Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 35 f1.4 L USM - Test 2 Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

Sigma 30 f1.4 EX DC HSM v. Canon 35 f1.4 L USM - Test 2

Nov 30 2006: Tested here are THE TWO "standard" primes to have (for APS-C bodies) in the Sigma 30 f1.4 and Canon 35 f1.4. [Note: The Sigma in this test was focus-calibrated at Sigma NY about one year ago.]

Take your time viewing these 100% crops (and some resized images); it should go without saying to view at "original" size. Also, I have comments usually embedded within the image OR under the image to better understand what you're seeing. In total, this test took about 12 hours, from start to finish. Some of my frustrations and delays (as I've commented at some of the test images) stemmed from the 35L's misfocusing at or near wide open apertures. These test crops come out of a 20D at default LARGE/FINE-JPEG settings, mostly (if not all) ISO 100, mostly Av (sometimes Manual), carbon fiber tripod, Manfrotto ballhead, best centerpoint AF taken out of 6 for each.

Sigma 30f1.4: $360 USD, 14 oz, 62mm, f1.4 - f16, 16" MFD, 1:10, 7 elements in 7 groups
Canon 35f1.4: $1,115 USD, 21 oz, 72mm, f1.4 - f22, 12" MFD, 1:5.5, 11 elements in 9 groups

Here is my analysis on the Canon 35L (C) and Sigma 30EX (S) after having used various copies of these lenses. "10" being the best, "1" being the worst...
Resolution (center): S10, C9
Resolution (edge): C10, S8
Contrast: TIE
Light Fall-Off: C10, S8
Barrel Distortion: C10, S8
Flare: S10, C7
CA: S10, C8
Build: C10, S9
Handling: S10, C9
AF (noise): C10, S9
AF (speed): C10, S9
AF (lowlight): C10, S9
Bang for Buck: S10, C6

Conclusion: The Sigma is slightly sharper (center of frame) from f1.4 - f2.8, controls flare and CA better, is significantly smaller and lighter, and costs less than 1/3 the price of the L. The Canon has slightly better extreme border sharpness from f1.4 - f2.8, controls barrel distortion and light fall-off better, is a tad quicker with AF, and has a closer MFD (and higher magnification). In terms of build and build-feel, they are comparable (solid metal mounts, no weathersealing for either, both can take some bumps and bruises, but drop either from 6 feet up onto concrete and both will need a service trip, etc.). When you consider ALL the strengths and weaknesses of both lenses, then factor in the price on top of everything, IMO the Sigma remains the one to have for APS-C standard primes. It's very sharp from the start (f1.4), has excellent color reproduction, is small and lightweight, and costs under $400 USD. It's for this reason that the 30 EX gets my recommendation over the L for APS-C photographers.

01	02	03	04
De"L"ight	Bokeh	Flare	Light Fall-Off
Sharpness & Color	Miscellaneous Test Crops	50mm F1.4 Added

post a comment

Jake Bibler		06-May-2008 21:22
First, thanks a lot for taking the time to do these tests and post the results, I know it is time consuming. I too had an opportunity to test these two lenses side-by-side before making a decision on which one to keep. The playing field was evened a bit because my opportunity was to purchase the 35L for the incredibly low price of $700 (used - legit). I mention that because it makes my decision to keep the Sigma even more notable. I posted full resolution files of varying apertures from these to lenses in my gallery. They can be viewed at the link below for those interested: http://www.pbase.com/jakebibler/30v35test

lightrules		29-Nov-2007 05:15
Thanks for the comments Andrey and welcome. Interesting first name...Irish?? Philipino?? Regardless, welcome. I'll keep your input in mind for the future. Enjoy your photography...

Andrey Manullang		29-Nov-2007 04:13
Jojo, ur site is great for newbie photographers like me. and looking at this particular review, i'm very pleased at the sample shots taken of the lens... for some pages show shots off ur Canon Powershots. hehe. i was hoping you could make more shots like these and in addition putting the lens on one of ur Canon bodies (like what you did on ur Canon 28mm review) for readers to visualize how porportional the lens might look compared to the body. =) ps. i really enjoy reading all ur replies... it makes this site even more friendlier to read. thanks.

lightrules		22-Nov-2007 16:28
Sancho, I will simply say I do my best to show what I find, then comment on my use of the respective lenses, whichever they are. As for the handling, I rate the Sigma slightly ahead because it is smaller, lighter, yet with still a solid-feel. That is the primary reason I give it a nod over the L in handling. But both handle nicely. And to be fair to me, at the very least, take the time to look over most/all of the tests before making this kind of judgment.

Sancho		22-Nov-2007 08:40
An interesting test that only proves your bias in Sigma 30. My point is how u rate Sigma handling 10 whilist Canon 9? Can you explain? As a suggestion next time you can stay neutral by letting the viewer vote themselves. I am sorry I dint see all your test picture because if I myself is bias towards a certain lens, its very easy to show a better comparison to that lens. I rest my case.

Amin Sabet		28-Dec-2006 18:12
To an extent, I need to eat my words regarding lens coma on the Sigma. I just saw this thread - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=21435477 - on DPR that shows similar lens coma on the 50/1.2L. According to the comments in the aforelinked thread, the 35Lalso suffers from this type of lens coma. I guess I should give Sigma back some of their props as this design flaw must be awfully hard to correct, to be present on such an expensive lens as the 50/1.2L!

lightrules		27-Dec-2006 01:50
Amin, thanks for the comments. As for the border performance, IMO there really isn't a "significant" difference, even though the L is better (see http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/71016684/original ). Certainly on 4x6, 5x7, or even 8x10, you're just not going to notice any difference. At the pixel-level yes, on most-sized prints, no. As for barrel distortion, you are right I don't have tests of that and I would say that the L is better here since the 28f1.8 is better than the EX as well in this regard. So by transitive property, both the L and EF are better than the EX in barrel distortion performance, even though I haven't "tested" this particular area vis-a-vis the EX and L. Also, the EX can render "triangular" out of focus highlights in specific backgrounds and lighting, something the L doesn't produce. But in most bokeh captures, the EX delivers pleasing bokeh and in this sense very similar to the L. In those cases where triangular bokeh occurs with the EX, I suppose it's up to each photographer to decide whether he/she likes it or not. I've heard some say they actually like it a lot. As for me, I don't really care for it, but it's not something that I really see on a consistent basis. Merry Christmas to you and happy new year as well.

Amin Sabet		27-Dec-2006 01:16
As is the case with all your lens tests, this one has been carefully and thoroughly done/presented, and I appreciate the information you give. Based on your tests, I bought another - this time used and already calibrated by Sigma - Sigma 30 EX. I can't say that I totally agree with your conclusions of the Sigma vs 35L comparison though. Border performance is something you seem to downplay, but compared to how marginal the Sigma advantage is in the center (if it truly even has the advantage there on most copies of the Sigma vs most copies of the L), the clear advantage of the L in the borders (not just extreme borders) seems more significant. Also, to present the least biased comparison, I think it's worth showing a distortion comparison (L has much less) and comparing images in settings where the Sigma suffers from lens coma (illustrated and discussed nicely here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14213263&q=sigma+bokeh&qf=s ), which can create some truly ugly bokeh. Given these two issues plus the L build and USM, I still think the L is unmatched, even for APS-C. However, given the price, size, and weight of the L, I am going to stick with either the Sigma 30 or the Canon 28/1.8. As for which one, I continue to deliberate. Thank you again for sharing your extremely helpful lens tests (even though I called them dangerous ;^>). A belated Merry Christmas, and best wishes for the new year! Amin

James		18-Dec-2006 20:42
how can a sigma (about $350) win against canon L PRIME LENS with the price about 3 times. i think it was nearly impossible for sigma to outperform canon. if in this test sigma can outperform canon, i think maybe you swap the picture (canon for sigma and sigma for canon). i ever had twice this sigma lens 30 f1.4, and both returned. i think in any aspects sigma lens would not perform canon. especially L series that build from ground base on high engineered and high quality glass. and for MANY sigma lenses quality issue, i wonder, how can they throw they lenses out of production if there an quality issue with there lenses. is there any quality inspection department in sigma??? as long as i know in photography, sigma is the worst build lenses maker for the quality issue, it was, in almost of all its products. i not trying to downing the sigma, i, myself use sigma 70-200 F2.8, it was a very good lens. what i'm trying to say here is sigma should consider to reform their quality inspection department.

lightrules		12-Dec-2006 03:57
Hi Michael, thanks for the comments. It's hard to make any definitive statement about this particular Sigma EX's QC and AF issue. While I realize there are misfocusing 30's (just as there are many other lenses), I've never believed the problem was "pandemic", lest Sigma have some major recall that we would all know about. The 30 seems to continue to sell well; online stores have them here in the US readily available. I can, I suppose, only give my take with my experience with my particular copy: misfocused at first, sent to Sigma NY for adjustment, and returned to me perfectly good. But your point is well-taken; enjoy the light in beautiful Spain.

Michael Bolognesi		12-Dec-2006 01:22
Interesting test as always. But the true problem is to get hold a good copy of the Sigma. The quality problem of the Sigma lens have been overwhelming at least here in Europe and cast a big shadow over it.. Ive talked to pro stores which have had return rates at 60-70% and thats totally unacceptable in my opinion. Most "honest" retailers highly advise their costumers to NOT buy the Sigma because of that and i really think that should be taken into consideration before recommending that lens. Theres no doubt that when you get hold of a good copy its a stunning lens and i would love to own one. But where i live (Canary Islands, Spain), theres no such thing as a place were we can get a lens calibrated (not even a Canon lens for that matter ) so that leaves me a headache that seems impossible resolve.

lightrules		05-Dec-2006 23:38
Tom, I've seen those tests of the new 70 EX DG Macro. Its MTF performance looks right there with the other Sigma macros, and in terms of build and AF, it's basically a slightly larger TWIN of the 50 EX DG Macro. I think for all intents and purposes, it's a 50mm macro with an added 20mm and some weight and size. I personally have no interest in it as my 50 and 150 are really good. Now, if they had put IF and HSM into it, that would be something else. I'm sure it's quite good though.

Tom Yi		05-Dec-2006 23:19
According to Sigma and Popular Photography, Sigma's new 70mm f2.8 macro is suppose to be the optically the best lens that Sigma currently makes, so you may want to keep an eye out for that lens as well.

lightrules		02-Dec-2006 16:53
Hi Chris, thanks for the comments. I truly believe, as with much objectivity as possible, that the 30f1.4 is one of Sigma's very best. It really is a special lens they've made at a tremendous price-point. I can't recommend it highly enough to APS-C photographers. And while there is the reality of misfocusing copies, it's an issue that can be remedied and is easily worth the service trip. Best wishes to you in Switzerland; I traveled to Interlaken in 2001 and it was one of the most beautiful places I've been to in my life.

CUENNET Christian		02-Dec-2006 16:28
Hi, still an interesting super test of LightRules! and still a test which confirms the astonishing quality of our small 30mm/1.4 EX... Thank you for these all these infos and your work, cordially... Chris for Switzerland

lightrules		02-Dec-2006 03:33
Hi Mike, good to see you around. As for the results, it's really not about L fans and 3rd party fans (there are plenty to go around), but I simply do my best to be as fair and balanced and accurate in my testing as I can. If the L is stronger in one area and the EX in another, so be it. This site gets about 5,400 hits per day on the average, and many from international folks who don't have access to these lenses as easily as we do here in the states. Visitors range from newbies to working pros, whether PJ's or wedding photogs, even some landscapers. I do countless more correspondence with these good folks over email than posting comments at this site, and I know what they're looking for. Most of them don't care for "L" or having the best "EX" glass; they want the best lens they can get for their format and their shooting, whatever the glass may be. They want to make an informed decision and not just buy what's popular or most expensive. So I do these tests as carefully as I can, post what I find, and let the results stand and contribute to the overall online community's assessment of a given lens. Thanks for visiting my friend.

Mr. Clean		01-Dec-2006 22:47
Nice jojo! Great test...Something for the L fans to chew on. For the price you CAN'T beat this lens! Heck, even if you have to send it back for calibration, it still can't be beat! My used copy has treated me very very well. I used to grab my 24-70EX each time, but the 30 is quickly becoming the work horse. No one is going to believe you on the mis-focus piece though... Thanks again!

Tom Yi		01-Dec-2006 03:08
Ha ha, yeah, I like to check this site often just for fun. Often you can review an old test and pick up something new everytime. I think test after test is showing how good the Sigma 30mm f1.4DC is. I decided to go with the Sigma 28mm f1.8 mainly b/c of the price (it's an occassional lens for me). I think the 30mm Sig is sharper, but with a min. focus dist of 7.9inch and a mag. of 1:2.9, this lens is very useful while walking around. This weekend, I'm actually testing my Sigma 28mm f1.8 with a buddies 30mm f1.4 so I can see how much difference there is. I expect the 30mm to be noticably sharper, but talk is cheap and pictures are really worth a thousand words (or a thousand forum posts, ha ha)

lightrules		01-Dec-2006 01:43
You're quick, Tom. I'm still uploading results as I type this. Anyway, you're basically right -- these are 2 very similar performing lenses on APS-C. To say I'm pleased with the Siggie would be the understatement of my website.

Tom Yi		01-Dec-2006 01:36
You know, other than the increased CA on the Canon, I don't think there would be much difference, if any, taking into account post processing. Interesting, considering that currently Sigma sells for about $360 and the Canon for about $1100.

click on thumbnails for full image