Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

[CJRodgers]

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?

[PVS]

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?

Yet that same user complaining about OoF rendering quality of Sigma is selling his 35L:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1166631/0?keyword=x#11124098

 

[friedmud]

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?

Weird - if you look at the OOF highlights here http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-Sample-Images I don't see any onion bokeh problems... look fairly uniform to me.

Also - I cannot see any fringing.  To me, it looks like someone processed that file on FredMiranda incorrectly... or someone had sharpness turned way up in their camera and was shooting JPG... I don't know, but it just looks messed up.

Finally, bokeh looks smooth and creamy in all those tistory shots to me (look at the shot of the dog for instance).

Overall, that guy on FM looks like he went a little crazy with one test shot that he found somewhere...

[RLPhoto]

I applaud you sigma! This will be my next purchase.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

And when we are discussing AF and micro adjustments , there are minor variations in the AF system, this together with 1. camera  AF is incorrectly calibrated  2. the lens AF is incorrectly calibrated  3. Both the camera  and  the lens is faulty. 4. minor variations, its means,  take a series of  5 shoots and place your hand in front of the lens so every shoot against your target will be a new AF measure, then you can se in a series of pictures  that the absolute sharpness varies / focusing accuracy and can look like this.
Number of incorrect parameters can therefore be many .

#2 does not look like the lens is correctly calibrated to me, when I calibrate my 35mmL its sharp.
I focus on infinity before each shot.  However, a mfd AF works if you are adjusting AF for a long distance. 
 
When putting your hand in front of the lens, you don't know where the lens focused, so its not something that another person can repeat.
I've also found that failing to block the viewfinder results in erratic AF.

[jukka]

Its only for that the AF shall make a new measurement and  go from close distance up to the test target= 50x focal length= 50mm lens  and distance to target  =2,5 m,  100mm = 5m  and so on. (same for micro adjustments) Canon   own technicians  does it  also  between measurements and calibration of lenses AF.
The minor variations is variations in the absolute focal plane and F-2,8 sharpness depth
If you have a 1,2 lens the difference can be huge

[sarangiman]

jukka,

Not sure if you saw my previous post, but do you know the answer to this question:

Since AFMA for a particular body/lens combo changes as a function of subject distance, it's not possible to have an AFMA value for all subject distances. Is this any different for a lens that appears to require 0 AFMA? I.e. will it also have 0 AFMA for all subject distances?

[aznable]

I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

[Nishi Drew]

I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?

[aznable]

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?
[/quote]

i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)

[infared]

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?

What is Brokeh? 

[infared]

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?

i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)
[/quote]


Hate to disillusion you guys...but there is no gold ring on the New Sigma 35mm.
I have mostly L glass but own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. First thing I did when I got the lens was cover up that cheap, unsightly gold ring with some model-makers pinstripping tape!!!! LOL! God that is tacky!!!
The 50mm Sigma is a great lens, tho.  The images from mine are stunning and the Brokeh (LOL!) is wonderful.
I for one am buying this new 35mm...considering that the new Canon, when it is released a year from now will be $2000....no doubt!

[risc32]

I noticed the somewhat funny looking bokeh in most of the shots posted on the net, but really for my style anyway, it isn't an issue at all. YOU guys who see creamy goodness in hte 35mm samples need your eyes checked, and i just bought one of these. People who are into bokeh, and blowing things OOF really shouldn't be fooling with 35mm lenses in the first place. usually it's a guy with a 1/2 frame camera using a 35mm for OOF effects. I would simply say, get a man's camera. And don't tell me you can't afford one, 35m film cams are super cheap and the 5dc isn't terribly expensive either.

[wickidwombat]

because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one

Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?

i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)
[/quote]

gold rings are gone on the new art series style they actually look more like zeiss lenses now

[jukka]

despite gold or silver rings the sigma 35/1,4 will be a new player on the market, if we are lucky the sigma lens will do a better job than the Canon 35/1,4 lens and to the half (60%) price