The seemingly amazing Sigma 35

[CharlieB]

Gonna play a little Devil's advocate....

I was in photo retail, in a pro oriented camera shop in the 1970's up to the mid 1980's.  At one time, our little 15x55 foot shop did 1/2 of one percent of all of CUSA's North American photo business, or, put another way we were in the top 200 of ALL Canon dealers, including mass merchandisers.  Canon themselves described our volume as "tonnage".

At that time, "the golden age", there were a lot of garbage "off brand" lenses, but also a few good ones.  One that I particularly recall was the Vivitar Series 1 70-210, and the Series 1 90mm macro.  Those were made by Kiron and/or Tokina and/or Cosina, maybe all three... dunno.

The point is (I'm getting there), these were actually very good lenses as compared to the "then current" competition, even from the likes of Pentax, Nikon and Canon.  They got a lot of praise from local press photographers, and photo educators (which all knew, and did lots of business with our shop).

My beef then, and the beef I still hold today is one of contrast and color that is consistent with the lenses from, say, Nikon or Canon.  While the very good accessory lenses were sharp, and even exceedingly so, or faster, or both... they just didn't have the same snap and color.  The two I just cited were rather blue and "flat" compared to the very warm Nikkors of the day, and even the rather neutral Canon FD lenses.  This was something the late Steve Kippert (my Leica rep) showed me, and its something that has stuck with me all these  years. 

I know these days, color and contrast are a snap to alter, but I'm still wondering ... based on the same settings, no alteration of the images, how does the Sigma 35/1.4 compare to the entire (and rather consistent) Canon line?

[jondave]

- just like to add that i think sigma's rapid lens replacement system is a detriment. Canon is more my speed. Hopefully sigma will slow things down.

The refresh cycle speed is due to the quality of the lens and the manufacturer's ability to improve the previous lens design. In Sigma's case, they deliberately weren't producing top-notch lenses so the margin for improvement was large and new improved models could be spat out with relatively simple changes to the optical design.

If you're designing lenses for the top end you are limited by the current state of optics technology. So in the 35mm's case you shouldn't expect to see a replacement so soon as they couldn't possibly significantly improve it in a short timeframe.

[dirtcastle]

Is there a reliable source for the Sigma's relative bokeh deficiencies?

Or are people just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors?

[RS2021]

Is there a reliable source for the Sigma's relative bokeh deficiencies?

Or are people just regurgitating unsubstantiated rumors?

Seeing is believing... Lensrental blog had several in their blog, as did a Korean site ....a slew of rather flat pictures. Granted not head to head comparisons but underscores sharpness isn't everything.

[birtembuk]

Same here. If I didn't have the L, I'd consider buying the Sig. Now, when you are used to a given lens and are happy with what it delivers, I think a few hundred bucks is not worth the fuss. The 35L is a class of its own with colors/contrasts/rendering. On FF and APS-C altogether. Making the swap did not even cross my mind.   

[Nishi Drew]

My consideration of getting the Sigma is mostly price, even then it's still expensive so the 35L is totally out anyways.
If you have the 35L, you're happy with it, then stick with it, same story with any piece of equipment.
If the CA, or being-not-as-sharp bothers you then check out the Sigma.
And, I feel the bokeh "not being good" is vastly overblown, while it not being "as good" as what the 35L can produce, sure, it looks to be the case. But by no means is it awful, there has to be certain L owners that don't want to hear smack about how their precious L isn't as superior in many ways, so they find a single flaw and make it look like the end of the world! Because ya know, today's the day But again, the Sigma brand new is still a lot cheaper then the 35L generally is on the used market, so not everything will be as top notch. It's what you need and what you can afford

Here's a wedding photog who really likes the Sigma though, this guy actually used the lens, not a series of bland tests:
http://www.samhurdphotography.com/2012/gear-reviews/gear-review-sigma-35mm-1-4-lens-for-nikon

[51m0n]

Just got my Siggy last week. Very happy with it. It is easily my best lens. ( I have Canon 17-40L,100L,24-105L,28/1.8, 40/2.8,50/1.4, 85/1.8 and Tamron 70-300 sp). It is also the only lens that, using Focal 1.7, does not need microadjustment plus has the highest sharpness scores.

Physically, it is very modern and has a high-quality feel. And it is very very sharp, even at f/1.4.
This photo I took 2 night ago (handheld on 5D3), ambience lighting: dimmed street lights.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8290202541/#in/photostream (this has been resized to 2048px wide)

On the negative side, the bokeh is a bit onionized, but I can live with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8293508226/#in/photostream

A friend took the same picture using Nikkor 35/1.4 on D800 and the result has a better and smoother bokeh.

[drjlo]

Why fix what ain't broke?   

My thoughts exactly.  I love my 35L to pieces, which also happens to be smaller and lighter than Sigma. 

On the other hand, if Sigma can come up with a 50 mm f/1.2 with super sharpness and great bokeh, that might be something to consider instead of my 50L.  And no, I've tried the Sigma 50 f/1.4, and that is not good enough.

[51m0n]

Why fix what ain't broke?   

And no, I've tried the Sigma 50 f/1.4, and that is not good enough.

Yep, I tried Sigma 50/1.4 and 30/1.4 (aps-C) too, they are not good (sent back to store). This new line of Sigma on the other hand is in different league altogether.

[takoman46]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

[51m0n]

Note: Only some photos show onionized bokeh. Most others are good, like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8292629929/#in/photostream

[Zlatko]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens?  The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?

[minim2]

I bought it last week.

For me:

1) It is best looking lens I have used till date (I own 24-105, 24 1.4 II, 50 1.4, 40 STM, 85 1.8, 70-300 L and recently bought used 17-40 and 135L ... none of them look as sexy as this new sigma)... maybe not so imp for many but what I noticed.

2) So far, I am very pleased with the result... esp at that price. I am not any pro or pixel peeper. I am a serious ameature and for me, esp recently, I have started to look more into glasses with better value.
I cannot justify 35L price tag and was waiting for this lens ever since it was announced.
I am getting rid of 50 1.4 and in 2 months time, I will most probably get rid of 24 1.4 II too (I have one trip planned where I feel 24 will be useful for me).

3) I dont give too much notice to sharpness, but this one looks as sharp as my 24 1.4 II if not more (at 100% crop)

4) I do not find colors etc from this lens to be flat. I used this along with 24 1.4 II, and to me, I do not see too much of a difference.

I had L syndrome earlier but I think I am recovering from it slowly. I bought one used sony RX100 recently and images from that are such that I will not miss too much my 5DII+24-105 combination (maybe 24mm end).
Personally, I am actually thinking to trim down lenses I own to speciality lenses (UWA, tele, 35,85,135) and carry one good point and shoot like rx100 along with it.

[Canon-F1]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens?  The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?

obviously he is not....

typical case of.. i don´t get the topic.

[51m0n]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L.

Then you are at odds with almost all professional reviewers testing this lens (which is fine though )