Review 2 - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Nininini said:
Given the fact I marvel at your energy in first reading the review and then going to amazon to reply to this thread.
Anyway. Do not have the Sigma 35 ART but the 50mm ART.
Could be useful if the reviewer would try using the SIGMA dock for SIGMA reviews where relevant. I understand he will try this in the future.
I get very consistent AF results myself with the 50mm ART on the 5DS/R (where it really counts because the camera is truly unforgiving) after having used the dock and the optical quality is great.
I have the 35L (I) so I'm not a potential buyer of this lens. But if I was in the market I would surly give the 35 ART a run at first before committing to the price tag of the 35LII.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
Haha, I kind of thought the same. It's one thing to have an opinion, but cherry picking every 1 and 2 star review is like have a vendetta against the company or something.
Frankly it rates 4.5/5 stars on Amazon and all the "most helpful" reviews seem to be 5 stars. So it can't be that awful of a lens. For the bad reviews, I believe a number of people have actually gotten bad copies, or early copies with old firmware. I also believe some bad reviews are just poor reviews, like the one complaining about low light focusing.
Anyway, I own this lens, and I love it, my favorite lens I own. The images it produces are so sharp, so contrasty, I just love it. I also chose this lens for the f/1.4 so that is where I shoot the most. And while I do miss shots, subject moving on me, etc. I've found the lens is spot on and very consistent on my 6D. An aside, I will say I exclusively use my center point though as the times I've used the outer points is for AI servo and tracking and I don't get very good luck with any lens I own. Often I'm trying to use one of the top points to track at the face level. A good work around is to just use the center point, track at the body and stop down a bit for greater DOF. Which is why I look forward to a potential 6DII with more/better outer focus points to make the camera a bit more "jack of all trades".
Upvote
0
Dustin has a dock arriving at his house on the 26th, apparently. Man, Canadian mail is slow. They need faster mushers.
We're lucky to have Dustin's considerable experience and objectivity regularly applied to these reviews. It'll be a hoot to see the next ART reviews.
I do think that Sigma should emphasize more the *need* for a dock if people are going to pixel peep. It's not like a simple MFA. There are curves that the additional focus adjustment points are matching, and it's a rather complex set of relationships that a mere single factor can't correct. The good news: you just need to make several adjustments by closely complying to the distances requested in the software. I think many poor reviews are due to people assuming incorrectly that no MFA or a quick in-camera MFA will make a fair comparison.
We're lucky to have Dustin's considerable experience and objectivity regularly applied to these reviews. It'll be a hoot to see the next ART reviews.
I do think that Sigma should emphasize more the *need* for a dock if people are going to pixel peep. It's not like a simple MFA. There are curves that the additional focus adjustment points are matching, and it's a rather complex set of relationships that a mere single factor can't correct. The good news: you just need to make several adjustments by closely complying to the distances requested in the software. I think many poor reviews are due to people assuming incorrectly that no MFA or a quick in-camera MFA will make a fair comparison.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
Maiaibing said:
Dustin has stated that all though he reviews for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of online readers he won't buy a 59$ dock for Sigma reviews because no vendor will "give" him one :
So every review of a Sigma lenses including this one is really not dialed in... rush to review is more important.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
No, the reviewer is 100% correct not to use a dock.
Reviews should be done without a dock, it's not the reviewer's job to configure lenses, it's the manufacturer's job. Sigma is selling these lenses without a dock.
Apples against Apples comparisons. Lens against Lens.
Not Lens against Lens + Sigma dock + 4 hours of tinkering with the Sigma software.
A lens should autofocus correctly, period, anything less is inexcusable.
Upvote
0
To be a perfectly correct review he may not use the dock. However, for me as a consumer it would be preferable to read how it performs after using the dock. He should do both, befor tuning and after tuning. We all know that Sigma lenses are a bit moody AF wise. Tuning the lens reveals the true potential, which is what I am interested in.Nininini said:
Upvote
0
Pookie said:Maiaibing said:
Dustin has stated that all though he reviews for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of online readers he won't buy a 59$ dock for Sigma reviews because no vendor will "give" him one :
It is dialed in as much as every lens that I review. I also love how people are always critical of me for being "cheap" over the free reviews that I provide. Classic. Would you spend $59 (plus tax, shipping, and exchange) for a product that only functions for lenses that you don't own?
Upvote
0
Pitbullo said:
I think this is the balanced approach. I do think that Sigma lenses should be capable of accurately autofocusing without the dock, otherwise Sigma should include the dock with each lens. Many people either aren't going to buy the dock because of the additional cost, don't know to buy the dock, or wouldn't know how to use the dock even if they had it.
I will certainly use the dock in future Sigma reviews, but I'm probably not going to spend 4-5 hours with it over a lens that I will be returning after a 3-5 week review period. I don't have that kind of time to offer, and no other lens requires me to do that.
Upvote
0
Another excellent review, and, no, a dock should not be part of the review. Let OCD apologists fiddle with them all they want. Either AFMA in camera works or the lens goes back. With two bodies, I'd be an idiot to depend on a dock.
I've had excellent luck with the 35A, one of my favorites. Wish my two attempts at the Sigma 50A had been as successful.
But if the 35A ever fails, rather than repair, I'd get the Canon, thank you.
I've had excellent luck with the 35A, one of my favorites. Wish my two attempts at the Sigma 50A had been as successful.
But if the 35A ever fails, rather than repair, I'd get the Canon, thank you.
Upvote
0
Dustin, I highly appreciate your reviews, and I´m a keen follower of your videos on Youtube, as well as here. Thank you for your time and effort making these reviews.
This comment isn´t related to the Sigma review in particular, but your recent 35mm shootout. One thing I experience with my L lenses, such, as the 24-70 f/2.8 LII, compared to lets say my 35mm f/2IS, is that the 35f/2 performs very good with regards to resolution, but it lags behind in an area that I believe is hard to measure objectively. That is the overall clarity, colors and, in lack of a better word, some "pop" to it´s images. In side by side comparisons, the 35f/2 looks a little dull compared to the 24-70 f/2.8LII. It might be better micro contrast in the L lenses, but I don´t believe that is the full explanation.
Do you have any opinion regards to this, Dustin?
This comment isn´t related to the Sigma review in particular, but your recent 35mm shootout. One thing I experience with my L lenses, such, as the 24-70 f/2.8 LII, compared to lets say my 35mm f/2IS, is that the 35f/2 performs very good with regards to resolution, but it lags behind in an area that I believe is hard to measure objectively. That is the overall clarity, colors and, in lack of a better word, some "pop" to it´s images. In side by side comparisons, the 35f/2 looks a little dull compared to the 24-70 f/2.8LII. It might be better micro contrast in the L lenses, but I don´t believe that is the full explanation.
Do you have any opinion regards to this, Dustin?
Upvote
0
While I think Sigmas can sometimes have less accurate focus, I feel like a lot of the yelling about focus accuracy is rooted in both confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence, especially since most people out there won't take any mitigating circumstances into consideration. Bad camera technique? Never! It's the lens. Think you missed focus because you've never shot at 1.4 and now you expect to do it on a fast moving street subject? That's not you, it's the lens of course. Focus and recompose works at f/4, so why not 1.4? Clearly it's the lens' fault! A focus target calibration sheet is way off? Totally the lens' fault, even though you didn't measure the distance, angle between the focal plane and the target, or use a tripod.
Of the many, many, many reviews out there, they all give a nod towards some possible focus issues, but it's nowhere near the histrionics you will see in forums and customer review feedback settings. A perfect example of this: Nininini's response above.
Some people will never be happy with third party lenses. They'll say things like "If only it had this," or "It's perfect except for this," but even if it was cheaper, faster, and more accurate, they'd still find something wrong with it. Which is fine; that's your prerogative. But actively pursuing the point to a vendetta level just makes you look silly. It's too bad there's no easy way to do double blind lens tests; I bet if we could get that rigged up somehow, you'd see a marked decrease in the complaints.
Of the many, many, many reviews out there, they all give a nod towards some possible focus issues, but it's nowhere near the histrionics you will see in forums and customer review feedback settings. A perfect example of this: Nininini's response above.
Some people will never be happy with third party lenses. They'll say things like "If only it had this," or "It's perfect except for this," but even if it was cheaper, faster, and more accurate, they'd still find something wrong with it. Which is fine; that's your prerogative. But actively pursuing the point to a vendetta level just makes you look silly. It's too bad there's no easy way to do double blind lens tests; I bet if we could get that rigged up somehow, you'd see a marked decrease in the complaints.
Upvote
0
lidocaineus said:
You've made a lot of assumptions. I can tell you I've had a lot of lenses, and my two 50Arts were AF lame dogs. My 35A is great. I've never had an AF problem with any Canon, L or otherwise.
Also, with Sigma Art lenses, how much room is there for actual adjustment of elements during repair if they were not lined up perfectly during manufacture?
Your post count indicates you are new to the forum, so you haven't had time to judge the skill and experience of other members here. That's understandable, and welcome to CR! But, on the other hand, I hope you understand that your assumptions about incompetence and/or malice are a bit tiresome.
That little bit of scolding stated, I agree with you that Ninini's selective choice of bad reviews from Amazon was silly and not helpful. As others have stated, this distorts the overall positive experience customers have written about, with 86% giving it 4 or 5 stars, which is great on Amazon!
Cheers!
Upvote
0
lidocaineus said:
Please, it's not the users their fault at all, nor it is "overreaction".
Sigma and Tamron often have terrible AF.
Click this youtube review to see a review of the latest Tamron lens:https://youtu.be/4nyCywiFU6g?t=3m8s
Tell how that horrendous AF is the user his fault. Tell me how that terrible AF stuttering is acceptable.
This is on a 70D canon body with Dual Pixel CMOS AF, one of the best AF systems on any camera....what is a $600 lens doing stuttering all over the place?
The AF is worse than any...any...canon lens I have used. The $140 pancake canon lenses focus way...way smooother, faster and more accurate than this $600 tamron. Of course these third party lenses have major AF issues, people aren't making this stuff up.
Does everyone care about these issues? Probably not.
Are there good copies of Sigma lenses and Tamron lenses without issues? Probably so.
Do Tamron and Sigma have major AF issues with their lenses? Definitely YES.
I would say the AF issues with these lenses are actually severely underreported.
Upvote
0
This is another reason I really want to see Canon try to make a full frame mirrorless body. Running in live view constantly means the AF should always be accurate.
Alternatively, now that the Nikon D500 has auto focus correction built in, maybe Sigma lenses will be nothing more than an annoyance on those bodies.
It'll be very interesting to see if Canon implements a similar system, and if it will benefit third parties.
Alternatively, now that the Nikon D500 has auto focus correction built in, maybe Sigma lenses will be nothing more than an annoyance on those bodies.
It'll be very interesting to see if Canon implements a similar system, and if it will benefit third parties.
Upvote
0
Nininini said:
I think the balance is somewhere in the middle. I've used the Tamron 24-70 70-200 VC lenses professionally since they came out and they provide awesome focus results for me (in particular the 70-200). They have paid for themselves many times over (one shot with the Tamron 24-70 VC actually paid for the lens in an advertisement used by...wait for it...Canon). The 15-30 VC has been the same for me, although I don't note it because I haven't had it as long (my own copy for about six months) and I don't put the same demands on the AF system. The other two I use as my main options at weddings and events.
I get a lot of gear related questions from people, so I do get a lot of the anecdotes. Sometimes it is user error (many photographers with expensive cameras and lenses don't even know what an AFMA is; others know but don't bother).
I do know myself, however, and I review and calibrate lenses all the time. I have had a lot of less than desirable results out of Sigma lenses, and while I have had relatively few problems with Tamron lenses, I did just return the 45mm VC that I purchased for exchange because it wasn't focusing as accurately as I expect (and AFMA was a moving target). Tamron agreed and is shipping me a replacement as we speak (the histrionics were justified here). I had no focus issues with either the 35 or the 45 VC that I reviewed, though.
I calibrated and used the 35L II and Sigma 35A identically in event settings, and the Canon was far, far more accurate. This was not user error nor bias in reporting. If you look at my written review I give the exact percentages.
Upvote
0
On the philosophy of whether a reviewer should use the dock:
I think Sigma is offering something new to the market, and it's not for everyone. The offer is that they have some lenses, in some focal lengths, that are either unique or plainly superior to anything else. The catch is that in order to enjoy that level of quality, you need to waste a bunch of time and money on fiddly adjustments to your camera body. The 35Art is no longer one of these lenses, as the Canon 35 II is plainly the best. I own it, and can tell you, nothing that has autofocus approaches it.
But if you look at the 50 Art, or the 18-35 Art, there's a useful value proposition with both of those that is just unparalleled. Comparing the 50 Art to any of Canon's 50mm offerings is like comparing a lens to itself, but with wavy glass placed in front of it.
But these lenses are not going to give many people (unless they're just plain lucky) this performance out of the box. So you can think of a reviewer potentially reviewing to a high-end audience of pixel peepers looking for maximum performance and willing to put effort and money into it, or reviewing for more casual buyers who aren't willing to pay $60 and waste a few hours. Reviewing for one audience or another is completely valid, but doing so for the latter is ignoring the main value proposition that Sigma is offering.
I therefor think that a reviewer should try the lens, note how terrible AF is without the dock, or even with normal AFMA, and then adjust with the dock and indicate to people the lens's maximum capability, noting the expense in both money and time it required. I don't see the point of bothering to do otherwise unless it is to make a statement against Sigma's additional burden they've placed on this high-end market. Reviewing without the dock because that's how you review other lenses either misses the point of the new technology or is a deliberate finger in the eye of Sigma for having bothered to attempt a new way of doing things - admittedly one that is both costly and tedious to get best results.
And, yes, Sigma has done a terrible job of noting to customers how important it is to get and use the dock. And, yes, it should include a dock with each lens. But those failures on Sigma's part don't justify deliberately ignoring the best capabilities of the lenses. I think Justin has done a fine job of reviewing things without a dock and disclosing that this is what he is doing; and that if he starts reviewing with a dock, his reviews will be even more complete and useful.
I'm very pleased with Sigma, both because of the lenses of theirs I own, and also because many of the other lenses they've made have forced other lens makers to up their game. My new Canon 35 II may not have existed had Sigma not come out with their 35 Art four years ago. It's a great time to be a photographer. Two revolutions are really coming to fruition in lens design:
1) The coatings revolution
2) and the computer design revolution
It has taken a decade for these to really be exploited well.
Sigma may be pushing a third major innovation, with more complex and finer adjustments to equipment along more complex relationships than simple correction factors. In time, this will likely be done more automatically - in fact rumors suggest new cameras coming out from Nikon and Canon will actually have the beginnings of auto adjustment processes. We may see this pop up in the new 1dx mark 2 and/or the 5d4. All to be encouraged, even if it starts off with a bunch of tedious manual work.
I think Sigma is offering something new to the market, and it's not for everyone. The offer is that they have some lenses, in some focal lengths, that are either unique or plainly superior to anything else. The catch is that in order to enjoy that level of quality, you need to waste a bunch of time and money on fiddly adjustments to your camera body. The 35Art is no longer one of these lenses, as the Canon 35 II is plainly the best. I own it, and can tell you, nothing that has autofocus approaches it.
But if you look at the 50 Art, or the 18-35 Art, there's a useful value proposition with both of those that is just unparalleled. Comparing the 50 Art to any of Canon's 50mm offerings is like comparing a lens to itself, but with wavy glass placed in front of it.
But these lenses are not going to give many people (unless they're just plain lucky) this performance out of the box. So you can think of a reviewer potentially reviewing to a high-end audience of pixel peepers looking for maximum performance and willing to put effort and money into it, or reviewing for more casual buyers who aren't willing to pay $60 and waste a few hours. Reviewing for one audience or another is completely valid, but doing so for the latter is ignoring the main value proposition that Sigma is offering.
I therefor think that a reviewer should try the lens, note how terrible AF is without the dock, or even with normal AFMA, and then adjust with the dock and indicate to people the lens's maximum capability, noting the expense in both money and time it required. I don't see the point of bothering to do otherwise unless it is to make a statement against Sigma's additional burden they've placed on this high-end market. Reviewing without the dock because that's how you review other lenses either misses the point of the new technology or is a deliberate finger in the eye of Sigma for having bothered to attempt a new way of doing things - admittedly one that is both costly and tedious to get best results.
And, yes, Sigma has done a terrible job of noting to customers how important it is to get and use the dock. And, yes, it should include a dock with each lens. But those failures on Sigma's part don't justify deliberately ignoring the best capabilities of the lenses. I think Justin has done a fine job of reviewing things without a dock and disclosing that this is what he is doing; and that if he starts reviewing with a dock, his reviews will be even more complete and useful.
I'm very pleased with Sigma, both because of the lenses of theirs I own, and also because many of the other lenses they've made have forced other lens makers to up their game. My new Canon 35 II may not have existed had Sigma not come out with their 35 Art four years ago. It's a great time to be a photographer. Two revolutions are really coming to fruition in lens design:
1) The coatings revolution
2) and the computer design revolution
It has taken a decade for these to really be exploited well.
Sigma may be pushing a third major innovation, with more complex and finer adjustments to equipment along more complex relationships than simple correction factors. In time, this will likely be done more automatically - in fact rumors suggest new cameras coming out from Nikon and Canon will actually have the beginnings of auto adjustment processes. We may see this pop up in the new 1dx mark 2 and/or the 5d4. All to be encouraged, even if it starts off with a bunch of tedious manual work.
Upvote
0
I'm reminded of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfCJDIf-NeA
His argument is that dedicated cameras have become too complex, and aren't fun to use, and this is hurting their sales.
I forgot who it was, but I disagreed strongly with someone from DPReview staff who reviewed the Canon 760D (T6S), he used an L lens, the lens had a tiny front focus problem, and he blamed the camera for not having micro-adjust. I do not think consumers should be solving company problems. I do not think consumers should be tasked with calibrating lenses, buying docks, leanring software, just to get their lens to focus properly.
I do not think all cameras should come with micro adjust just because there are bad copies of lenses out there, or because there are patent disagreements, or because a lens mount wore down because they were too cheap to use a metal mount.
This is what micro-adjust is, asking consumer to solve company problems.
I don't mind having to use micro-adjustment if my lens starts back or front focusing after long use, the phase detection system in DSLR can move a tiny bit, wear and tear on the lens mount,...etc.
But to preemptively micro-adjust..because your lens is front of back focusing out of the box, again, I'm reminded of that video. It's also impossible to do on any rebel camera, which all don't support micro-adjust (and I don't think they should, I don't think rebel users want to micromanage their lenses, I use a 70D and I don't want to do this either).
"Nikon made micro adjust easy on the D5". We'll see...I doubt it will be as easy as they claim.
Micro adjust would also only solve some of the AF issues, it would not solve the stuttering, or make AF faster..it would only solve back or front focusing problems, especially on fast lenses. Tamron sells many cheaper slower lenses, that have AF issues too, which can't be fixed with micro-adjust.
His argument is that dedicated cameras have become too complex, and aren't fun to use, and this is hurting their sales.
I forgot who it was, but I disagreed strongly with someone from DPReview staff who reviewed the Canon 760D (T6S), he used an L lens, the lens had a tiny front focus problem, and he blamed the camera for not having micro-adjust. I do not think consumers should be solving company problems. I do not think consumers should be tasked with calibrating lenses, buying docks, leanring software, just to get their lens to focus properly.
I do not think all cameras should come with micro adjust just because there are bad copies of lenses out there, or because there are patent disagreements, or because a lens mount wore down because they were too cheap to use a metal mount.
This is what micro-adjust is, asking consumer to solve company problems.
I don't mind having to use micro-adjustment if my lens starts back or front focusing after long use, the phase detection system in DSLR can move a tiny bit, wear and tear on the lens mount,...etc.
But to preemptively micro-adjust..because your lens is front of back focusing out of the box, again, I'm reminded of that video. It's also impossible to do on any rebel camera, which all don't support micro-adjust (and I don't think they should, I don't think rebel users want to micromanage their lenses, I use a 70D and I don't want to do this either).
"Nikon made micro adjust easy on the D5". We'll see...I doubt it will be as easy as they claim.
Micro adjust would also only solve some of the AF issues, it would not solve the stuttering, or make AF faster..it would only solve back or front focusing problems, especially on fast lenses. Tamron sells many cheaper slower lenses, that have AF issues too, which can't be fixed with micro-adjust.
Upvote
0
Dustin, thanks for your very informative review. In November I purchased the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens, and my observations are similar to yours for the 35mm Art. I've had really good luck with autofocus performance so far. I'm using this lens professionally for real estate photography and it has already produced some fantastic shots that I wouldn't have been able to get otherwise. Kudos to Sigma for reinventing their lenses!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
