I love a 35mm on a FF body. I can get a couple of people in a shot without having to back up too much and it just "works" for all kinds of shots, while 50mm on FF is sometimes just a little too narrow. To me anyway.
The Canon f/2 with IS for $550 does get good reviews, again if you can give up the stop at f/1.4. The Canon f1.4 Mk 2 is by all accounts very nice, though at $1,600 the price is very very steep. I could not, as a hobbyist, on my particular budget and priorities, rationalize buying it. The Sigma Art at $800 or less is optically the equivalent of the Canon, though not "weather sealed" and it is a 3rd party lens so some people experience, or think they experience, a lower hit rate on autofocus.
My own Sigma Art is a fantastic lens. I have almost entirely quit using my 24-105, and the 35 is my walk around lens these last few years. I have had zero issues with autofocus (compared to any other lenses I own). I suppose I might have gotten a "good copy" but mine was made fairly early in the run so I don't know why it would be. It is wickedly sharp, and it produces nice colors, no CA, nice bokeh (for a non-telephoto) and it renders nice crisp images. I don't even have the Sigma dock, and I have just a 2 point correction in AFMA.
Scott
Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites
Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
