Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (Bad Copy?) vs Canon 35 2 is

[AbsN]

Hi

I was looking to replace my Canon 35mm f/2 IS with the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (mostly for better bokeh) after buying and being wowed by my new 20mm 1.4 Art which is amazing. I've picked up a used copy of the 35 Art which is in pretty much mint condition. However when testing it against the Canon 35 IS I'm finding it's just not as sharp. The Sigma doesn't seem sharp until f/8 in the mid-frame and the Canon beats it at every aperture. It will be going back for a refund but I'm wondering if this is just a bad copy and I should trying again with a new copy or just stick with the Canon? I'm after it for the rendering of the image for portraits but I also want sharpness for landscapes.

Thanks for any thoughts.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Re: Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art Bad Copy?

were you manual focusing, or using autofocus. The lens is notorious for erratic autofocus, its difficult to get right over a wide range of camera models, many of which focus lightly differently but account for that with each Canon lens, but not 3rd party lens. Sigma's dock will optimize the lens for one camera, but only one.

 

[AbsN]

I was purely manually focusing on a tripod. Camera is a 5dsr. Auto focus seems ok on the 35 art as far as I can tell from very limited testing. I have the dock but not used it as so far not needed to adjust either lens.

 

[ahsanford]

If you are manually focusing, the 35 Art should -- from a sharpness perspective -- clearly outperform the 35 f/2 IS, esp from f/1.4 to about f/2.8 or so.The 35 f/2 IS is a peach of a lens, but the 35 Art is simply top class (alongside the 35L II) from a resolution perspective.

So if you aren't getting strong wider aperture performance out of the 35 Art under manual focusing, I'd wager you got a poor/damaged copy.

The 35 Art however, is one of the Art lenses that is famously inconsistent with its AF in a non-dock-correctable way. My rental experience on my 5D3 a couple years back was that it was atom-splittingly sharp but my AF hit rate (even after using that dock) was poor when shooting wider than f/2.8. It was inconsistent in a way that that dock could not correct.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was purely manually focusing on a tripod. Camera is a 5dsr. Auto focus seems ok on the 35 art as far as I can tell from very limited testing. I have the dock but not used it as so far not needed to adjust either lens.

I'd suspect that somewhere in its life, the lens was damaged. It often happens in shipping, either from the retailer to the customer, or for a used one, it could happen in shipping as well. Some people never recognize that a lens performance is below par, and just decide to get something they like better.

It may be worth buying a new Sigma and getting their 4 year warranty. Retailers typically use pretty careful packaging, Adorama seems to be the best, Amazon is by far the worst. All of them will replace a defective lens.

The lens should be extremely sharp in the center with very good edges. It was a early version of the ART lenses, and may have multiple firmware updates but they would not affect sharpness while manually focusing.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff

 

[YuengLinger]

Just get the ef 35mm f/1.4L II refurbished, save lots of aggravation, and enjoy exquisite IQ with instant, precise AF.

That said, I did have the Sigma Art 35mm. It was ok. Sharp enough, but I never really liked the contrast or colors, and it was finicky in moderately low light. Outer AF points were hit or miss. Had the Sigma Art 50mm, which most CR regulars know was not reliable on the 5D III at all with AF.

I do have a Sigma 180mm macro; think it's the bee's knees of garden macro lenses--and for the occasional extreme close-up portrait.

But if you are especially drawn to the 35mm FL, do yourself a favor, be patient with saving up if necessary, and just get the Canon 1.4 II!

 

[AbsN]

Thanks all - I've ordered a new copy of the 35 Art which should arrive tomorrow so will see if that is any better. I suspect it will be as the lack of mid frame and edge sharpness just seems wrong to me.

If it's no better I think I'll stick with the Canon for now. Not sure I can justify the price of the Canon 35 mkII for the amount of usage it gets but could be an option in a few years when second hand price reduces (hopefully). Thanks

 

[chrysoberyl]

I use my Sigma 35 Art as a manual focus only lens. It is very sharp and even the corners are good, but the AF is awful. So if it does not look sharp to you, you have a bad copy.

 

[AbsN]

After testing two copies of the Sigma Art it was clear the used lens was very soft from mid frame compared to the new one and the corners were nowhere near as good.

I'm aware there have been many reports of auto focus issues with this lens. After a very quick and rough calibration I got the lens focusing really well. However I've noticed there is one problem: it really struggles if there is any kind of back lighting. In fact it's as though it just can't focus with a bright light source behind the subject. If you switch to live view it will focus on a back lit subject perfectly. Anyone else experienced such issues? I am starting to seriously consider the Canon 35ii now!

 

[Viggo]

Slight backlight with outer points, and especially with faces, the 35 L II also struggles big time... I too use LV for kids portraits when using my Bron light and have the sun as edge light.

 

[Luds34]

After testing two copies of the Sigma Art it was clear the used lens was very soft from mid frame compared to the new one and the corners were nowhere near as good.

I'm aware there have been many reports of auto focus issues with this lens. After a very quick and rough calibration I got the lens focusing really well. However I've noticed there is one problem: it really struggles if there is any kind of back lighting. In fact it's as though it just can't focus with a bright light source behind the subject. If you switch to live view it will focus on a back lit subject perfectly. Anyone else experienced such issues? I am starting to seriously consider the Canon 35ii now!

Glad to hear you got a good/better copy. I own the Sigma 35 Art and it is my favorite lens and is razor sharp even shooting wide open. If I weren't lazy I'd share a shot with 100% crop to show a single strand of hair over the eye.

As far as focusing in strong backlight I'm pretty sure most my lenses struggle. Just yesterday I was trying to shoot with my 135L with a subject in front of a window (cloudy day) and it was tough and even gave up focusing more then once with the blinking green light. I switched to center point and while it helped but was still too slow for anything other then static/portrait shots.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As far as focusing in strong backlight I'm pretty sure most my lenses struggle. Just yesterday I was trying to shoot with my 135L with a subject in front of a window (cloudy day) and it was tough and even gave up focusing more then once with the blinking green light. I switched to center point and while it helped but was still too slow for anything other then static/portrait shots.

The lens focuses fine with the strong back lighting, its the camera that struggles, which is why all the wide aperture lenses see the same effect.

I'm not sure that any camera can AF reliably with strong back lighting, the problem is loss of detail for the AF system to use. Lens distortion does likely come into play, and at wide apertures its likely at its worst.

 

[aceflibble]

Unless you use a Canon 1D series, Nikon Dx series, or some of the better mirrorless cameras, you're always going to find AF and backlighting don't mix. The 1D/Dx cameras are better at ignoring everything other than what is directly under the single focus point you select; if you use any kind of zone/automatic point selection then they're just as bad as any other body. Mirrorless cameras never really have a problem with AF accuracy with backlit scenes, but it will still slow them down even slower than they can be already.

Backlighting is just one of those tasks, like panorama stitching or noise reduction or any kind of metering really, where going manual really is still the only way to be sure you nail it as well as possible. If it's the look you like then go manual or get used to giving your camera an extra second to confirm that focus, maybe take a couple of duplicate shots to be sure at least one will have got it right.

In any case, it's not something specific to this lens, or Sigma as a whole. Third-party AF sure isn't perfect (Sigma lack accuracy; Tamron lack speed) but most of the time with backlighting, a first-party lens wouldn't help you either.

 

[SecureGSM]

just in regards to back lit subject situation:
I use GODOX X1T-C transmitter AF Assist Beam to aid camera AF abilities in back light situations. it may help quite a bit unless you shoot in very low ambient with strong back light beaming from behind the subject.

After testing two copies of the Sigma Art it was clear the used lens was very soft from mid frame compared to the new one and the corners were nowhere near as good.

I'm aware there have been many reports of auto focus issues with this lens. After a very quick and rough calibration I got the lens focusing really well. However I've noticed there is one problem: it really struggles if there is any kind of back lighting. In fact it's as though it just can't focus with a bright light source behind the subject. If you switch to live view it will focus on a back lit subject perfectly. Anyone else experienced such issues? I am starting to seriously consider the Canon 35ii now!

 

[Viggo]

just in regards to back lit subject situation:
I use GODOX X1T-C transmitter AF Assist Beam to aid camera AF abilities in back light situations. it may help quite a bit unless you shoot in very low ambient with strong back light beaming from behind the subject.

After testing two copies of the Sigma Art it was clear the used lens was very soft from mid frame compared to the new one and the corners were nowhere near as good.

I'm aware there have been many reports of auto focus issues with this lens. After a very quick and rough calibration I got the lens focusing really well. However I've noticed there is one problem: it really struggles if there is any kind of back lighting. In fact it's as though it just can't focus with a bright light source behind the subject. If you switch to live view it will focus on a back lit subject perfectly. Anyone else experienced such issues? I am starting to seriously consider the Canon 35ii now!

I’ll second that. I use my Broncolor modelling light to help AF outside and it really makes a difference, and LV focus is another option, just wish they could make it continuous .