# Found a Canon 35mm f/1.4L lens for $900...



## jdramirez (Apr 28, 2013)

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to go ahead and buy it and sell my 50mm f/1.4 USM. But I wanted to check with some "experts" to see if there is anything I should be looking for.

For example, I know the 50mm f1.4 has AF issues, the 17-55 and the 100-400 are dust suckers (by rumor at the very least), etc.

So is there anything I need to be aware of about the Canon 35mm? Also, the new Sigma is reported to be crazy good wide open and it also is in the $900 range. Is one really that much better than the other?


----------



## sleepnever (Apr 28, 2013)

I would buy the Sigma 35mm 1.4 A series over the Canon 35 1.4. I used my buddy's on my 5D3 for a week and wide open until about 3.2, the CA is just awful. Sure you can remove it in post, but why bother when you can grab the Sigma which is insanely sharp and about $400 cheaper? =) I have a contact on Flickr that shoots street photography with the Sigma and he can't get enough of it. His shots are insanely sharp too.

The Sigma 35 1.4 A is next on my list.


----------



## Pi (Apr 28, 2013)

Check AF at close (but not too close) and far distances. It should focus perfectly. Check sharpness wide open. Near the center, it should be much better than the 50/1.4. Check for uniformity well closed - to rule out decentering issues. Not that this lens is known for such. 

CA is not an issue. You can see it in the corners wide open but I still have to find a shot where I needed anything but bokeh there. 

Here is a recent shot, wide open. Fruit of the Loom, in case you are wondering.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 28, 2013)

The 35mmL is fine. ALL wide angle lenses have CA's, but I find them minimal on my 35mmL.

The biggest issue I've heard is having autofocus different at various distances. My lens required a AFMA of +14 on my 1D MK III and the AFMA was much different when at 7 ft. Canon adjusted everything under warranty, so its great now.

If you are a CPS Gold Member, you can get a discount on adjustments and repairs. In any event, assume that you may have a $300 repair bill and no warranty, and then compare that to the price of buying a new lens with a 1 yr warranty. If you can pay by CC or get a written 10 day return rights, or know the seller, you are OK. If the lens has been recently repaired or checked out by Canon, that helps too.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00026/Canon-EF-35mm-f1.4L-USM-price.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 28, 2013)

The 35L doesn't have any known or 'rumored' issues (my 17-55 and 100-400 had/have no dust). The Sigma 35/1.4 is optically a little bit better than the Canon. However, resale values on Canon L lenses are generally higher than 3rd party lenses (and if/when Canon releases a 35L II, its much higher price will likely drive UP used 35L prices, meaning you'll likely be able to sell a used 35L for more than you paid).


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Apr 28, 2013)

@ Pi: nice shot!


----------



## sunnyVan (Apr 28, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> And I'm pretty sure I'm going to go ahead and buy it and sell my 50mm f/1.4 USM. But I wanted to check with some "experts" to see if there is anything I should be looking for.
> 
> For example, I know the 50mm f1.4 has AF issues, the 17-55 and the 100-400 are dust suckers (by rumor at the very least), etc.
> 
> So is there anything I need to be aware of about the Canon 35mm? Also, the new Sigma is reported to be crazy good wide open and it also is in the $900 range. Is one really that much better than the other?



$900 seems too good to be true. Better be careful.


----------



## meli (Apr 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sigma 35/1.4 is optically a little bit better than the Canon. However, resale values on Canon L lenses are generally higher than 3rd party lenses (and if/when Canon releases a 35L II, its much higher price will likely drive UP used 35L prices, meaning you'll likely be able to sell a used 35L for more than you paid).


True about the resale value although I highly doubt that will be the case with the 35L, not with the sigma (and the fanbase it builds) around. There are people who would buy a canon lens just cause its canon but i doubt they'll be enough to stop the resale value from tumbling down even with a new lens announced. 

Plus, for the sigma as a 3rd party lens, a 35 1.4 of this quality will keep its value for a long, long time. Actually given time i think sigma's price can only go up.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 28, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm pretty sure I'm going to go ahead and buy it and sell my 50mm f/1.4 USM. But I wanted to check with some "experts" to see if there is anything I should be looking for.
> ...



Thanks for the concern, but usually I'm the scary looking guy people want to look out for. Actually, I talked to the guy on the phone, and he sounds a lot like me, average to upper middle class who often goes to Costco. Actually, that is probably where we will meet to do the exchange... and the Costco crowd... not exactly known for starting a riot. And he might send his wife... which really doesn't scare me, though I guess she could look like Starla from Napoleon Dynamite. 

And I made a reasonable-ish offer and he countered... I tend to think if you were up to no good, you would agree to whatever they were offering because you weren't really planning on selling them anything. 

So if I do sell my 50mm f/1.4 which is a really nice lens at f/2.8 for $316 which is what I paid for it, then I will get a L lens with a solid reputation for $584... which really appeals to me.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 28, 2013)

meli said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Sigma 35/1.4 is optically a little bit better than the Canon. However, resale values on Canon L lenses are generally higher than 3rd party lenses (and if/when Canon releases a 35L II, its much higher price will likely drive UP used 35L prices, meaning you'll likely be able to sell a used 35L for more than you paid).
> ...



People in the know will pay for quality. That has always been the case, but there are a ton of people out there who have no clue and they know just enough to look for a red ring. 

Here's my problem... I'm getting a 5d mkiii this year... but getting this for $600ish (did the math above) will only push me further away from having enough to get the mkiii. I have a whole summer to make it up, but I want to be ready to pounce when the price point I'm looking for pops its head up again. 

As for the Sigma... there is so much buzz surrounding it right now and it is all good buzz. The sigma 50 and 30 had caveats... I haven't heard a single bad thing about the new 35mm. 

As for the future of the Canon 35... I see the Sigma dragging down the price because people who are in the know will justifiably gravitate to that lens. So the market gets smaller for an already small market of people who are willing to throw down $1300 for a prime lens. 

But Canon LOVES to over inflate prices when they launch a new lens or body, so the new 35mm will be $1800 to start and won't see a price decrease for at least a year. I can't see people who already own the 35mm to sell their current to get the mkii, so the market won't be flooded. But I can see retailers selling the lens for $1100 or $1000 as they are trying to clearance their inventory. 

So I do see the NEW price point for used being around $900 for a while, down from $1100-1200. And then after the sales are down, the price point should bounce back to $1050-1100. I can't see it getting that much higher. 

And I do agree... as the Sigma's reputation strengthens, the price will go up, but I can't see it going to $1300. I think it might peak at around $1050 before settling in around $1000.


----------



## Swphoto (Apr 28, 2013)

Sounds like a good deal. Keep in mind that it goes for $947 +tax refurbished from Canon during the 20% off sales. Obviously the advantages are the warranty and an option to return/swap if you don't like it.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 29, 2013)

Swphoto said:


> Sounds like a good deal. Keep in mind that it goes for $947 +tax refurbished from Canon during the 20% off sales. Obviously the advantages are the warranty and an option to return/swap if you don't like it.



My tax is 6% which makes it 1003. $100 shouldn't be a deal breaker... but it definitely gives me 2nd thoughts.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 29, 2013)

I would still definitely get the Sigma over the Canon. Even if the Canon was cheaper the Sigma.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 29, 2013)

buy the canon
sell it at a profit straight away and buy the sigma new
getting an awesome lens at a significant saving


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 29, 2013)

That is $500 - $600 below BH. Why so cheap?

If I don't have RX1 with Zeiss 35mm f2 attached, I would settle for new Sigma 35. It's solid & sharp at wide open.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 29, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> That is $500 - $600 below BH. Why so cheap?
> 
> If I don't have RX1 with Zeiss 35mm f2 attached, I would settle for new Sigma 35. It's solid & sharp at wide open.



I live in an a kinda rural area where there aren't many people who are able to see the value in a L prime lens. I had several 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lenses that I was selling for $800 and they were as good as new. 

I've sold many 55-250's and a few t3i's... but high end gear doesn't really sell well person to person. Why doesn't he simply ebay it...? No clue. Though I hate ebay and I haven't sold a thing on there in 3 years... maybe longer. 

And that Sigma... it definitely is tempting.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 29, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> buy the canon
> sell it at a profit straight away and buy the sigma new
> getting an awesome lens at a significant saving



That was my first reaction... buy then sell it online, but I don't know there is that large of a market for the lens. Blame Sigma... blame the high price... blame the fact that it is a prime... who knows.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 29, 2013)

I think I'm going to buy it... use it... and sale it for a profit. I looked at DPreview and the Sigma is mind blowing how good it is at f/1.4. It's messed up.


----------

