# The seemingly amazing Sigma 35



## wayno (Dec 19, 2012)

I have the 35L and I love it. Despite its age it seems to deliver the goods and is sharp wide open.

By all accounts the Sigma betters it in most regards, including on price. I have no immediate plans to replace my 35L with the Sigma as in reality there is always going to be a 'better' lens out there somewhere. The idea of selling of L to get Sigma does seem slightly skew to me too.

Am I alone in this thinking or is this an opportunity to maybe pocket $1-200 on the side and land a 'superior' product, at least until the 35L ii arrives (which will likely be still much more expensive).

Thoughts?


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 20, 2012)

Sure, go for it. But if you're happy with the images from the 35L then don't.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 20, 2012)

wayno said:


> I have the 35L and I love it. Despite its age it seems to deliver the goods and is sharp wide open.
> 
> By all accounts the Sigma betters it in most regards, including on price. I have no immediate plans to replace my 35L with the Sigma as in reality there is always going to be a 'better' lens out there somewhere. The idea of selling of L to get Sigma does seem slightly skew to me too.
> 
> ...



Do you know for sure it's superior in ways that would make a difference to you? For instance, according to the lensrentals non-review review, the Sigma is a bit sharper in the center and sharper in the corners but has less smooth background blurring. For my part, I suspect the difference in center sharpness isn't noticeable in most situations, and I hardly ever photograph anything where corner sharpness matters; but I care quite a bit about blur. Your priorities may be different. Either way, I would rent one first.


----------



## meli (Dec 20, 2012)

wayno said:


> Am I alone in this thinking or is this an opportunity to maybe pocket $1-200 on the side and land a 'superior' product, at least until the 35L ii arrives (which will likely be still much more expensive).
> 
> Thoughts?



Go for it, pushing the 35L out wont be difficult and you get to play with the newest toy in town plus some coin; And when the new 35L arrives you act accordingly


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 20, 2012)

There is no red ring on Sigma


----------



## Harv (Dec 20, 2012)

Why fix what ain't broke? ???


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 20, 2012)

If I had a 35L, I won't buy Sigma 35mm. The depreciation of 35L is not worth for Sigma 35mm. I am planning to get the Sigma 35mm because I don't have Canon 35mm L.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 20, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> If I had a 35L, I won't buy Sigma 35mm. The depreciation of 35L is not worth for Sigma 35mm. I am planning to get the Sigma 35mm because I don't have Canon 35mm L.



+ 1


----------



## westr70 (Dec 20, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > If I had a 35L, I won't buy Sigma 35mm. The depreciation of 35L is not worth for Sigma 35mm. I am planning to get the Sigma 35mm because I don't have Canon 35mm L.
> ...



+ 1 for me too. I don't have the 35L but I will get the Sigma 35mm.


----------



## kbmelb (Dec 20, 2012)

I have the 35L and have always been very happy with the images out of it. For a wide, I am especially impressed by it's bokeh. I have read that this is the Sigma's (maybe only) short coming. Up til then I considered the swop.

The bokeh is very important to me so I will not be selling the L to get the Sig. If my priority was purely sharpness then I'd probably jump ship.


----------



## Invertalon (Dec 20, 2012)

I am very interested in Sigma 35 after having owned the 35L twice in the past... I am hoping to get my spring sometime, maybe by then some type of price decrease or at least see how the resale is of the Sigma. The Canon holds its value extremely well, especially if you bought it during rebates. The Sigma at $900 is a great deal, but would suck if you could not sell it for over $750 for example. Time will tell... I am hoping for some rebates/discounts before buying though.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 20, 2012)

For someone like me who hasn't got the Canon L or Zeiss, the Sigma 35 is very attractive.
Even given that I've got the very nice Samyang, the cost of upgrading to the Sigma to get the AF is also very attractive.

But given that you've already got the Canon L, that's difficult.
What I'd suggest is (if you have the spare cash) to buy the Sigma, try it out for a few weeks and whatnot. If you don't like it then the used market right now for that will probably be fairly close to purchase price, maybe 90%, just because it's so rare right now.
But if you like it better than the Canon L, then keep both. When the Canon L II comes out at over $2000 (prove me wrong, Canon), then it's more than likely that the price on a used Canon L I will go up (or at least not be any less than you could get now), and sell it then.


----------



## nWmR12 (Dec 21, 2012)

I must say for saving about $200 this is of course you got it when it during a rebate or so and might come out on top, otherwise it would not be worth getting rid of it. I personally find the 35L sharp if I need it to be sharper then I do it in post and I have even more control. I have only read reviews and seen test of the sigma v 35L and I don't find that there is enough difference to justify getting rid of 35L and saving 200. If I was getting or looking into a 35mm I would definitely look at sigma. 

Yes it might be better but I am not worried about it because I know it will make very little if not no difference in my photography since it is still a 35mm lens.

Its truly up to you what you decide. If saving 200 and somewhat more sharper image works for you then go for it.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 21, 2012)

Canon is making it easy for Sigma. It goes forever between refreshes on some lenses, and when they do refresh one they peg a price that leaves 99% of its potential customers out of the market (and probably 75% of even the enthusiasts too if we are going to see things like a 24-70 IS for $3,000.00.)

Sigma has already gotten to the point where they probably have 85% of the IQ of a Canon or a Nikon, and sometimes maybe 100% or even a bit more. The one thing they need to get past is their public perception (deserved or not) of poor QC and poor reliability. It does sound like they are serious about that, and are now saying publicly that this is their goal.

But with the high prices attached to all the new Canon lens releases, it is an incredible opportunity for Sigma if they can get their act together. If Sigma can't come up with some good and reliable offerings and steal sticker-shocked customers out of Canon's pockets, then the fault is all theirs. It will be interesting to watch.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 21, 2012)

i'm a sigma 35mm early adopter, and i'm very pleased with it, but if i was you, i doubt i'd swap. if you go the ebay route, then you have ebay/paypal fees, plus and maybe it's just me but i always get hosed on shipping charges, and all that will eat into your rewards. If you have a cheaper route, and are unhappy with your canon, of course, but if your happy, i doubt i'd do it. I was minutes away from going with the canon 35 when i decided against it, but if i had, i bet i would be just about as pleased with it.

- just like to add that i think sigma's rapid lens replacement system is a detriment. Canon is more my speed. Hopefully sigma will slow things down.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 21, 2012)

Gonna play a little Devil's advocate....

I was in photo retail, in a pro oriented camera shop in the 1970's up to the mid 1980's. At one time, our little 15x55 foot shop did 1/2 of one percent of all of CUSA's North American photo business, or, put another way we were in the top 200 of ALL Canon dealers, including mass merchandisers. Canon themselves described our volume as "tonnage".

At that time, "the golden age", there were a lot of garbage "off brand" lenses, but also a few good ones. One that I particularly recall was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and the Series 1 90mm macro. Those were made by Kiron and/or Tokina and/or Cosina, maybe all three... dunno.

The point is (I'm getting there), these were actually very good lenses as compared to the "then current" competition, even from the likes of Pentax, Nikon and Canon. They got a lot of praise from local press photographers, and photo educators (which all knew, and did lots of business with our shop).

My beef then, and the beef I still hold today is one of contrast and color that is consistent with the lenses from, say, Nikon or Canon. While the very good accessory lenses were sharp, and even exceedingly so, or faster, or both... they just didn't have the same snap and color. The two I just cited were rather blue and "flat" compared to the very warm Nikkors of the day, and even the rather neutral Canon FD lenses. This was something the late Steve Kippert (my Leica rep) showed me, and its something that has stuck with me all these years. 

I know these days, color and contrast are a snap to alter, but I'm still wondering ... based on the same settings, no alteration of the images, how does the Sigma 35/1.4 compare to the entire (and rather consistent) Canon line?


----------



## jondave (Dec 21, 2012)

risc32 said:


> - just like to add that i think sigma's rapid lens replacement system is a detriment. Canon is more my speed. Hopefully sigma will slow things down.



The refresh cycle speed is due to the quality of the lens and the manufacturer's ability to improve the previous lens design. In Sigma's case, they deliberately weren't producing top-notch lenses so the margin for improvement was large and new improved models could be spat out with relatively simple changes to the optical design.

If you're designing lenses for the top end you are limited by the current state of optics technology. So in the 35mm's case you shouldn't expect to see a replacement so soon as they couldn't possibly significantly improve it in a short timeframe.


----------



## dirtcastle (Dec 21, 2012)

Is there a reliable source for the Sigma's relative bokeh deficiencies?

Or are people just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 21, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Is there a reliable source for the Sigma's relative bokeh deficiencies?
> 
> Or are people just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors?



Seeing is believing... Lensrental blog had several in their blog, as did a Korean site ....a slew of rather flat pictures. Granted not head to head comparisons but underscores sharpness isn't everything.


----------



## birtembuk (Dec 21, 2012)

Same here. If I didn't have the L, I'd consider buying the Sig. Now, when you are used to a given lens and are happy with what it delivers, I think a few hundred bucks is not worth the fuss. The 35L is a class of its own with colors/contrasts/rendering. On FF and APS-C altogether. Making the swap did not even cross my mind.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 21, 2012)

My consideration of getting the Sigma is mostly price, even then it's still expensive so the 35L is totally out anyways.
If you have the 35L, you're happy with it, then stick with it, same story with any piece of equipment.
If the CA, or being-not-as-sharp bothers you then check out the Sigma.
And, I feel the bokeh "not being good" is vastly overblown, while it not being "as good" as what the 35L can produce, sure, it looks to be the case. But by no means is it awful, there has to be certain L owners that don't want to hear smack about how their precious L isn't as superior in many ways, so they find a single flaw and make it look like the end of the world! Because ya know, today's the day  But again, the Sigma brand new is still a lot cheaper then the 35L generally is on the used market, so not everything will be as top notch. It's what you need and what you can afford

Here's a wedding photog who really likes the Sigma though, this guy actually used the lens, not a series of bland tests:
http://www.samhurdphotography.com/2012/gear-reviews/gear-review-sigma-35mm-1-4-lens-for-nikon


----------



## 51m0n (Dec 21, 2012)

Just got my Siggy last week. Very happy with it. It is easily my best lens. ( I have Canon 17-40L,100L,24-105L,28/1.8, 40/2.8,50/1.4, 85/1.8 and Tamron 70-300 sp). It is also the only lens that, using Focal 1.7, does not need microadjustment plus has the highest sharpness scores.

Physically, it is very modern and has a high-quality feel. And it is very very sharp, even at f/1.4.
This photo I took 2 night ago (handheld on 5D3), ambience lighting: dimmed street lights.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8290202541/#in/photostream (this has been resized to 2048px wide)

On the negative side, the bokeh is a bit onionized, but I can live with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8293508226/#in/photostream

A friend took the same picture using Nikkor 35/1.4 on D800 and the result has a better and smoother bokeh.


----------



## drjlo (Dec 21, 2012)

Harv said:


> Why fix what ain't broke? ???



My thoughts exactly. I love my 35L to pieces, which also happens to be smaller and lighter than Sigma. 

On the other hand, if Sigma can come up with a 50 mm f/1.2 with super sharpness and great bokeh, that might be something to consider instead of my 50L. And no, I've tried the Sigma 50 f/1.4, and that is not good enough.


----------



## 51m0n (Dec 21, 2012)

drjlo said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > Why fix what ain't broke? ???
> ...



Yep, I tried Sigma 50/1.4 and 30/1.4 (aps-C) too, they are not good (sent back to store). This new line of Sigma on the other hand is in different league altogether.


----------



## takoman46 (Dec 21, 2012)

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?


----------



## 51m0n (Dec 21, 2012)

Note: Only some photos show onionized bokeh. Most others are good, like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8292629929/#in/photostream


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 21, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?


Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens? The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?


----------



## minim2 (Dec 21, 2012)

I bought it last week.

For me: 

1) It is best looking lens I have used till date (I own 24-105, 24 1.4 II, 50 1.4, 40 STM, 85 1.8, 70-300 L and recently bought used 17-40 and 135L ... none of them look as sexy as this new sigma)... maybe not so imp for many but what I noticed.

2) So far, I am very pleased with the result... esp at that price. I am not any pro or pixel peeper. I am a serious ameature and for me, esp recently, I have started to look more into glasses with better value. 
I cannot justify 35L price tag and was waiting for this lens ever since it was announced.
I am getting rid of 50 1.4 and in 2 months time, I will most probably get rid of 24 1.4 II too (I have one trip planned where I feel 24 will be useful for me).

3) I dont give too much notice to sharpness, but this one looks as sharp as my 24 1.4 II if not more (at 100% crop)

4) I do not find colors etc from this lens to be flat. I used this along with 24 1.4 II, and to me, I do not see too much of a difference.

I had L syndrome earlier but I think I am recovering from it slowly. I bought one used sony RX100 recently and images from that are such that I will not miss too much my 5DII+24-105 combination (maybe 24mm end).
Personally, I am actually thinking to trim down lenses I own to speciality lenses (UWA, tele, 35,85,135) and carry one good point and shoot like rx100 along with it.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Dec 21, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> takoman46 said:
> 
> 
> > I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?
> ...



obviously he is not....

typical case of.. i don´t get the topic.


----------



## 51m0n (Dec 21, 2012)

takoman46 said:


> I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L.



Then you are at odds with almost all professional reviewers testing this lens (which is fine though )


----------



## candyman (Dec 21, 2012)

REVIEW on DPreview


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


Gold award


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 21, 2012)

candyman said:


> REVIEW on DPreview
> 
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm
> ...



Thanks and looking forward to read it. I would have bought the lens today, except that the one decent store where I am holidaying did not have it yet. I bought the 8-15 today, so I get to have some photofun in between christmas, kids and work.

I have to say I am a bit amazed about the postings in this thread. I love my Canon gear, but I have not found Deity in my camera system. It is a system, and it works great for me, but it is just that.. a system for doing what we all love to do. Suddenly sharpness of a lens is of minor importance, and a bokeh (which looks fine to me) is much more important. I would have bought the 35L a long time ago if I could afford it. Now however, Sigma comes along at half the price and with great results, even better, than the L and the discussion turns. I believe in competition, and this lens will probably help to keep Canon on their feet.

I have the Sigma 85 1.4 and I think it is great. Would I not have preferred to have the 85L if I could cough up the money?, ... sure, but it is not because it is a Canon or a L lens, but because I have used it several times and I love the pictures it enables me/us to take. 

Happy shooting.


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 21, 2012)

DxO have this to say about it:

"This Sigma lens scores higher than any other lens in its focal length, including many that are much more expensive, and is among the highest, for sharpness, of any tested by DxOMark on a Canon body."

ET


----------

