# I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4



## sunnyVan (Jun 3, 2013)

After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision. 

I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high. 

I took quite a few pictures I love with the Sigma. I really wanted to love it but I can't deal with unreliable and slow AF. 

The sigma deserves a second chance. Perhaps I'll get a better copy. But I'm gonna try the Canon first.


----------



## Pi (Jun 3, 2013)

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses. 

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category). 

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.
> 
> The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).
> 
> Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.




Consistent focus is a must for me. If you're right then hopefully I'll be quite happy with the 35L. Will see what happens. Too bad Canon Direct doesn't allow return.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2013)

The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 4, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
> I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.



Really? The 35L would do that too?


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 4, 2013)

I was seriously considering getting the sigma 35 but at around $800 or so... I can't bring myself to pay retail. I did have an offer on the table for $900 for a used Canon 35mmL but I read enough about the sigma that I simply had to go that route.

Then I realized that 35mm on a full frame is like a 22mm on a crop (I'm just starting to make the transition). And I rarely ever shoot anything at 22mm on a crop... so I'm back to needing a good low light lens f/1.4 that is sharp wide open... which eliminates the 50's. So I guess my other option is the 85mm... but I have a 70-200 mkii which seems redundant... which is also why I'm selling my 100mm L and why I have all but stopped wanting a 135mm f/2. 

So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2013)

This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses. 

With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\

I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
> ...


 
Pretty much all wide aperture lenses do that, the margin of error at f/1.4 is so tiny. Off just a little bit, and it can look bad.

However, the AF speed of the 35L is excellent, just don't expect shots near mfd to be as sharp as those at 5-10 ft.

That said, here is one taken a day after I received mine, and its near mfd. I went around our small county fair with my 5D MK II and the 35mmL, and found it to be a good focal length.

Its a shock of wheat, and very shallow depth of field, but also very sharp.








Of course, if you get stuck in a large arena, just do a big crop, the lens stands up to cropping. This was taken half way up into the seats of my friend driving clear across the arena. I had to crop it a lot, but the level of detail is excellent, even at 1:1.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.
> 
> With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\
> 
> I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D



That's exactly why I got rid of my 50mm f/1.4. I'm not satisified with f/2.8 if what I want if f/2 or bigger.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> That's exactly why I got rid of my 50mm f/1.4. I'm not satisified with f/2.8 if what I want if f/2 or bigger.



Give 50L a chance. Photo below is @ f1.6. I was about 15-20ft away from my daughter, standing next to the mail box. I found my 50L is SUPER if I shoot @ f1.4 to 1.6. Shot JPEG, zero editing.


----------



## PhotographAdventure (Jun 4, 2013)

Someone mentioned on these forums that every new lens they purchased, they order a few copies, pick the best one, and return the rest. Sure it's extra cost, but you increase your chances of a good solid copy.

My sigma 35mm is great. One of my frequently used lens so far for weddings and events. I've noticed no issues with auto focus.


----------



## kbmelb (Jun 4, 2013)

The Canon 35L is really good. In fact the only think I find it lacking is weather sealing. I know the Sig is supposed to be amazing but from what I've seen, real world stuff wasn't enough of a difference for me to sell the L and take a chance with Sig's spotty history.

As for the 50L, at f/1.2 even when you nail the focus the focal point has some gaussian blur in concert with the sharpness. What I mean is, you can see the sharpness but there's some halation that makes it seem soft. Especially in situation where you'd NEED f/1.2. By f/2.0 it is sharp and the images are amazing.


----------



## victorwol (Jun 4, 2013)

I have no noticed any issues with my Sigma 35, in fact, I think is an amazing lens.


----------



## Pi (Jun 4, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
> ...



Mine does not. I am familiar with that problem, after all, I have tried a few Sigmas. My 135L had that problem and had to be serviced. My 35L nails the focus every time, regardless of the distance.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Jun 4, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Give 50L a chance.



You did not just say the 50L is anywhere near the Sigma. The 50L, though performing perfectly from f/2 upwards, is one of the worst lenses price/performance-wise, it's just really, really soft from below 2.0, even the old 50 1.4 performs better in that range. And this is not just based on test charts, I owned it myself for quite some weeks before I switched to the razor sharp Sigma 35 1.4. There is quite a quality scatter but not even close as worse as it was with their old 50 1.4 and if you get a decent copy - like i did - it's just a treat to work with. Give it some time, get to your local lens dealer, and pick a lens by hand. You won't regret.


----------



## Pi (Jun 4, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Give 50L a chance.
> ...



Depending from what point of view. In terms of bokeh, is far ahead. Sharpness is often irrelevant at normal viewing sizes but bokeh, color, etc., are.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jun 4, 2013)

As far as all of my use with the Sig 35 is concerned it is the most consistently focusing lens that didn't need any AFMA for. My Canon 50mm 1.4 fails consistently though, I can never get it well adjusted as it behaves differently at varying distances, and the whole part about it not being sharp and all the CA and PF. Meanwhile, just last week I dropped my Sig 35 onto concrete, and I'll have to send it in (hopefully warranty will cover), but it still works perfectly!! Just really tight getting it on and off the camera. I'm impressed with Sigma and will be looking forward to their future releases.

But if there's an offer out there for a 35L around $900 then shoot, take it, you'll be guaranteed to get close to that much back in the future too


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jun 4, 2013)

whenever i read about f1.x aperture lenses and focusing problems my first thought is "LAYER 8 error".

i have no problems with my sigma 35mm f1.4.
it is my first sigma after years and i don´t regret buying it.

the new line of sigma lenses seem to be a great improvement.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jun 4, 2013)

I love my 35L and use it for many different purposes. I know 35mm is not the optimal focal length for portraits but correctly used I get some really nice results out of it. I used this picture in my first exhibit a week ago, amongst other of the same model. It's not perfect as you can see the distortion making her ear and right eye smaller. Obivously not the fastest auto focus but I don't use it for sports anyway, it's normally fast enough to catch my kids though. Sharpness is a matter of taste also.


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 4, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.



If you can handle manual focus the Zeiss 50 f2 MP is pretty dead sharp wide open. And if you can handle manual focus and have ~$3500 laying around, they're coming out with a 55 1.4 that so far looks to be knock-your-socks-off good wide open. 

There is also the Sigma 50 1.4, which I found to be really good at 1.4. AF issues are horrendous, but if you're only using it under certain circumstances you may be able to micro adjust it to fit that circumstance and deal with the other shortcomings. 

Sigma AF is what crossed the 35 1.4 off my list. I know full well that a lot of people have awesome copies, but a lot of people don't. My experience with them is not so great.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 4, 2013)

I like to be pretty close to my subject, probably 3-4 ft. The 50 seems too tight for me and DOF would be too shallow. 35mm seems perfect for my use.

The sigma's AF is pretty consistent. It consistently requires +8 MA for indoor use and 0 for outdoor. Very weird.


----------



## victorwol (Jun 4, 2013)

Also the flare control of the Sigma 35 is something I have never seen before. It's great.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 4, 2013)

Pi said:


> Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.
> 
> The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).
> 
> Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.



I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other. 

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not


----------



## victorwol (Jun 4, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.
> ...



I'm a hardcore Canon L fan... Have 20 L lenses, never wanted to buy anything else, but let me tell you this Sigma one is something has totally surprised me. 

Have you seen the lens image quality tool comparison with the Canon one at the-digital-picture.com ? 

Wide open the Sigma is much better than the Canon not only on the corners but the center too. And the Canon have quite some fringe... Even down two 2.8 you can see a nice rainbow on the thin lines on the Canon and very minimal on the Sigma


----------



## Zv (Jun 4, 2013)

Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.


----------



## victorwol (Jun 4, 2013)

Zv said:


> Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.



The Sigma USB thing is interesting if your camera does not have a way to adjust it... But I imagine must be cumbersome to use since you have to test, take out of camera, adjust, reflash the firmware, put on camera, test... Repeat several times until you nail it....


----------



## victorwol (Jun 4, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Reading this I begin to wonder, are lenses (such as this) and cameras (such as the D800) becoming such that to use them properly and get the best out of them they require technique and skill that is just that extra step beyond what an ordinary photographer/user has?



I think that has being the case, always... Or anyone would be a star photographer.. Anyone can press the shutter, does not mean is a skilled photographer.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Give 50L a chance.
> ...



Most owners of 50L would known 50L is NOT one of the Canon sharpnest in L primes. It's more about the bokeh, color, and contrast that 50L will bring. When there is almost no light, my 50L shines @ f1.2. And if I want nice sharp images @ f2.8 or smaller, my 24-70 II or 70-200 f2.8 IS II will take that ;D

I agree with you on the new Sigma, but my reply wasn't @ OP. I was replied to jdramirez


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 4, 2013)

victorwol said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



There has to be a point where a lens performance is rated a good enough, more than adequate...a great professional tool. This is where I see the 35L. I seriously doubt that my customers will see any real world difference in the sharpness but a heck of a lot of difference in the colour balance and rendering. I stick to one lens brand so that my pictures carry the same colour balance too. I don't see how any hand held shot using a 35L or a Siggi 35 f1.4 is going to make a lot of difference. Sure....pop it on a tripod and shoot a lens chart....we all make sell loads of pictures doing that ;D


----------



## Pi (Jun 5, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.



You can look at the images I posted here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14161.60. Often, there are no problems with the bokeh but sometimes, there are.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.
> ...



I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted, the thread seems to mention some green CA around the Bokeh rings...but hey that's really minor and if it bothers you....it's easily corrected in PS / LR. I would honestly say that if you are looking for optical perfection...good luck with that. Most lenses have some kind of optical design compromise somewhere, get used to it and adapt to make up for it. The only execption to this is flakey AF or excessivley soft images.


----------



## Pi (Jun 5, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted[...]


I am talking about the image below. It is not some cherry-picked example, I have experienced this quite a few times. The Sigma can be quite bad as well, probably worse: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/z/in/photostream/. Read the comment below the photo, I have generated quite a traffic to this image!  No offense to the owner, it is a lovely photo.





In the Mall of America


----------



## BurlapZack (Jun 5, 2013)

Pi said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted[...]
> ...




No offense taken. 

Haha I admit I was surprised at the sudden increase in pageviews!


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 5, 2013)

I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful. 

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them. 

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes. 

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also. The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.


----------



## Quackator (Jun 5, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.



Try DPP. Digital Lens Optimizer and lens aberration correction make it simple.


----------



## wayno (Jun 6, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.
> 
> Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 6, 2013)

wayno said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.
> ...




With pictures taken at 2.8, one click on "remove CA" in LR will take care of most unwanted colored lines. Pictures taken below 2.8 need manual defringing with the dropper. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. Any insights would be appreciated. That's just my observation from 3 hrs of owning it. Could be wrong.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 6, 2013)

Anyway, I think my point is that no lens is perfect and you need to decide for yourself what is more important.


----------



## infared (Jun 6, 2013)

OMG...I own all L glass except my Zeiss 21mm, My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ("for me" kicks butt on Canon f/1.8 & f/1.4...and blows the 50mm L away on price ($399 right now), size and "for me" similar image quality) and my Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The price was just right and the focusing and image quality all the way around is as good or better than the Canon 35mm L "for me".
No-Brainer fantastic lens for an active photographer. I don't "over analyze", no lens stands up to that. I agree with all of the reviews I have read...The Sigma...Price, Build & Performance make it an absolute winner "for me". ...can't wait to see the next offering in the Art Series line...Hope it is a winner, too!


----------



## Pi (Jun 6, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.


This should be in high contrast cases and worse away from the center. In "normal" conditions, I see no CA. You can also see it in OOF highlights.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 6, 2013)

No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on. 

I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.

I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.


----------



## ziggy-too (Jun 6, 2013)

Hi Forum. First post. Bought Sigma 35mm, 1.4 last saturday and took a lot of shuts. In many of the shouts the AF was happy to pick one or more AF points, but afterwards the picture when zoomed showed a focus planed that was in front of selected AF point/points. 
Took my 60D and lens to the reseller and he/they validated by findings with a number of pictures. They swapped the lens with another one, which I now will try out.

Location: Copenhagen, Denmark


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jun 6, 2013)

I've never tried the Sigma 35 1.4, but I image you will LOVE your new 35L, it is one of my favorite lenses I've ever owned or tested. The 35L on the 5Dii is my go-to when I'm venturing out with only one body and one lens. 

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 6, 2013)

I think you made right decision, I my self sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 for my D800 and got the Canon 35mmf2IS for my 5Dmk2.
I think the small barrel size of the 35mm f2 with IS ,with the super effective IS, is a bit more practical lens in real life than the expensive Sigma or the huge 35mm f1.4 Carls Zeiss or the Nikon version of it, and I even go further to say getting a Canon FF body for just the Canon 35mm f2IS is worth it.

I think the 135mm f2 L and the 35mm f2IS make the 6D and the 5D3 so attractive , Nikon's got nothing like that small but sharp new gen 35mm prime with effective image stabilizer.
Honestly, I have never understood why so many people rave about the Sigma 35mm f1.4 or Zeiss 35mm f1.4 , which I had and used on my 5DMK2 for a couple months and sold.
the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is ridiculously huge as a prime and it was not that special optically.
I really think the Canon 35mm f2ISUSM is the best (or more precisely most practical) 35mm prime ever made for any SLR system.

I think the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is overrated.


----------



## Pi (Jun 6, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.
> 
> I'm fairly objective when I evaluated the sigma vs. Canon. Now that I tried both I think I'm gonna choose sigma. I'm giving it a second chance and am ordering a new one. Hopefully if the AF works ok then I'm happy.
> 
> I don't regret trying the Canon. It's probably not so bad before the sigma 35 came out. Given the price and the shrinking resale market for the L, I think sigma is a better option for me personally.



Would you post samples?


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 6, 2013)

Pi said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.
> ...


I'll see if I could post some tonight. I'm still at work. I'm a slave.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > No agonizing this time. I'm returning the 35 L as well. I called Canon. They asked me to show them pictures that demonstrate color fringing problem. The tech called me back and agreed to accept a return. I'm really not a pixel peeper. If a problem is visible at 100% zoomed in then it's not a problem. If a problem is visible without zooming in then it's an issue. When I use LR, I rarely zoom in to 100%. But the pictures taken with the L were so flawed that I can't help zooming in to see what's going on.
> ...



I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 7, 2013)

35L test 1_4 B by Sunny_Van, on Flickr


----------



## infared (Jun 7, 2013)

Well....it does not make a lot of sense to pay $500 extra for that much green slime....now, does it?


----------



## Zv (Jun 7, 2013)

Can we shorten the Sigma 35 f/1.4 to just "35A" as in Art? Then in our signatures we can distinguish a 35L from a 35A easily! 

You heard it here first!


----------



## Pi (Jun 7, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.



It is a torture test for any lens. You have blown highlights. The CA in the other shot (stuff on a deck) looks much stronger than it is because the highlights which caused it were clipped. The Sigma controls the CA much better, no doubt but I do not see similar shots with the Sigma (but I see the poor bokeh in the shot shot with the cardboards). 

This CA is rarely a problem. This is probably the only shot of mine, wide open, where CA is objectionable, look for the white label on the top of the yellow package on the left.




Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

No problem here, however:




Shot in Hangzhou, China, on Flickr

or here:




Naked cowboy, on Flickr


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I shot this when I first got the lens and happily ran around my house shooting stuffs randomly. I didn't set out to challenge the lens, let alone to share it to public. So this is a bad picture I admit. If you go to my link there's two more pictures that I sent to Canon.
> ...



Pi, it really wasn't meant to be a test. I was simply running around shooting stuffs randomly like a child who just got a christmas gift. Even if it was a test, it was really a test of the AF in backlit condition. And it passed easily. I was very satisfied with the 35L's AF performance. It's so instantaneous and accurate. The look and the feel of the L is also more attractive to me. The 100g less weight is a nice bonus. It feels so right until I see all this colorful stuff!! 

I do feel that Sigma's optical performance seems better, or simply more modern. 10 yrs is a big deal. And I can't justify spending 40-50% more on the L. Bokeh, some say, is more creamy or prettier for the L. But you know what, I'm very distracted by the colorful CA. I'm talking about my copy specifically. Maybe I'm being harsher because when I pay more I expect more. If they're the same price, um... I may lean toward the L. 

I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.


----------



## wayno (Jun 8, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > sunnyVan said:
> ...



No you're probably right, I just don't find the corrected CA offensive. Just a personal thing.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.



Did you buy it from Canon refurbished? Or from Canon new?

I do not think that your copy is bad. My 35L would do this as well in the same conditions. I would love the see a new 35LII which behaves better in that respect but I can live with the "old" one. But the Sigma bokeh is unacceptable to me. BTW, you can see some ring type of highlights in one of the shots I posted but that is passable.


----------



## Pi (Jun 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.
> ...


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 9, 2013)

My new Sigma seems to work better than the one I returned earlier. The AF is a bit faster and quite accurate most of the time. It's still not as fast as canon but fast enough. It hunts a lot less than the one before too. So far I'm happy but will continue to have fun with it while doing more testing. The canon L is probably going into a return box soon.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 9, 2013)

Pi said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I already received return authorization from Canon. And my new Sigma is arriving tomorrow. I'll be able to compare them side by side and see which one to keep.
> ...




I got it refurbished. So is my 135L. My 135L works perfectly. I would buy from Canon direct again.

The Sigma did produce some pictures whose bokeh is suboptimal. But it also gave me many more shots with beautiful bokeh. I think it can be very subjective.


----------



## bleephotography (Jun 9, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision.
> 
> I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high.
> 
> ...



I can attest to the slower AF, and the copy variation with the Sigma. It took three copies to finally receive one that I'm happy with; the first was lacking in sharpness, even after AFMA. The second exhibited extreme color fringing and sluggish AF. And my current copy...well, it is PERFECT. Not only is it tack sharp at f/1.4, but it also has noticeably faster AF. Now I'm sure most people would have been satisfied with my first and second copies, but admittedly I'm a pixel-peeper and wouldn't lower my standards for a $900 lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 10, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I was seriously considering getting the sigma 35 but at around $800 or so... I can't bring myself to pay retail. I did have an offer on the table for $900 for a used Canon 35mmL but I read enough about the sigma that I simply had to go that route.
> 
> Then I realized that 35mm on a full frame is like a 22mm on a crop (I'm just starting to make the transition). And I rarely ever shoot anything at 22mm on a crop... so I'm back to needing a good low light lens f/1.4 that is sharp wide open... which eliminates the 50's. So I guess my other option is the 85mm... but I have a 70-200 mkii which seems redundant... which is also why I'm selling my 100mm L and why I have all but stopped wanting a 135mm f/2.
> 
> So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.



My Voigtlander 58mm Nokton SLii is sharp wide open on my 6D. However, it is a manual lens. There are plenty on here who will slam the lens because it is a manual, and because it's not a Canon...but I'm sorry, it is sharper than both Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.2. Period...it just is. I bought it for around $450 from Adorama in 2011. It is a Nikon mount, but I bought the Fotodiox chipped adapter for $35...works very well (after some tightening)...focus confirmation is accurate. 

The color, contrast, build quality, and focus ring feel, are almost identical to Zeiss. The sharpness is almost up to that of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar...from the tests I have seen. The vignetting is minimal for an f/1.4 lens on my 6D, and non-existent on a crop body. This is comparing my particular copy...I have no idea about sample variation. 

I was convinced to buy the lens after looking at the test charts that photozone.de did. You can compare the results they got with both Canon 50's.

However, if you expect razor sharp focus accuracy at f/1.4 from this Voigtlander, without magnified live view, you will probably never get it. Also, if you shoot at slower apertures than near wide open, the light meter on your camera won't be as accurate.

These are all tradeoffs I'm happy with, considering the color, sharpness, build quality, and price. 

One final caveat...If I were an event shooter who only used the lens for that, and had to focus and re-focus hundreds of times over a short period of time...I would just pick a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom (probably the Tamron)...and run with that. 

It's a shame you don't want the 135 f2L. It has been my favorite lens for over 4 years. But the Voigtlander's color is better, its contrast identical, its sharpness on par...while it has slightly more CA, and its bokeh is not as smooth as the 135's. But then nothing I've tried beat the 135's overall bokeh (including the 200 f/2 and 85 f/1.2)...other than perhaps a Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar. But then it's also a mostly manual lens that costs twice what the 135L costs...and it was overall not as grand as the 135.


----------



## mememe (Jun 10, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.
> 
> With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\
> 
> I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D



Mine is pretty usable at 1.4
Not softer than the 50L at 1.4
Seems like i got a pretty good one.

It does shift focus when stopping down. My 50L also did.

There was no reason to keep the expensive L (ok, more and round blades. But u cant have everything)

I even had a 50 1.8 II which was really great wide open (sharpness. Contrast could be better)


SORRY 4 OT


----------



## CarlTN (Jun 11, 2013)

mememe said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.
> ...



I owned a 50 1.8 ii also, I liked it a lot, but the bokeh was not as smooth as the Voigtlander. Sharpness not remotely as high, either...but overall it's certainly a fine lens for the money (~$100). The smoothest bokeh via a 50mm lens is probably the 50 f/1.2L. 

Call me crazy, but I bought the 40mm f/2.8 pancake with my 6D, and I like it overall better than the 50 f/1.8. It is sharper in the corners at f/2.8, has a lot less CA (basically none...the 50 1.8 had a lot of longitudinal CA...the Voigtlander also has a bit of that at wider than f/2.5 or so aperture...but very little lateral CA). The color via the 40 pancake is cooler than I like (typical of many Canon lenses though). But the contrast, sharpness...along with the ability to take in a wider field of view at 40mm than 50mm...I really like that. The 50 1.8 had a nice warm color, but was still kind of odd...emphasized magentas and purples a bit much (sort of like the colors via the 85 1.2L in my opinion...not bad, just not my preference). The Voigtlander seems more neutral, but may emphasize oranges and reds slightly, which I prefer. (The typical "Sigma color" emphasizes oranges and yellows...which can also look nice). Greens and blues look very vivid and differentiated through the Voigtlander, also. And as I've said before, the best color from a lens I've ever seen, was via the 200 f/2L. I hope Canon can someday make a sensor capable of drinking in more of that! Of course DXO will just claim whatever Nikon sensor at that time, is 10x better...haha.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jun 30, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> My new Sigma seems to work better than the one I returned earlier. The AF is a bit faster and quite accurate most of the time. It's still not as fast as canon but fast enough. It hunts a lot less than the one before too. So far I'm happy but will continue to have fun with it while doing more testing. The canon L is probably going into a return box soon.



looks like I might want to try it again , thanks for your honest posts on this lens vs the Canon.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 30, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > My new Sigma seems to work better than the one I returned earlier. The AF is a bit faster and quite accurate most of the time. It's still not as fast as canon but fast enough. It hunts a lot less than the one before too. So far I'm happy but will continue to have fun with it while doing more testing. The canon L is probably going into a return box soon.
> ...



You're welcome. I'm glad I bought it from buydig.com. Returns are usually trouble free. I'm very happy with this copy after weeks of use.


----------



## jdramirez (Jun 30, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > sunnyVan said:
> ...



I presume you had to pay shipping back to them?


----------



## sunnyVan (Jun 30, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > MLfan3 said:
> ...



It's less than 10 bucks. Small price to pay for good customer service. Really don't mind that at all.


----------



## pedro (Jun 30, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision.
> 
> I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this advice. I was pondering on several Sigma lenses. Did you go to the shop to ask a replacement lens, maybe it was a lemon? I was thinking about a 20 1.8 sometime later down the road for my 5DIII. But well, I might put that off... In addition to my 16-35 2.8 USM II to get that stop of more aperture in contrast to it but at a wider angle than my trusty 50 1.4


----------



## elungt (Jun 30, 2013)

I've never like Sigma branded........So I'm right ;D


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 4, 2013)

but how many copies do you guys have to buy to get a good one?

thanks.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 5, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> but how many copies do you guys have to buy to get a good one?
> 
> thanks.



I'm a first time sigma customer. Even though I had to go through two copies before getting a good one I still consider it worthwhile. It really depends on your luck. Many people are happy with their first copy. Just make sure you buy from a good retailer.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > but how many copies do you guys have to buy to get a good one?
> ...



Nice shot of the bee, but why are you buying a Canon 24-70? I didn't think you owned a Canon body??


----------

