Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

[brad-man]

If I remember correctly, when the EF70-200 2.8L II came out there were similar arguments. Oh yes, it's very sharp, but I prefer the bokeh from the version I. I don't seem to see those arguments anymore

[EvilTed]

HobbyShooter,

I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it

The Fuji's continue to really impress me.
The fact they can give better IQ than the 5D MK3 is the kicker (and no, it's not just me, check Scoopit for X-Pro1 | XE-1 to see how many pros think the Fuji is better than their old 5D MK2 or D700. The IQ of the MK3 is about the same as the MK2 - they just fixed the AF and ergonomics a bit).

I just bought a Contax Carl Zeiss Sonar 90mm F/2.8 from the 80s in mint condition from Japan.
This humble lens mounted to either Fuji produces the magic I'm looking for.

Maybe the analogy is more film versus digital?
Fuji developed their X-Trans sensor to mimic the grain structure of film.
It is said to produce film like images.

I'm waiting for the rumored FF Fuji

ET

[aprotosimaki]

For what it is worth I have been in the market for a 35mm and tomorrow I am going to buy the Sigma for my 5d2. I have read enough reviews that I am fully persuaded that the lens is worth it and that spending more money on a Canon 35L would not be the correct decision:

$899 vs $1300+

Maybe I will regret it but I am hoping I won't. Will be up at the store by 8:30 for its 9:00 opening.

[persiannight]

Sigma 35


Canon 35L


Same exposures, 1/640sec, f/1.4, ISO 100

[kubelik]

I gotta say, I can see the difference between the Sigma and Canon in terms of bokeh, but I can't honestly say which one I like better.  both have a bit of "nervousness" that makes them less than perfect, but then again it's with the worst possible background (trees without leaves!).  thanks persiannight for posting this!

I don't know if it's just me but even at this size the Sigma looks quite a bit sharper than the Canon L in the in-focus region.  impressive.  to me it's a sigma win, given that the bokeh is really a toss-up, but the Sigma is definitely sharper.  I wonder what sort of hardware Canon will respond with in january?

[persiannight]

The Sigma shows more fine detail in it's bokeh, I'm assuming due to it being a sharper lens?   Is that possible?

[persiannight]

I did use the same contrast curve

Larger Sigma 35
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8216/8310332535_2f2ba44257_o.jpg

Larger 35L
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8311382428_26f2036be2_o.jpg

[kubelik]

I think the difference in perceived contrast is just the nature of each of the lenses.  it's expected that they render slightly differently.

persiannight, are you planning on keeping one over the other, given the results of your personal experience?

[persiannight]

That's what I'm struggling with... I mean, I love the sharpness wide open of the Sigma but I love the smoothness to the Canon's bokeh.  I know all the "tests" keep saying the bokeh is better on the Sigma, which I agree with only as far as CA is concerned.  I've had images from the Sigma where bokeh areas are jittery and give the illusion of movement.  I've never really experienced that on the 35L. 

The Canon overall image, again, to me, is more pleasing because of the smoother bokeh.   Ughhh, I don't know.  It's not an easy decision.   

[jeffabbyben]

I see the jittery bokeh in both lenses.  Definitely don't see the smoothness in the canon lens you are referring to (IMHO).  Since you are only a few days away from the announcement of the canon 35mm 1.4 version ii why don't you wait to decide

[Hobby Shooter]

HobbyShooter,

I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it

The Fuji's continue to really impress me.
The fact they can give better IQ than the 5D MK3 is the kicker (and no, it's not just me, check Scoopit for X-Pro1 | XE-1 to see how many pros think the Fuji is better than their old 5D MK2 or D700. The IQ of the MK3 is about the same as the MK2 - they just fixed the AF and ergonomics a bit).

I just bought a Contax Carl Zeiss Sonar 90mm F/2.8 from the 80s in mint condition from Japan.
This humble lens mounted to either Fuji produces the magic I'm looking for.

Maybe the analogy is more film versus digital?
Fuji developed their X-Trans sensor to mimic the grain structure of film.
It is said to produce film like images.

I'm waiting for the rumored FF Fuji

ET

Fair enough. I think you and I are playing in deiiferent leagues, rendering different expectations. Im an amateur and I think I get some magic in my images, on the other hand that is what I see. This is one of the things I lile about this forum.  The possibility to learn more and move forwary boundaries and develop my skills. Cheers!

[Quasimodo]

Just unboxed my copy this night. It is not a picture to remember, but to my unskilled eyes it looks quite sharp. Camera 5D II and ISO 100, AWB. The first is the original downsized to 150 to get the file small enough, and the other one is a 100 percent crop of the first knife in focus.

G.