Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: 35 L II and new tech

  1. #11
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,036
    Brant,

    I have no doubt that people will buy the 35L II. I was just doubting how much better it would be as far as pure resolution is concerned.

    Most digs at the Sigma 35 are primarily at the bokeh and autofocus. I haven't seen anyone really complain about the resolution.

    I'm not in the market for either at the moment, but it's interesting to watch.

    Dave

  2. #12
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    I have a Canon 7DMKII and a Sigma Art 50 1.4 that I like a lot. I'd like to try this new lens, I know that on a crop body it would be more like a 50mm on a full frame. Would it be worth buying for the 7DMKII?
    --

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,333
    My wife recent did a couple portrait shots of our daughter on 7D2. She used the Canon 85mm, and the Sigma 35mm, and she preferred to shots she got from the 35mm. So yes, the 35mm can be a good fit for the 7D2... As for whether you'll find the 35mm too similar to your 50mm, only you can answer.

    As you have no aversion to Sigma, owning the 50mm Art, what's pushing you towards Canon for the 35mm? Focus? Weather Sealing? The red stripe?
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    1DsII | 7D | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 18-135mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L

  4. #14
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    My wife recent did a couple portrait shots of our daughter on 7D2. She used the Canon 85mm, and the Sigma 35mm, and she preferred to shots she got from the 35mm. So yes, the 35mm can be a good fit for the 7D2... As for whether you'll find the 35mm too similar to your 50mm, only you can answer.

    As you have no aversion to Sigma, owning the 50mm Art, what's pushing you towards Canon for the 35mm? Focus? Weather Sealing? The red stripe?
    I'd be lying if I denied the desire for the red stripe but I'm looking for a good build and higher clarity in photos. I'm very happy with my Sigma 50 in terms of quality, focus, etc but I think that the images would be sharper on the Canon 35L 1.4 II.

    When I zoom into a photo taken with the Canon 24-105L, the clarity is there much closer in compared to the Sigma 50 in my opinion. Having a little extra room would be handy as well in the studio.
    --

  5. #15
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin View Post
    Brant,

    I have no doubt that people will buy the 35L II. I was just doubting how much better it would be as far as pure resolution is concerned.

    Most digs at the Sigma 35 are primarily at the bokeh and autofocus. I haven't seen anyone really complain about the resolution.

    I'm not in the market for either at the moment, but it's interesting to watch.

    Dave
    Tests are starting to come in:

  6. #16
    Senior Member Photog82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    321
    Mine arrived today, I thought that I'd buy it, test it out and if I don't like it, send it back or sell it.

    So far, with testing outside with a setting sun shining through trees that provided very nice back lighting I took some photos of my daughter with the Canon EX-RT 600 mounted and they look excellent. I plan to test it out with a newborn session tomorrow night.

    Even at 1.4 the lens so far has been very sharp.

    Edit: Here's a photo of my daughter that just woke up from a nap:


    • ƒ/1.4
    • 35.0 mm
    • 1/2000
    • 250
    • Flash fired
    Last edited by Photog82; 09-24-2015 at 02:28 AM.
    --

  7. #17
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,428
    Congrats on the new glass.

    Good looking OoF blur. I look forward to hearing your impressions.

  8. #18
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,428
    Can't compare it to the Sigma 35A yet, but here it is against the 24-70II.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayaker72 View Post
    Can't compare it to the Sigma 35A yet, but here it is against the 24-70II.
    Really can't tell much in that comparison since the old version of the 35mm was very comparable shot with the same body.

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=0

    I would like to see the Old 35mm on a 5Ds R compared to the new 35mm II on a 5Ds R at F/2.0 or less. The old version was very weak after f/1.8, and the ability to shoot at apertures wider than f/2.0 is what set the it apart.

    For me F/1.4 vs F/1.4 will be the determining factor for upgrade.

    Honestly I have been thinking about selling my 5D II and 35mm and just doing the upgrade. I doubt I would be disappointed.

  10. #20
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,428
    It will be nice once we can make direct comparisons to the Sigma or even the 35 Mk I. But.....I only see a bit of vignetting as the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8. So, if you want the f/1.4-f/2.8 range, it is impressive.

    Of course, the Sigma 35A was similar in this regard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •