I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4

[sunnyVan]

After a month of intense testing, I'm returning the lens with some regret. It's actually pretty amazing and fits my budget. It's sharp. The biggest problem I have is AF. It seems to require different amount of MA under different conditions. I thought I was crazy but I found reviews that describe the same behavior. I thought about user error but I haven't experienced the same with the much cheaper canon 50 1.4. I agonized over it and kept testing. As the return window was closing I had to make a decision.

I am getting the Canon 35L. I don't know if it would serve me better. Everybody says the Sigma outperforms the old Canon so I don't keep my hopes too high.

I took quite a few pictures I love with the Sigma. I really wanted to love it but I can't deal with unreliable and slow AF.

The sigma deserves a second chance. Perhaps I'll get a better copy. But I'm gonna try the Canon first.

 

[Pi]

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.

 

[sunnyVan]

Never tried the Sigma 35 but I had enough headaches with other Sigma lenses.

The 35L is the most consistently focusing lens I own or tried, and this includes 20+ lenses, at least half of them L (most of them and in the "tried" category).

Some people, me included, have concerns about the bokeh of the Sigma vs. the Canon. The 35L can often render harsh background as well. It would be interesting to hear your opinion after you get the 35L.

Consistent focus is a must for me. If you're right then hopefully I'll be quite happy with the 35L. Will see what happens. Too bad Canon Direct doesn't allow return.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.

 

[sunnyVan]

The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.

Really? The 35L would do that too?

 

[jdramirez]

I was seriously considering getting the sigma 35 but at around $800 or so... I can't bring myself to pay retail. I did have an offer on the table for $900 for a used Canon 35mmL but I read enough about the sigma that I simply had to go that route.

Then I realized that 35mm on a full frame is like a 22mm on a crop (I'm just starting to make the transition). And I rarely ever shoot anything at 22mm on a crop... so I'm back to needing a good low light lens f/1.4 that is sharp wide open... which eliminates the 50's. So I guess my other option is the 85mm... but I have a 70-200 mkii which seems redundant... which is also why I'm selling my 100mm L and why I have all but stopped wanting a 135mm f/2.

So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.

 

[Dylan777]

This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.

With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\

I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.

Really? The 35L would do that too?

Pretty much all wide aperture lenses do that, the margin of error at f/1.4 is so tiny. Off just a little bit, and it can look bad.

However, the AF speed of the 35L is excellent, just don't expect shots near mfd to be as sharp as those at 5-10 ft.

That said, here is one taken a day after I received mine, and its near mfd. I went around our small county fair with my 5D MK II and the 35mmL, and found it to be a good focal length.

Its a shock of wheat, and very shallow depth of field, but also very sharp.

Of course, if you get stuck in a large arena, just do a big crop, the lens stands up to cropping. This was taken half way up into the seats of my friend driving clear across the arena. I had to crop it a lot, but the level of detail is excellent, even at 1:1.

 

[jdramirez]

This is the nature of big aperture prime lenses.

With Canon 50 f1.4, you almost have to step it down to f2.8 to get sharp photos - that would kill the funs buying a f1.4 lens and shoot it at f2.8 :-\

I rather shoot with my 24-70 II @ f2.8 ;D

That's exactly why I got rid of my 50mm f/1.4. I'm not satisified with f/2.8 if what I want if f/2 or bigger.

 

[Dylan777]

That's exactly why I got rid of my 50mm f/1.4. I'm not satisified with f/2.8 if what I want if f/2 or bigger.

Give 50L a chance. Photo below is @ f1.6. I was about 15-20ft away from my daughter, standing next to the mail box. I found my 50L is SUPER if I shoot @ f1.4 to 1.6. Shot JPEG, zero editing.

 

[PhotographAdventure]

Someone mentioned on these forums that every new lens they purchased, they order a few copies, pick the best one, and return the rest. Sure it's extra cost, but you increase your chances of a good solid copy.

My sigma 35mm is great. One of my frequently used lens so far for weddings and events. I've noticed no issues with auto focus.

 

[kbmelb]

The Canon 35L is really good. In fact the only think I find it lacking is weather sealing. I know the Sig is supposed to be amazing but from what I've seen, real world stuff wasn't enough of a difference for me to sell the L and take a chance with Sig's spotty history.

As for the 50L, at f/1.2 even when you nail the focus the focal point has some gaussian blur in concert with the sharpness. What I mean is, you can see the sharpness but there's some halation that makes it seem soft. Especially in situation where you'd NEED f/1.2. By f/2.0 it is sharp and the images are amazing.

 

[victorwol]

I have no noticed any issues with my Sigma 35, in fact, I think is an amazing lens.

 

[Pi]

The 35mmL also tends to focus differently at different distances. I like mine, and found it to be better after Canon adjusted it, but not perfect.
I have no complaints about sharpness, at least I didn't until I got my new 24-70L which is definitely sharper, but doesn't do f/1.4.

Really? The 35L would do that too?

Mine does not. I am familiar with that problem, after all, I have tried a few Sigmas. My 135L had that problem and had to be serviced. My 35L nails the focus every time, regardless of the distance.

 

[florianbieler.de]

Give 50L a chance.

You did not just say the 50L is anywhere near the Sigma. The 50L, though performing perfectly from f/2 upwards, is one of the worst lenses price/performance-wise, it's just really, really soft from below 2.0, even the old 50 1.4 performs better in that range. And this is not just based on test charts, I owned it myself for quite some weeks before I switched to the razor sharp Sigma 35 1.4. There is quite a quality scatter but not even close as worse as it was with their old 50 1.4 and if you get a decent copy - like i did - it's just a treat to work with. Give it some time, get to your local lens dealer, and pick a lens by hand. You won't regret.

 

[Pi]

Give 50L a chance.

You did not just say the 50L is anywhere near the Sigma.

Depending from what point of view. In terms of bokeh, is far ahead. Sharpness is often irrelevant at normal viewing sizes but bokeh, color, etc., are.

 

[Nishi Drew]

As far as all of my use with the Sig 35 is concerned it is the most consistently focusing lens that didn't need any AFMA for. My Canon 50mm 1.4 fails consistently though, I can never get it well adjusted as it behaves differently at varying distances, and the whole part about it not being sharp and all the CA and PF. Meanwhile, just last week I dropped my Sig 35 onto concrete, and I'll have to send it in (hopefully warranty will cover), but it still works perfectly!! Just really tight getting it on and off the camera. I'm impressed with Sigma and will be looking forward to their future releases.

But if there's an offer out there for a 35L around $900 then shoot, take it, you'll be guaranteed to get close to that much back in the future too

 

[Canon-F1]

whenever i read about f1.x aperture lenses and focusing problems my first thought is "LAYER 8 error".

i have no problems with my sigma 35mm f1.4.
it is my first sigma after years and i don´t regret buying it.

the new line of sigma lenses seem to be a great improvement.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I love my 35L and use it for many different purposes. I know 35mm is not the optimal focal length for portraits but correctly used I get some really nice results out of it. I used this picture in my first exhibit a week ago, amongst other of the same model. It's not perfect as you can see the distortion making her ear and right eye smaller. Obivously not the fastest auto focus but I don't use it for sports anyway, it's normally fast enough to catch my kids though. Sharpness is a matter of taste also.

 

[rpiotr01]

So there we go... I want a 50mm that doesn't exist.

If you can handle manual focus the Zeiss 50 f2 MP is pretty dead sharp wide open. And if you can handle manual focus and have ~$3500 laying around, they're coming out with a 55 1.4 that so far looks to be knock-your-socks-off good wide open.

There is also the Sigma 50 1.4, which I found to be really good at 1.4. AF issues are horrendous, but if you're only using it under certain circumstances you may be able to micro adjust it to fit that circumstance and deal with the other shortcomings.

Sigma AF is what crossed the 35 1.4 off my list. I know full well that a lot of people have awesome copies, but a lot of people don't. My experience with them is not so great.