't discount the fact that the lens outperformed the Canon 35mm considering that its price is lesser.

Sharpness scores:
Sigma 35mm + Canon 5D2 (21MP) = 17
Sigma 35mm + Nikon D700 (12MP) = 10
Sigma 35mm + Nikon D800 (36MP) = 23
Canon 35mmL + Canon 5D2 (21MP) = 14

It seems there's a correlation between MP and sharpness.


----------



## infared (Mar 19, 2013)

pierceography said:


> I'm really thinking about picking one of these up. As far as primes go, the 35mm range would be a pretty attractive addition to my prime kit (currently have the Sigma 50mm, Canon 85mm and 135mm). I was going to go with the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, but after reading a bunch of these reviews that praise Sigma's 35mm, for a 50% cost savings and performance boost it almost seems stupid to not go for the Sigma.
> 
> Perhaps I can get some hobby paint and put a red ring on it. ;-)



Red pinstriping tape..it's a LOT easier... :
http://moreinstore.ecrater.com/p/12753234/1-8-red-pinstripe-tape-for-model-cars-r-c


----------



## Stuart (Mar 19, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/1056/(brand)/Sigma/(camera1)/483/(lens2)/797/(brand2)/Canon/(camera2)/436



Thank goodness someone else (and another after you) *actually went and read the article*, its not just the lens and unfortuantly its not as good on a canon body


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 19, 2013)

Stuart said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
> ...



I think we can assume that the Canon version is optically identical. Take this information as a confirm that this lens is a good investment for the future, when all FF bodies will likely be in the 30-40 MP range


----------



## captainkanji (Mar 19, 2013)

Would the Sigma be noticeably better than the 24-105 on a 6D? Most of my photos of cosplay are between 24 and 35mm. I'm very happy with the 105 so far. I already have a 40 2.8 and a 50 1.4 so maybe I'm getting too redundant. Something about primes intrigues me though. I think I have this desire to take the sharpest photo ever ;D. I'll consider renting one for my next event.


----------



## Albi86 (Mar 19, 2013)

captainkanji said:


> Would the Sigma be noticeably better than the 24-105 on a 6D? Most of my photos of cosplay are between 24 and 35mm. I'm very happy with the 105 so far. I already have a 40 2.8 and a 50 1.4 so maybe I'm getting too redundant. Something about primes intrigues me though. I think I have this desire to take the sharpest photo ever ;D. I'll consider renting one for my next event.



Yes, I think the Sigma would be noticeably sharper especially in the borders and at large apertures.


----------



## Malte_P (Mar 19, 2013)

man... this is messed up........ mt spokane writes just bull......


----------



## Malte_P (Mar 19, 2013)

Stuart said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
> ...



of course a higher MP body will achive better resolution results then a lower MP body.
are you really suprised about this? ???

the sigma for canon cameras *is* as good as the nikon model. 
but the *combination* of canon camera and sigma lens is not that good.
no wonder, as canon has no 36MP body yet.


----------



## dstppy (Mar 19, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > For me, the lack of weather sealing by Sigma is the lost opportunity here.
> ...



Canon has a LONG history of making $2000 lenses that don't out-resolve their predecessors by a long shot and only carry weather-sealing.  Good job.


----------



## ddashti (Mar 19, 2013)

How sure can one be that the performance for the Canon mount is very similar to the Nikon mount?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 19, 2013)

ddashti said:


> How sure can one be that the performance for the Canon mount is very similar to the Nikon mount?



Optical design is identical...only the tail end, the mount, is different. 
But clearly the camera system including sensor resolution will alter what comes out of the lens' native IQ.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 19, 2013)

Stuart said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Canon version didn't do as well...Is the D800 making the difference here?
> ...



Don't know why this is so confusing. The Sigma is by a fair amount the better lens in most, if not all, measurable categories. It is simply more evident on a higher resolving camera. It has nothing to do with the brand of camera or the mount or anything other than the resolution of the camera...


----------



## Nishi Drew (Mar 21, 2013)

that1guyy said:


> CANONisOK said:
> 
> 
> > that1guyy said:
> ...



Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition. And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right? As for the recent trend of L lenses... what, more like the 24-70 F4L or F2.8LII? Because the F4L is trash and costs a fortune.
As for weather sealing, yeah, that's about it, that can be the deciding factor for a purchase based on your environment and I do wish my siggy was safe from everything but no, it just has to survive on my equally sealed 5DII


----------



## infared (Mar 21, 2013)

"Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition. And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right? As for the recent trend of L lenses... what, more like the 24-70 F4L or F2.8LII? Because the F4L is trash and costs a fortune.
As for weather sealing, yeah, that's about it, that can be the deciding factor for a purchase based on your environment and I do wish my siggy was safe from everything but no, it just has to survive on my equally sealed 5DII"

Yeah I agree...decided to order a Sigma today...Sigma...keep using that can of Canon Whupass! We like it.


----------



## that1guyy (Mar 21, 2013)

Regarding the weather sealing issue, you guys should google "dust donut." It is a kickstarter project that is manufacturing a rubber o-ring designed to fit Canon lenses, serving as a "seal" for dust and moisture. Might be handy to order a couple for your non sealed lenses when it is available. Just make sure the lens is supported.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Mar 21, 2013)

I picked up this lens a couple months ago. It is on par or perhaps better than my 135l in sharpness, color and contrast. It truly is a phenomenal lens. It makes my canon 50 1.4 look like a joke. The bokeh is superb. I have enjoyed it so much I wrote Sigma asking for a 50 in the same line. This was their response:


Hello Shane,
The new Art, Sports and Contemporary line are the way of our lenses to come, when and if the 50mm 1.4 is updated it will be in the same vain as the 35mm 1.4.
Yours Truly,
Paul Pizzano
Sigma Corp. of America


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 21, 2013)

Shane1.4 said:


> I picked up this lens a couple months ago. It is on par or perhaps better than my 135l in sharpness, color and contrast. It truly is a phenomenal lens. It makes my canon 50 1.4 look like a joke. The bokeh is superb. I have enjoyed it so much I wrote Sigma asking for a 50 in the same line. This was their response:
> 
> 
> Hello Shane,
> ...



Nice!

I hope they do the 85 before the 50 though, while the current 85 is good it could do with a good tweeking from 1.4 to f2 
oh and an art series 24-70 f2.8 OS along the same vein... is that too much to ask?


----------



## bolgo (Mar 21, 2013)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/14/dxomark-investigates-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800

read this before getting hot and bothered about 36MP


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 21, 2013)

As for $2000+ lenses in this range, if Canon wants to really kill the competition while also delivering good value for money, they should make a fast zoom. As in an f/2 or f/1.6 or something. A 24-40 or 35-60 f/1.6...with...image stablization...and...weather sealing capable of sustaining submersion pressure down to 10 feet. They could make the outer shell out of carbon fiber and titanium with exotic synthetic gaskets for sealing, and the inner frame out of carbon nanotubes. And while they're at it, make it capable of being sand-blasted for a period of 45 minutes (for those times when you need to shoot a beach volleyball match during a sandstorm or hurricane...or perhaps get some closeups of migratory birds during a volcanic eruption). I would pay $4000 for one of these, because alas, that's what I need. ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 21, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> As for $2000+ lenses in this range, if Canon wants to really kill the competition while also delivering good value for money, they should make a fast zoom. As in an f/2 or f/1.6 or something. A 24-40 or 35-60 f/1.6...with...image stablization...and...weather sealing capable of sustaining submersion pressure down to 10 feet. They could make the outer shell out of carbon fiber and titanium with exotic synthetic gaskets for sealing, and the inner frame out of carbon nanotubes. And while they're at it, make it capable of being sand-blasted for a period of 45 minutes (for those times when you need to shoot a beach volleyball match during a sandstorm or hurricane...or perhaps get some closeups of migratory birds during a volcanic eruption). I would pay $4000 for one of these, because alas, that's what I need. ;D



Amen brother!

I would pay alot for a 35-85 f2L IS it would be The wedding / event lens


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 21, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Amen brother!
> 
> I would pay alot for a 35-85 f2L IS it would be The wedding / event lens



Without a doubt! Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.

Seriously, I wonder if anyone has taken anything other than a 1 series to the rainforest, places like the amazon, or Borneo...or even just central america.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 25, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Without a doubt! Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.
> 
> Seriously, I wonder if anyone has taken anything other than a 1 series to the rainforest, places like the amazon, or Borneo...or even just central america.



Rainforest... Check. Central America... Check.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 25, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition. And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right?



My guess is that it would be marginally better than the Sigma, but certainly not worse. Heck, if it could merely match the Sigma IQ and not have the onion bokeh I'd say that would be a pretty swell lens!



Nishi Drew said:


> As for the recent trend of L lenses... what, more like the 24-70 F4L or F2.8LII? Because the F4L is trash and costs a fortune.



I hope that's a rhetorical question! But it's a fair one, and to be perfectly honest since picking up the 24-70mm ii I forget that "other" new 24-70 L even exists. With that one exception, I have to go back to the 16-35 ii to find a top-level EF lens that has been even modestly disappointing on my radar in the past half-decade or so. Of course, I can't speak for those renting/buying super-teles, but I read mostly good things about those recent releases too.


----------



## Pi (Mar 26, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition.



It would not take many more efforts for Canon to make a lens with better bokeh than the Sigma. Wait, they already have one, the 35L.



> And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right?



Who cares? Sharpness is quite good already. There are other things needed an improvement.


----------



## Erikerodri (Mar 26, 2013)

question to those using this lens. Would this make a good portrait lens? If I had the 24-70 lens, would this lens have any advantage for quality on portraits assuming I am using good lighting and not really needing the extra f-stop power because of the lighting? Sorry for all the questions, I am on the fence of buying either the 24-70 and the 35mm lens and I'm just trying to see the pros and cons of each


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 27, 2013)

Erikerodri said:


> question to those using this lens. Would this make a good portrait lens? If I had the 24-70 lens, would this lens have any advantage for quality on portraits assuming I am using good lighting and not really needing the extra f-stop power because of the lighting? Sorry for all the questions, I am on the fence of buying either the 24-70 and the 35mm lens and I'm just trying to see the pros and cons of each



I'm using 28mm on an aps-c and it's hardly a portrait lens. Perhaps if you need a whole body shot, it's useable. For apsc 50mm or longer is recommended for portaits. 85 and above for FF. 24-70 is useable but not so much. A 70-200 on FF if you really prefer a zoom is generally much better for portraits than a 24-70. But of course, it's just me.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 17, 2013)

CANONisOK said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Without a doubt! Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.
> ...



Which body was it, and how did you deal with the moisture and humidity?


----------

