Canon 35mm f1.4 or sigma 30mm f1.4

[hellfire241]

Hi there.. i'm looking to purchase either on of these lenses as my second prime. I used to own a 50mm f1.4 but found it a bit too long a focal length on a crop body - hence sold it off. Looking to get another prime to replace it. My set up is as follows:

7d
10-22mm canon
24-70mm canon

I am not sure if there is another thread similar to this and i'm being as ass reposting but i would like some honest opinions on which on i should get. If neither please feel free to recommend me another lens. Lens will be mainly used for street photography and as it stands i do not think i will be upgrading to FF anytime soon - not in the next year at least (i think)

Cheers and have a nice day!

 

[crystal1993]

Wow, nobody ever compare this 2 lenses due to the price difference. You do know that the 35mm is an L lens right?
Normally people only compare the sigma to the canon 28mm f1.8. :dunno:

 

[cookiestar84]

Well hellfire241,

i was struggling with this decisions some time back ago.
In the end, i just end up getting the canon 35mm 1.4.
No turning back after that.

For your consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClgWpU4FgZc

and you can view the pics taken by joining the flickr canon 35mm f1.4 group.
you can view their pics and discussions at the same time to decide.

Of coz budget is another vast area you might consider.
Thanks.

 

[eleveninth]

Just buy what u can afford

 

[Kenneth67C]

Between these 2: just get the 35L.

 

[KY1977]

How about the 24L? Since you prefer wider plus its uses the common 77mm filter.

 

[sinned79]

if u had the intention to go FF in future, just get 35L now. If you have no intention at all , 30mm sigma will be a cheaper choice (quality speaks too).

 

[spinworkxroy]

You already have the 10-22 and 24-70..both great Canon Lense…why break the streak? Just get the 35L..it "matches" you current setup
This Sigma is much cheaper and it's good no doubt but if give the budget, i too would've gotten the 35L instead But that cost almost 4x the price considering the Sigma can be bought for $492 in SG…that's what made me get the Sigma over the L...

 

[rocketatw]

i have both Canon 35 F1.4L and Sig 30 f1.4, but eventually sold my Canon 35L F1.4 .

The reason is because the Sigma 30 f1.4 has better CA, i took a test and found that the Canon 35L CA is obvious when shooting at bright objects, especially near the light, lamp etc. The Sigma has better CA.

Built quality both about the same, Sigma is sharper at F1.4 compare to Canon 35L, but lost out on the corner. This corner softness is not important for me as normally when we shoot at big aperture, the corners wil definitelly be blur out (bokeh), hence not noticeable.

Another reason i dump the L lens as i expect a L lens to be weather sealed which this 35L does not have.

Hence when everything is take into consideration, i keep the Sigma for better CA performance, sharper at F1.4 and 4 times cheaper.

 

[sinned79]

i have both Canon 35 F1.4L and Sig 30 f1.4, but eventually sold my Canon 35L F1.4 .

The reason is because the Sigma 30 f1.4 has better CA, i took a test and found that the Canon 35L CA is obvious when shooting at bright objects, especially near the light, lamp etc. The Sigma has better CA.

Built quality both about the same, Sigma is sharper at F1.4 compare to Canon 35L, but lost out on the corner. This corner softness is not important for me as normally when we shoot at big aperture, the corners wil definitelly be blur out (bokeh), hence not noticeable.

Another reason i dump the L lens as i expect a L lens to be weather sealed which this 35L does not have.

Hence when everything is take into consideration, i keep the Sigma for better CA performance, sharper at F1.4 and 4 times cheaper.

not all L lens are weather sealed. u are probably mistaken about this fact.

in fact 85L MKII aren't weather seal too.

u can go for a wider option of 24L MKII, it is weather sealed and cost a K more then 35L.

for me sigma 30mm is not even in my consideration cos it cannot be used on FF. But I will still recommend this lens to crop users.

 

[rocketatw]

not all L lens are weather sealed. u are probably mistaken about this fact.

in fact 85L MKII aren't weather seal too.

u can go for a wider option of 24L MKII, it is weather sealed and cost a K more then 35L.

for me sigma 30mm is not even in my consideration cos it cannot be used on FF. But I will still recommend this lens to crop users.

haha, of course i know some L lens are not weather sealed. My point was actually trying to bring the weather sealed into another buying consideration comparing this 2 lenses. If the Canon 35L is weather sealed, it will be a plus point since it is 4x more expensive than the Sigma 30mm F1.4 .

I am on crop hence i choose the Sigma 30mm F1.4, and agree that if FF then have no choice but to chose the 35L F1.4 .

 

[Joshua7D]

I've had both.
Just get the SIgma 30 1.4 . The 35L 1.4 has a bit better contrast but the difference in price is huge.
The SIgma 30mm is also wider , so its more general purpose. Both of them aren't weather sealed too.


If you have enough money to consider the 35L then get the 24L mk 2 instead!
Its weather sealed and wider and more versatile than the sigma 30 1.4 but of course its much more expensive.


one more thing to consider though,

A Sigma 30 1.4 and 85 1.4 costs much less than the L primes
You can even squeeze in a 50 1.4 sigma.

 

[SumoBear]

You already have the 10-22 and 24-70..both great Canon Lense…why break the streak? Just get the 35L..it "matches" you current setup
This Sigma is much cheaper and it's good no doubt but if give the budget, i too would've gotten the 35L instead But that cost almost 4x the price considering the Sigma can be bought for $492 in SG…that's what made me get the Sigma over the L...

$492 brand new? From where?

 

[gundamseed84]

Since you are on crop get the sigma and you can save lots of money. Canon's 35L cost much more because it has more glass for FF. Again, are you going to bash through jungles or go under thunderstorm? If not then weather sealing is not too crucial.

I am a happy user of 35L on crop though but again that's because I have the intention to change to FF in the future (not sure when). To me sharpness is not everything, but other factors like retain colour and contrast are important too.

 

[implusive]

Having owned the Sigma 30mm on my 7D before i really regretted selling it as its great for street and the 1.4 gives you beautiful bokeh! AF is pretty fast but i found the images are soft at 1.4 but stop it down to 1.8 or more its nice and sharp (Or maybe it was my copy). Only issues i had was finding a good copy without FF/BF but you can always address those issues at APDS. Calibration is free of charge if you purchase a local set but chargeable if you purchase from places like DDE which sells it much cheaper. Purchase a local set and you get a sweet 2.5 year warranty. I tried the 35L at the shop went back and viewed it on my pc and found it rather sharp at 1.4 . Smooth creamy bokeh and the colors it produces is amazing. Head down to the shops try both lens go back view them on your pc and decide. Me I will take the Siggy back anytime.

 

[MrLens]

Never have doubt with Canon 35mm f1.4 L

​

 

[hellfire241]

I know that it may seem ridiculous to compare the 2 given the price difference but the concern is, is the canon really 3 times better since it IS 3 times more expensive. At the moment i am more inclined towards getting the sigma and i can also get a 580ex2 flash to try out new things. As for the price i think i can do with the price of a 35mmL on the B&S mkt. And as i said i do not think i will be upgrading to FF and taking it slow.. trying to get 'good' (or decent in my books at least) one thing at a time. FF is just a tad bit over my budget. Any opinions if i were to get a 70-200 f4 IS instead?

 

[ongmy]

seems to me like you've already had your mind made up before you started this thread. You can never justify by looking at the cost...it's what you make of the lens. just my 2 cents.

 

[sinned79]

I know that it may seem ridiculous to compare the 2 given the price difference but the concern is, is the canon really 3 times better since it IS 3 times more expensive. At the moment i am more inclined towards getting the sigma and i can also get a 580ex2 flash to try out new things. As for the price i think i can do with the price of a 35mmL on the B&S mkt. And as i said i do not think i will be upgrading to FF and taking it slow.. trying to get 'good' (or decent in my books at least) one thing at a time. FF is just a tad bit over my budget. Any opinions if i were to get a 70-200 f4 IS instead?

it's worth to get the lens right, right in the first place. For bodies u can upgrade and upgrade, but lens u dun need to. Do you know that 35L there is no MKII till now? Cos its so good till there is no room for improvement yet (at least Canon thinks so)! For more then 10 over years since it was first launched! It is one of the oldest lens that have since released a MKII version.

since u got intention to go FF, why get sigma? by selling then buying back 35L, u are losing more isn't it? And why can't you practise now using 35L?

Lens wun deteriorate, u can use it for 10 years and it's still good unless u abuse it. Resale value also higher if u decide to sell everything and give up photography later.

 

[spawnx]

just a correction to what some have said... the Sigma 30mm CAN be used on FF and 1.3x crop, you just get vignetting which is quite artistically pleasing, or otherwise you can PP or crop those portions off.