Do Canon and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lenses transmit different amounts of light at the same aperture?
Asked 2/17/2013
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m choosing a fast 35mm lens for low-light reportage on a Canon 5D Mark III. I’m considering the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Since both are rated f/1.4, should I expect them to transmit the same amount of light in practice, or can lens design and coatings make one noticeably brighter than the other? I’m mainly concerned with low-light performance and whether there are any practical reasons to choose one over the other.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
6
I'm in the process of choosing a 35mm myself, and I think I'm leaning towards the Sigma (need to look into how the Bokeh looks on both the Sigma and Canon).
If you look at Roger's take over at Lensrentals it's clear that they think the Sigma is the superior lens. The Digital Picture also seems to have a liking for the Sigma, so does dpreview.com, it seems that most agree that the Sigma is superior. If you look at when they were released (2012 for the Sigma and 1998 for the Canon), I'm not too surprised that the Sigma is better.
You might want to consider the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens as an option if you're mainly concerned about shooting hand held in low light. You might benefit from the IS. According to The Digital Picture the image quality of the 35mm f/2 IS rivals that of the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, which doesn't sound too unlikely, since the design is so much newer (2012). Of course the IS only helps if the subject isn't fast moving, but then 3-4 stops from the IS might be more useful than the difference in aperture.
Originally by user7271. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7271
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
At the same f-number, both lenses should deliver essentially the same exposure. Any real-world difference in transmitted light is usually very small; lens “quality” does not make one f/1.4 lens dramatically brighter than another. If one lens seems better in low light, it’s more often due to sharpness, contrast, autofocus behavior, stabilization, or the camera sensor—not because it somehow lets vastly more light through at the same aperture.
Based on the community feedback, the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is generally regarded as optically stronger than the older Canon 35mm f/1.4, especially given the Canon design’s age. If you need f/1.4, the Sigma is the stronger choice from the answers provided.
If your low-light subjects are mostly static and you shoot handheld, the Canon 35mm f/2 IS is also worth considering: image stabilization can help in low light, though it won’t help with subject motion and it is a stop slower than f/1.4.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Should I buy a 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 as my first fast prime for a Nikon DX camera?
Will APS-C 50mm f/1.4 and full-frame 80–85mm at about f/2.2 give similar background blur?
How different is background blur between a 30mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2 on APS-C for portraits?
How should I compare lens speed using T-stops instead of just f-stops?
Best fast normal prime for a Canon APS-C body: Canon 28mm f/1.8 vs Sigma 30mm f/1.4?