Canon 35mm F14 L Usm Ef Mount Lens Vs Sigma 35mm F14 Dg Hsm a Art Lens for Canon Ef Mount

Go back to 2012: Sigma announced a brand new 35mm lens that would aid to launch the company's new Global Vision program. That Sigma 35mm f1.4 Fine art lens would proceed to win award subsequently laurels after award and make Catechism's then aging 35mm f1.4 L look seriously antiquated. Since then, Canon has had iii years to respond; only in truth they had almost 20 years to put out a new version.

Earlier this year, we got that response. The company put out their 35mm f1.4 L Ii: an update to the previous lens that includes new optical coatings, weather sealing, and a new outside.

But how practice the two stand up next to each other?

Tech Specs

Specs for the Canon 35mm f1.four L 2 taken from B&H Photo for $one,799

Performance
Focal Length	35mm
Aperture	Maximum: f/1.iv Minimum: f/22
Camera Mount Blazon	Canon EF
Format Compatibility	35mm Movie / Full-Frame Digital Sensor
Bending of View	63°
Minimum Focus Distance	11.02″ (28 cm)
Magnification	0.21x
Elements/Groups	14/eleven
Diaphragm Blades	nine, Rounded

Features
Autofocus	Yeah

Concrete
Filter Thread	Forepart: 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL)	Approx. 3.17 10 4.15″ (lxxx.four x 105.v mm)
Weight	1.67 lb (760 yard)

Packaging Info
Package Weight	2.45 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)	8.1 x 5.4 x 5.4″

Specs for the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art lens taken from the B&H Photograph list for $899

Performance
Focal Length	35mm
Discontinuity	Maximum: f/1.4 Minimum: f/xvi
Photographic camera Mountain Type	Canon EF
Format Compatibility	35mm Film / Full-Frame Digital Sensor DSLR (APS-C Sensor)
Angle of View	63.4°
Minimum Focus Distance	11.81″ (30.00 cm)
Maximum Reproduction Ratio	one:5
Elements/Groups	13/xi
Diaphragm Blades	9

Features
Image Stabilization	No
Autofocus	Yes

Physical
Filter Thread	Forepart:67 mm
Dimensions (DxL)	Approx. 3.03 10 3.lxx″ (seven.70 x ix.40 cm)
Weight	23.46 oz (665 g)

Packaging Info
Package Weight	ii.1 lb
Box Dimensions (LxWxH)	five.7 10 4.9 x iv.seven″

Ergonomics

The Sigma 35mm f1.4 Fine art and the Canon 35mm f1.4 L II take similar bodies. They're characterized by the forepart element, then the massive focusing ring, and so the distance scale and a single AF/MF switch on the left. Both focusing rings are fabricated of rubber and for the most function, many folks wouldn't be able to tell them apart with the exception of i big gene.

The Sigma 35mm f1.4 trunk has very smoothen, brushed metal. Information technology's gorgeous and feels smashing in the hand. On the Canon is a plastic exterior with a textured surface to give you better grip. In practical use though, neither surface is grippy enough to prevent the lens from falling out of your hand by blow. Y'all'll really demand to grip onto the condom ring to exercise that.

Build Quality

Both lenses have a very good build quality; only in their own dissimilar ways. The Canon lens, pictures above has weather sealing non only on the mountain in a black rubber ring merely also internally. To complete it, Canon states yous can add together a UV filter.

Sigma on the other mitt has no atmospheric condition sealing; but has a metal body. That can actually hateful one affair or another. While metallic has a better endurance to impact damage than plastic does, a dented lens is still a lens that won't function correctly over a cracked lens exterior.

To that end though, if yous take a bat to a lens either way, information technology'south going to be damaged.

Autofocus

Shot with the Catechism 35mm f1.4 L II

Surprisingly, both lenses focus just a quickly with the Catechism 6D and as well just equally accurately. Further, they'll have the same occasional issues with the outer focusing points. This is part of the quality control that the Global Vision program enables–lenses that focus merely as quick and accurate as Catechism'southward.

Paradigm Quality

For this test, the typical setup for lens tests was done. The Catechism 6D was mounted on a tripod and didn't motility at all during the process. The exposure for the images was ISO 100, one/50th and the aperture was the variable. To present fifty-fifty lighting and colors through the test, the white balance was set to Daylight and the Phottix Laso trigger was used with the Canon 580 EX II and the 430 EX II with the trigger set to TTL.

The images were shot at f1.4, f2.8 and f4 for each lens and the TTL flash output changed the corporeality of light that needed to exist delivered accordingly. So the images were brought into Adobe Lightroom, given the aforementioned sync settings and exported.

f1.four

Sigma f1.iv

Canon f1.4

f2.8

Sigma f2.eight

Canon f2.eight

f4

Sigma f4

Catechism f4

Comparisons

From this very quick test, here'southward what I can conclude.

• Sigma'south 35mm f1.iv is ever then slightly sharper
• Both lenses have nearly identical bokeh. This is a modify from the original L lens which I believe had ameliorate bokeh. When put against the f2 IS version, this all becomes even more interesting.
• Sigma'southward colour rendition is slightly more saturated. This is axiomatic too with skin tones. The portrait sample shown earlier from the 35mm f1.4 L II shows impeccable peel tones and Sigma often tends to oversaturate these colors. Only to be off-white, that'south Sigma's token image quality and lots of films (including me) love that.
• If yous were going into a tough atmospheric condition situation, y'all'll probably want to bring the Canon lens with yous.
• Both accept the aforementioned focusing performance.
• For nearly twice the toll, you're paying for weather condition sealing and a Blue Refractive chemical element in the Canon lens. However, we all know that these problems are very easily fixed with mail-production.

moorepura1937.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/12/04/comparison-canon-35mm-f1-4-l-ii-vs-sigma-35mm-f1-4-art/

Share this post