Sigma 35mm f1.4....?!!

Actually this thread has reminded me that I was underwhelmed with the 35L when I rented it over last Christmas. Realistically I'll be looking at other purchases before I replace my 35 f2, especially considering how much use it gets. I'll just keep putting money away towards a 5D3.
 
That's the RRP, while I imagine some will stick to that price, others like Microglobe hopefully do not!
 
it'll be competing with the Canon 35 f/2.0 IS at that price point, though tbh I reckon it's the Canon that will have to drop its prices to get sales, rather than the Sigma
 
Yeh I hope so.. I currently have the sigma 30 1.4 and as much as I love it the slow focus is becoming a bit of a hassle so was going to have a look at this but I'm not entirely sure even at £600 it will be worth the change... maybe wait for some reviews :D
 
My review :p

if It's 600 on release I'll get it - If it's more though I'll wait until it's 600.
 
Well we all know you are the trend setter around these parts :p Its bursary time in January which will happily pay for this orr the sigma 50mm 1.4... see what the next few months bring!
 
Ksanti said:
If it's at the £800, this or a second hand 35L?
Click to expand...

The 35L is over-hyped, a nice lens for sure but not legendary. It is conceivable that this sigma has faster AF, sharper (especially into the corners), and could have equal or better Bokeh.

In which case the Sigma is a clear choice (much like it is with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 against the Canon version).

The downside to buying a new Sigma is higher depreciation, especially against a second hand Canon L.


On the Nikon side it is more likely to be a choice of price, I expect the Sigma to be quite close to the Nikon version, like at the 85mm f/1.4 lenses. Saying that the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is definitely better and cheaper than the Sigma...
 
Do we know that the Sigma will be faster? Sure, they have a history of faster, if slightly more inaccurate, autofocus, but that's no guarantee?
 
D.P. said:
The 35L is over-hyped, a nice lens for sure but not legendary. It is conceivable that this sigma has faster AF, sharper (especially into the corners), and could have equal or better Bokeh.

In which case the Sigma is a clear choice (much like it is with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 against the Canon version).
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but it is all pure speculation this moment in time.

It is conceivable that it is worse, we just don't know yet.

But for £800, released 10 years after the Canon, it SHOULD be better.

I say wait until it is out, then decide.

------------------

Personally I would get the Canon the price of £800 is street price (it won't be), vs Second hand 35L. Performance wise won't be that different even if the Sigma is better. Then there is the depreciation value. When the Sigma street price drops from the £800, the secondhand price falls drastically with it. Then you have the CPS program if you qualify, 3 day turn around for me to fix my lens. Got it back the same week, can't fault the support you get with Canon gear (should you qualify).

I thought about the Sigma 85/1.4 too, I know it is a good performer but I wanted that 1.2, but losing that focus speed.
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
Do we know that the Sigma will be faster? Sure, they have a history of faster, if slightly more inaccurate, autofocus, but that's no guarantee?
Click to expand...

Inaccurate AF seems to be thrown around quite a bit these days. this is down to the body in most cases anyway. The Sigma 50 1.4 gave a lower AF hit ratio on the 40D than it did on the 5D3, servo and one shot AF are almost always accurate with it on the 5D3. Considering mine needed no micro adjustment as well (same applies to the 85) and IMO the Sigmas of this class fall into their own unique bracket.

I don't think depreciation is a huge deal considering lenses like this will likely never leave ones ownership once they've settled into the full frame land :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
Correct me if I am wrong but it is all pure speculation this moment in time.

It is conceivable that it is worse, we just don't know yet.

But for £800, released 10 years after the Canon, it SHOULD be better.

I say wait until it is out, then decide.

------------------

Personally I would get the Canon the price of £800 is street price (it won't be), vs Second hand 35L. Performance wise won't be that different even if the Sigma is better. Then there is the depreciation value. When the Sigma street price drops from the £800, the secondhand price falls drastically with it. Then you have the CPS program if you qualify, 3 day turn around for me to fix my lens. Got it back the same week, can't fault the support you get with Canon gear (should you qualify).

I thought about the Sigma 85/1.4 too, I know it is a good performer but I wanted that 1.2, but losing that focus speed.
Click to expand...

You note I said "In which case",meaning that if the premise holds then the rest of the statement holds IMO. If the Sigma is worse than the canon then clearly the canon would be a better choice. I never said the contrary. All I have said is that if the Sigma is better then it is the best choice, .

My reasoning for the sigma being potentially better than the old canon 35 L is based on the quality of the modern sigma primes and the quality of the current cannon. The new canon 35 L replacement that has been heavily rumored is a different question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom