So i will probably rent one or the other for my upcoming shoot, but in the long run I would like to buy to have permanently... obviously the Sigma is much cheaper, but is lacking in glass quality and stabilzation... just curious if it is still worth the extra money (we are talking $400 vs. $1200 or so- is the Canon that much better)?
Sigma 30mm 1.4 vs. L Series Canon 35mm 1.4
- Thread starter jrod81
- Start date
ydgmdlu
Veteran
You know, the Canon lens doesn't have stabilization either. So now you have one less reason to think about it.
Keep in mind that this is only one lens, and (from what I can remember) you're just a poor grad student... Can you really afford to obsess over the image quality? It's like Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/Olympus versus Leica, seriously...
Keep in mind that this is only one lens, and (from what I can remember) you're just a poor grad student... Can you really afford to obsess over the image quality? It's like Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Pentax/Olympus versus Leica, seriously...
ydgmdlu
Veteran
What about the buyer's remorse of spending so much, with such an otherwise limited budget, on something that you might have to strain to see a difference in quality? How do you know that after spending so much, you won't be simply trying to convince yourself that it was worth all of the extra money? The lens is $1400 at B&H. You might be able to find it for slightly cheaper used, but the same applies to the Sigma. This is for one prime lens. What about the remorse of not being able to afford other stuff after spending all of that extra on one prime lens? ($1400 is not much less than what I spent on my entire bag of nine great, fast lenses.) If you had said that money was no object, then I'd say go for it, absolutely. If you can afford the best, then get the best.
Heck, what about the buyer's remorse of not spending an extra $1000 on the 5D, which gets you a better image (as most everyone agrees) and immediate access to Magic Lantern, without compromising on 24p (after the update next year)? Or how about $3300 more for the 1D Mark IV? What about the expensive Zacuto gear over the Redrock, Cinevate, and gini options? What about the high-end tripods and heads made by the likes of Sachtler, Miller, Cartoni, Vinten, etc., about which everyone raves like they're must-haves, but all cost $1000+? And if we're just talking about lenses, what about Zeiss or Leica for superior image quality?
Do you see anyone here saying that the Sigma is crap, not worth the $300-400? On the contrary, there's nothing but praise. Sure, it might not be as good as the Canon. But it's also not as good as a Leica or a true cinema lens, and neither is the Canon. And the 7D is not as good as the 5D or the 1D. And you're just talking about one part of the equation. There's all that other gear that you'll need. Aren't you worried about that stuff, too?
The point is that as long as you're sure that you're getting a great value, then you won't have buyer's remorse. Trust me. There will always be a better, far more expense option out there. So in the end, the reality is that absolute quality won't matter to you as much as relative quality. To someone for whom money is no object, the Canon only has to be a little bit better than the Sigma to be worth the price. For someone on a tight budget, such as yourself, it really needs to be two or three times better, as the price would indicate. In other words, it has to be really night and day; it has to make the Sigma look like crap by comparison. But even more than that, it has to be so good that you're willing to give up spending on other gear just for the improved image quality on one lens.
So why are you worrying about this now, before you've even tested the two? And, you know, if you're unhappy with whatever you get, you can easily flip it very quickly with fairly minimal loss.
Heck, what about the buyer's remorse of not spending an extra $1000 on the 5D, which gets you a better image (as most everyone agrees) and immediate access to Magic Lantern, without compromising on 24p (after the update next year)? Or how about $3300 more for the 1D Mark IV? What about the expensive Zacuto gear over the Redrock, Cinevate, and gini options? What about the high-end tripods and heads made by the likes of Sachtler, Miller, Cartoni, Vinten, etc., about which everyone raves like they're must-haves, but all cost $1000+? And if we're just talking about lenses, what about Zeiss or Leica for superior image quality?
Do you see anyone here saying that the Sigma is crap, not worth the $300-400? On the contrary, there's nothing but praise. Sure, it might not be as good as the Canon. But it's also not as good as a Leica or a true cinema lens, and neither is the Canon. And the 7D is not as good as the 5D or the 1D. And you're just talking about one part of the equation. There's all that other gear that you'll need. Aren't you worried about that stuff, too?
The point is that as long as you're sure that you're getting a great value, then you won't have buyer's remorse. Trust me. There will always be a better, far more expense option out there. So in the end, the reality is that absolute quality won't matter to you as much as relative quality. To someone for whom money is no object, the Canon only has to be a little bit better than the Sigma to be worth the price. For someone on a tight budget, such as yourself, it really needs to be two or three times better, as the price would indicate. In other words, it has to be really night and day; it has to make the Sigma look like crap by comparison. But even more than that, it has to be so good that you're willing to give up spending on other gear just for the improved image quality on one lens.
So why are you worrying about this now, before you've even tested the two? And, you know, if you're unhappy with whatever you get, you can easily flip it very quickly with fairly minimal loss.
Last edited:
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I've had the Sigma 30/1.4 and sold it. I have the Canon 35/1.4 and will keep it.
The Canon 35 has a better focusring and is better constructed. And it has better border performance.
I would recommend buying it used. All my Canon lenses expect one I bought used in great to mint condition.
The Canon 35 has a better focusring and is better constructed. And it has better border performance.
I would recommend buying it used. All my Canon lenses expect one I bought used in great to mint condition.
natxbrotha
Well-known member
You can google canon 35mm f1.4 vs sigma 30mm f1.4 and find some different comparisons to look at.
I went through this same battle about a year ago when I got my 5D Mark II... I chose to buy nikon adapters for all of my nikon lenses instead and I am completely satisfied with the results they provide.
If you are on a budget, you might want to consider a zoom and a prime (like a 50mm f1.4) so you cover a good range and have a fast prime. BUT, this is all really dependent on what you are shooting (narratives, music videos, documentaries, weddings, web output, etc...). Different lenses can provide different benefits for different types of shoots. I am also trying to not to break the bank on equipment, except for the stuff that I really need as the task at hand needs it.
I say go with the sigma (or a 50mm)... unless you are shooting in a climate with insane weather conditions where you would need the sealing properties of the canon L series lenses.
I went through this same battle about a year ago when I got my 5D Mark II... I chose to buy nikon adapters for all of my nikon lenses instead and I am completely satisfied with the results they provide.
If you are on a budget, you might want to consider a zoom and a prime (like a 50mm f1.4) so you cover a good range and have a fast prime. BUT, this is all really dependent on what you are shooting (narratives, music videos, documentaries, weddings, web output, etc...). Different lenses can provide different benefits for different types of shoots. I am also trying to not to break the bank on equipment, except for the stuff that I really need as the task at hand needs it.
I say go with the sigma (or a 50mm)... unless you are shooting in a climate with insane weather conditions where you would need the sealing properties of the canon L series lenses.
johnhafner
Active member
I have the sigma 1.4. It's a great lens with AMAZING bokeh, great contrast and color rendition. Maybe not quite as good as Canon L but pretty close.
tracporter
Active member
sigma 30mm f1.4
sigma 30mm f1.4
I recently shot a music video with the sigma lens and thought it was extremely sharp and cant see any reason why I would spend an addtional $1000 for a canon. I have the video posted under "corrected aspect ratio". I think it is a great lense especially if you open it all the way up with ND filter.
sigma 30mm f1.4
I recently shot a music video with the sigma lens and thought it was extremely sharp and cant see any reason why I would spend an addtional $1000 for a canon. I have the video posted under "corrected aspect ratio". I think it is a great lense especially if you open it all the way up with ND filter.
I don't have enough experience with L lenses to say if they're worth it or not, but if I were to spend that much on a lens, I would seriously consider getting something like the canon 50mm f/1.0. They're discontinued but I think you can find them if you look for them for under 2 grand. Outside of a noctilux (which are a lot more expensive) you won't really be able to find a faster lens. I got to use one for a couple of days and it was pretty amazing.
I have some footage of it- this doesn't really show off its shallow dof or bokeh, but I picked it because it had an interesting subject matter at least. I probably had the ISO a little high though. I have some footage of trees or still life that probably show it off more but whatever. you may also want to pop a dramamine first:
I have some footage of it- this doesn't really show off its shallow dof or bokeh, but I picked it because it had an interesting subject matter at least. I probably had the ISO a little high though. I have some footage of trees or still life that probably show it off more but whatever. you may also want to pop a dramamine first: