I'm returning my Sigma 35 1.4

[sunnyVan]

I like to be pretty close to my subject, probably 3-4 ft. The 50 seems too tight for me and DOF would be too shallow. 35mm seems perfect for my use.

The sigma's AF is pretty consistent. It consistently requires +8 MA for indoor use and 0 for outdoor. Very weird.

 

[victorwol]

Also the flare control of the Sigma 35 is something I have never seen before. It's great.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

 

[victorwol]

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.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

I'm a hardcore Canon L fan... Have 20 L lenses, never wanted to buy anything else, but let me tell you this Sigma one is something has totally surprised me.

Have you seen the lens image quality tool comparison with the Canon one at the-digital-picture.com ?

Wide open the Sigma is much better than the Canon not only on the corners but the center too. And the Canon have quite some fringe... Even down two 2.8 you can see a nice rainbow on the thin lines on the Canon and very minimal on the Sigma

 

[Zv]

Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.

 

[victorwol]

Doesn't the USB thingy solve that issue? I think any lens that has a wide aperture will have some focus issues. Will it ever hit the target with 100% accuracy every time? Prob not. The AF point itself prob covers more than the area of focus. Isn't that what full time manual is for? For subjects that are at mfd I'd just use live view.

The Sigma USB thing is interesting if your camera does not have a way to adjust it... But I imagine must be cumbersome to use since you have to test, take out of camera, adjust, reflash the firmware, put on camera, test... Repeat several times until you nail it....

 

[victorwol]

Reading this I begin to wonder, are lenses (such as this) and cameras (such as the D800) becoming such that to use them properly and get the best out of them they require technique and skill that is just that extra step beyond what an ordinary photographer/user has?

I think that has being the case, always... Or anyone would be a star photographer.. Anyone can press the shutter, does not mean is a skilled photographer.

 

[Dylan777]

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.

Most owners of 50L would known 50L is NOT one of the Canon sharpnest in L primes. It's more about the bokeh, color, and contrast that 50L will bring. When there is almost no light, my 50L shines @ f1.2. And if I want nice sharp images @ f2.8 or smaller, my 24-70 II or 70-200 f2.8 IS II will take that ;D

I agree with you on the new Sigma, but my reply wasn't @ OP. I was replied to jdramirez

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

I've said everything I'm going to say about the problems I've had with Sigma over the years in other threads. The 35L is a very old (but still capable) lens. But it's nearing the time where a mkII is needed. Better coatings, weather sealing, new AF design and slightly better optics come to mind. Will the mkII cause me to rush out and upgrade my mkI? Probably not right away. Will the mkII make better sellable pictures? Probably not. Will I get a Siggi over the 35L....certainly not

I'm a hardcore Canon L fan... Have 20 L lenses, never wanted to buy anything else, but let me tell you this Sigma one is something has totally surprised me.

Have you seen the lens image quality tool comparison with the Canon one at the-digital-picture.com ?

Wide open the Sigma is much better than the Canon not only on the corners but the center too. And the Canon have quite some fringe... Even down two 2.8 you can see a nice rainbow on the thin lines on the Canon and very minimal on the Sigma

There has to be a point where a lens performance is rated a good enough, more than adequate...a great professional tool. This is where I see the 35L. I seriously doubt that my customers will see any real world difference in the sharpness but a heck of a lot of difference in the colour balance and rendering. I stick to one lens brand so that my pictures carry the same colour balance too. I don't see how any hand held shot using a 35L or a Siggi 35 f1.4 is going to make a lot of difference. Sure....pop it on a tripod and shoot a lens chart....we all make sell loads of pictures doing that ;D

 

[Pi]

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

You can look at the images I posted here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14161.60. Often, there are no problems with the bokeh but sometimes, there are.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm curious about your statement about the 35L rendering. I've been using my 35L for about 6 years now and it's always been creamy and very nice when shot wide open. Sure it needs critical focussing and it's AF isn't that great in really low light. But the rendering is really something special. I use mine alongside an 85L for weddings and they are easily my most used lenses. The two lenses have a certain look which compliment each other.

You can look at the images I posted here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14161.60. Often, there are no problems with the bokeh but sometimes, there are.

I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted, the thread seems to mention some green CA around the Bokeh rings...but hey that's really minor and if it bothers you....it's easily corrected in PS / LR. I would honestly say that if you are looking for optical perfection...good luck with that. Most lenses have some kind of optical design compromise somewhere, get used to it and adapt to make up for it. The only execption to this is flakey AF or excessivley soft images.

 

[Pi]

I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted[...]

I am talking about the image below. It is not some cherry-picked example, I have experienced this quite a few times. The Sigma can be quite bad as well, probably worse: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/z/in/photostream/. Read the comment below the photo, I have generated quite a traffic to this image! No offense to the owner, it is a lovely photo.



In the Mall of America

 

[BurlapZack]

I don't see any bokeh issues with any of those photos in the thread which you posted[...]

I am talking about the image below. It is not some cherry-picked example, I have experienced this quite a few times. The Sigma can be quite bad as well, probably worse: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/z/in/photostream/. Read the comment below the photo, I have generated quite a traffic to this image! No offense to the owner, it is a lovely photo.

No offense taken.

Haha I admit I was surprised at the sudden increase in pageviews!

 

[sunnyVan]

I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also. The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.

 

[Quackator]

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.

Try DPP. Digital Lens Optimizer and lens aberration correction make it simple.

 

[wayno]

I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also. The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.

Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.

 

[sunnyVan]

I returned my sigma yesterday and got my 35L today. I was extremely happy the first 15minutes. The handling is right; the AF is substantially faster (maybe 30%?) and incredibly consistent; and the bokeh is beautiful.

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

Sharpness wise the 35L is sharp enough at 1.4. Maybe Sigma is sharper but the 35L is sharp enough for my purposes.

I love the AF and handling of the 35L. Every shot so far is accurate. The CA is a bit annoying. Maybe this is the biggest limitation of this old lens. There's less vignetting than Sigma but I care less about this. I think the 35L is too expensive also. The Sigma is priced right. But its AF is a big disappointment, at least as far as my copy is concerned.

I'm leaning towards keeping the 35L. There is quite a bit of work to remove CA in LR, but maybe I'll live with that.

Maybe I'm missing the point but I just remove CA with one button in LR. Removes enough of it to be a non issue for me at least.

With pictures taken at 2.8, one click on "remove CA" in LR will take care of most unwanted colored lines. Pictures taken below 2.8 need manual defringing with the dropper. Maybe I'm not doing it correctly. Any insights would be appreciated. That's just my observation from 3 hrs of owning it. Could be wrong.

 

[sunnyVan]

Anyway, I think my point is that no lens is perfect and you need to decide for yourself what is more important.

 

[infared]

OMG...I own all L glass except my Zeiss 21mm, My Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ("for me" kicks butt on Canon f/1.8 & f/1.4...and blows the 50mm L away on price ($399 right now), size and "for me" similar image quality) and my Sigma 35mm f/1.4. The price was just right and the focusing and image quality all the way around is as good or better than the Canon 35mm L "for me".
No-Brainer fantastic lens for an active photographer. I don't "over analyze", no lens stands up to that. I agree with all of the reviews I have read...The Sigma...Price, Build & Performance make it an absolute winner "for me". ...can't wait to see the next offering in the Art Series line...Hope it is a winner, too!

 

[Pi]

Then came slight disappointment. On computer screen even without zooming there's very visible CA and purple fringing on some images. I think I'm seeing them because I know where to find them.

This should be in high contrast cases and worse away from the center. In "normal" conditions, I see no CA. You can also see it in OOF highlights.