Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

[jeffabbyben]

I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4.  It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points.  It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh.  I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link.  The office party is all the sigma

http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78

Cool, what camera was it?

Canon 5D mark III

[EvilTed]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

[Hobby Shooter]

if  now 4 different  sites  has shown that this lens is  nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the  at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon  sigma out there  and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

[Hobby Shooter]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

With all that fantastic equipment, are you not able to capture magic?

[jondave]

if  now 4 different  sites  has shown that this lens is  nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the  at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon  sigma out there  and together with d800 and 36Mp

Simple - 'cause the fanboys don't want to accept that a $900 Siggy is better than their $1500 Canon. The red 'ring of power' does have that effect on some people...

[Quasimodo]

if  now 4 different  sites  has shown that this lens is  nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the  at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon  sigma out there  and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

Jeg er interessert!:)

[Albi86]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

Don't you think it's a bit beside the point to bring it all down to sharpness alone?

This Sigma has been widely appreciated for being "sharp enough" @f/1.4 already, for the aberration control and for the smooth bokeh - all in a well built package and at a reasonable price.

If it's all about sharpness I would try with a macro lens...

[Hobby Shooter]

if  now 4 different  sites  has shown that this lens is  nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the  at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon  sigma out there  and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

Jeg er interessert!:)

[cliffwang]

Here is CR.  I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans.  You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search.  Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better.  If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine.  However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown.  Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.

Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent.

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage.

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data.

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot!

I only quoted the part I disagree with you.  I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4?  Not all websites follow lensrental.com.  Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing.  You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4.  However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.

[RS2021]

Here is CR.  I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans.  You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search.  Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better.  If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine.  However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown.  Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.

Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent.

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage.

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data.

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot!

I only quoted the part I disagree with you.  I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4?  Not all websites follow lensrental.com.  Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing.  You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4.  However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.

Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon.

In fact, at least couple of sites clearly indicate the bokeh is suboptimal including lensrental blog which was gleefully cited to support sigma's ascendancy, but conveniently ignored when it suggested shortcomings.

My own view upon viewing the gallery of pics on lensrental, the Korean site, and Flickr, is that the the sigma bokeh looks "nervous". It is not pleasing to the eye. I also can't say I like the sigma pallet of colors. Some of these issues have cropped up in comments here repeatedly and reviews as well but we all know supporters ignore anything contrary and selectively cite the possitive aspects.

Your reply again provides platitudes ... No hard evidence... The only graphs or comparisons exist in the lensrental followup blog on 35 f2.

I wish that sigma has turned the corner...at the very least sigma may have forced canon to move up its own 35mm 1.4 release... But I won't be joining the sigma choir anytime soon without more comparisons from reputable sources... Comparisons, data, graphs...  Not words.

[RVB]

I haven't read this thread,I just jumped to the last page,one point I wanted to mention is that the sigma is not weather sealed,But the new 35mm L will almost certainly be weather sealed.. I have the sigma lens and it's excellent but I would prefer weather sealing.. and for this reason I will sell it when the new L is released..

I posted these pictures by mistake in the HDR area.. please ignore that mistake..

[Albi86]

About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes.  Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.

[RVB]

About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes.  Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.

Bokeh @1.4

[elflord]

Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon.

lenstip have reviewed it as have dpreview (and thedigitalpicture has their test shots). They include data, is their data "hard" enough for you ? Besides photozone, everyone whose reviews I care for have reviewed it, so I don't really understand why anyone would feel the need to go on a fear mongering exercise about the lack of "serious" reviews. I think Cliff nailed it with the remark about "fanboys". Sigma fanboys ? Who are we trying to kid ?

[jeffabbyben]

Here is CR.  I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans.  You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search.  Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better.  If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine.  However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown.  Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.

Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent.

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage.

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data.

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot!

I only quoted the part I disagree with you.  I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4?  Not all websites follow lensrental.com.  Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing.  You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4.  However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.

Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon.

In fact, at least couple of sites clearly indicate the bokeh is suboptimal including lensrental blog which was gleefully cited to support sigma's ascendancy, but conveniently ignored when it suggested shortcomings.

My own view upon viewing the gallery of pics on lensrental, the Korean site, and Flickr, is that the the sigma bokeh looks "nervous". It is not pleasing to the eye. I also can't say I like the sigma pallet of colors. Some of these issues have cropped up in comments here repeatedly and reviews as well but we all know supporters ignore anything contrary and selectively cite the possitive aspects.

Your reply again provides platitudes ... No hard evidence... The only graphs or comparisons exist in the lensrental followup blog on 35 f2.

I wish that sigma has turned the corner...at the very least sigma may have forced canon to move up its own 35mm 1.4 release... But I won't be joining the sigma choir anytime soon without more comparisons from reputable sources... Comparisons, data, graphs...  Not words.

I'm confused about your comment.  You say that you will only accept hard numbers and graphs but those have all favored the Sigma.  However your complaints are about subjective factors such as bokeh and color rendition (although equally valid more subjective than objective).  I suspect someone is worried about the resale value of there Canon 35mm 1.4 now that a third party has an excellent competing product.    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays