# Review: Canon 35 f/1.4L vs Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM



## elhajj33 (Jun 12, 2013)

I did a head-to-head comparison between the Canon 35 f/1.4L and the Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM. I looked at the strengths and weaknesses and wrote up some thoughts.  on when one lens might be a better choice over the other 

Basically, the 35L has a more robust construction, while the Sigma is sharper. Focusing is about the same in both lenses. Bokeh on the Canon better, but in the end the Sigma's image quality made it the clear choice. You can take a look at the  the rest of the writeup  if you're curious about the details and let me know what you think.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jun 12, 2013)

Good solid review. Agree with the conclusion on the sharpness of the Sigma. One have to say though that Canon did make a very capable lens back then in the 90.... And the version II most probably will be very costly. So if one wants an L lens and stay brand loyal the 35 L is is it. Alternatively, wait it out until 35 f/2 IS drops in price.


----------



## Pi (Jun 12, 2013)

The 35L is certainly better than you think in terms of sharpness. Your shots are focused differently, look at the eyebrows, and exposed/lit differently. Which camera did you use, BTW? Here is a crop of my 35L on the 5D2, wide open, from the rule of thirds point:






*EDIT:* Default parameters in LR, as usual. 
And here are your comparisons:





BTW, does this site allow links to commercial sites?


----------



## elhajj33 (Jun 12, 2013)

Pi said:


> The 35L is certainly better that you think in terms of sharpness. Your shots are focused differently, look at the eyebrows, and exposed/lit differently. Which camera did you use, BTW? Here is a crop of my 35L on the 5D2, wide open, from the rule of thirds point:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I ran a few tests with a 5DII on multiple days. The sigma was consistently sharper than the Canon. I'm not saying the 35L is a bad lens by any means. But the sigma is consistently better at 1.4


----------



## elhajj33 (Jun 12, 2013)

mwh1964 said:


> So if one wants an L lens and stay brand loyal the 35 L is is it.



Agreed, this is my only non-L lens. Canon's lenses are fantastic, but I do think the sigma outshines the 35L


----------



## florianbieler.de (Jun 12, 2013)

Pi said:


> And here are your comparisons:



You compare lens sharpness with blurry high ISO pictures?


----------



## elhajj33 (Jun 12, 2013)

Both images were shot at ISO 800 - that's not a stretch for the 5DMKII's ISO performance at all. Also, both are RAW images imported into Lightroom without any noise reduction or sharpening.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 12, 2013)

I returned my first copy of sigma, got the 35L, returned it, and then went back to sigma. 

I have to agree with a lot of what you said in the review. The canon's construction does feel more robust. I definitely felt more comfortable with it than the sigma. However I personally found the level of CA of the Canon to be excessive below f2.8. 

Most reviews have concluded that the sigma 35 is the winner when it comes to sharpness and value. What no one can prove yet is reliability and longevity. 

Until 35L II is released and its price lowered significantly, sigma would my choice for now.


----------

