EF 35/1.4 L II vs. Sigma 35/1.4 Art

<p>I'm wondering whether anyone has been able to directly compare the image quality of these lenses. All that I've heard and read says they're virtually at par, and it would be silly for me to spend twice the money on the EF if that is indeed the case.</p>

<p>I know that their builds are quite different. The Canon is weather sealed, while the Sigma isn't, and the Sigma has a metal barrel as opposed to the Canon's polycarbonate. Both lenses reportedly focus equally well.</p>

<p>I'd be using the lens on my 5DII and 1V bodies.</p>

<p>Go to The-Digital-Picture.com and compare side-by-side. The biggest difference is at f/1.4, where the Canon beats the crap out of the Sigma. At a more reasonable f-stop, like f/8, the Canon still wins, but it's much closer. Your Raw conversion software may erase most or all of that difference, depending on how good its Digital Lens Optimization module is with your camera/lens combination.</p>

<p>For the life of me, I don't understand why you need an f/1.4 lens on the excellent 5D MkIV. You can get plenty of sweet bokeh at f/2.8, even f/4.0. The MkIV's high-ISO performance is exceptional, so you can shoot Raw at ISO 6400 with abandon and get sharp, clean results. Back when we shot Kodachrome, f/1.4 or 1.8 was in every bag, but they just don't make sense any more.</p>

<p>So, if you persist in going f/1.4, the thing to compare is bokeh vs. bokeh. Look at the sample bokeh shots on The-Digital-Picture.com and also on Flickr, where you can do a body/lens search and see shots of real subjects. If you don't plan to be a bokeh-King, then go with </p>

<p>IME, the Canon Series II L-series lens are worth the investment. My 14/f2.8 II and my 500/f4 II have stunning sharpness, contrast and almost no distortion. Also, they retain their value well and can be considered investments. Consider buying used, from a trusted seller.</p>

<p>Congrats on the 5D MkIV. That's an incredible body.</p>

<p><em>why you need an f/1.4 lens on the excellent 5D MkIV</em></p>

<p>I don't use Canon but I will comment on this anyway. For full body portraits with environment, f/1.4 allows some separation of the main subject from the environment and gives an air of three-dimensionality to the image. f/2.8 at this magnification (say 3x2m FOV, or more) would not give enough separation in sharpness; almost everything would appear to be more or less in focus. Second reason: In some indoor event locations, I can get motion stopping shutter speeds at f/1.4, ISO 6400, but with an f/2.8 lens there would be some subject movement blur even at ISO 12800. And the f/1.4 looks nice and different from the f/2.8 that millions of people have access to. Nicer tonality, better sharpness (due to shutter speed), better colours, a feeling of 3D (distance from point of focus is graded by the blur) and room to spare. And, you can always shoot at f/2.8 with an f/1.4 lens, if you prefer that for a specific situation.</p>

<p><strong>>>>>>>For the life of me, I don't understand why you need an f/1.4 lens on the excellent 5D MkIV. You can get plenty of sweet bokeh at f/2.8, even f/4.0.<<<<<</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Yes when you are close to the subject ..evan m43 cameras can do a tight head shot and obliterate the background....different story as you get farther away ..FF 50mm F1.4 at 20 feet you get a DOF of just over 4 feet ..stop down to F4 you get almost 13 feet ..the photos can look very different </p>

<p>Ilkka said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Nicer tonality, better sharpness (due to shutter speed), better colours, a feeling of 3D (distance from point of focus is graded by the blur) and room to spare. And, you can always shoot at f/2.8 with an f/1.4 lens, if you prefer that for a specific situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You were on a roll until you rolled these claims out. None of them are true, simply due to f-stop. The subject Sigma fails in all these regards vs. the equivalent Canon. If f-stop were the answer, then it wouldn't matter the make or model, simply look at the f-stop.<br>

<br>

As I said, bokeh-queens and kings will want to compare sample shots with both lenses and make their decision based on what they see. The number and shape of shutter leafs and other factors come into play. It's easiest simply to look at samples. Both will be pretty sorry lenses for indoor sports shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Congrats on the 5D MkIV. That's an incredible body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the congratulations, David, except that I don't have a 5DIV. This is how I concluded my original post:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd be using the lens on my 5DII and 1V bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do, however, have an EF 24-70/2.8 L II, which probably renders getting either of the 35mm primes pointless.</p>

<p>I thought that I saw "IV". Oh well, the 5D MkII is an excellent body also. I've got a 48" print of the Grand Canyon after a snow that I took with my MkII and my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS.</p>

<p>I think that you only need a fast 35mm prime if you're into full body portrait photography and want the special effects mention by several. For most portrait photography, particularly head and shoulders, there are much more versatile choices. I love my EF 70-200mm f/4L IS for portraits.</p>

<p>About the 5D MkIV, it's truly a huge step forward in high-ISO performance, resolution and auto-focus performance. If you're anywhere near considering a body upgrade, it's worth the money. The MkIII was only incrementally better than the MkII, but the MkIV is a big leap forward in every respect. </p>

<p>Thanks for the advice, David. I'd love to get a MkIV, but can't quite swallow the cost right now. I just upgraded my stereo's speakers and power amplifier a few months ago, so the camera body upgrade is going to have to wait.</p>

<p>Mark, I fully understand the tension between being a music lover and photographer. Those are main two hobbies, playing trumpet and listening to music on a high-end system competes mightily with my photography time and budget.</p>

<p>I think both of these lenses are excellent, and I think the Sigma is a better buy, if indeed you must have the f1.4: but you have to be prepared for possible AF issues as there have been conflicting reports on the AF accuracy, whereas with the Canon you can be sure the AF will be as Canon intended. If this is something you can live with, and it may be perfect, then the Sigma is a good one. The Canon is, however, the better performer, but whether you'd notice it I don't know. The Canon is a pretty big lens too and very expensive. Personally, I have the Canon 35/2 IS, which I would take over either the Sigma ART or the Canon f1.4.</p>

<p>Robin's preference of the Canon 35mm f2 IS over the faster more expensive 35mm offerings isn't the first time I've heard (or read) such a comment. It seems the 35mm f2 IS has built up quite a faithful following since it's release.</p>