Review 2 - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art

[[email protected]]

I'm reminded of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfCJDIf-NeA

...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).

Yes, it's impossible for Rebels to microadjust... Unless you use Sigma and get the dock. I get it that this is not for you, and that's really fine.Heck, it's not for most people.

But the photography some of us do is very pixel peepish (macro and heavily cropped wildlife for me), so when I keep my SL1 on my hip as a backup/second lens, it needs to be adjusted to that lens. I can do the dock adjustments to the 18-35 Art using the SL1 as the primary test body, and then use Canon MFA in camera to adapt my 7d2 and 5d3s to the now-normed lens. That probably sounds like a monumental waste of time to most people, and I get that. My wife throws the kit 18-135 on her SL1 and may not change a lens in six months. And you'd have to pay her serious money to hook a camera up to a computer for diagnostics.

Then again, "normal" people don't read lens reviews. If we go by that standard, then Dustin's review should read something along the lines of...

"There are other lenses than the ones that came with your camera. A company called Sigma create a new one that stays at one focal length and doesn't zoom. In other words, things don't get bigger by turning the barrel ring. This lens is mightily sharp, which is to say that when you take pictures of your backlit cat on the porch at night, you will be able to discern individual hairs, rather than just the matts. It costs $1,000. OK, bye bye then."

Back to serious-face... I completely see how it's just as easy to poke fun at us gear heads too, and how it would be annoying to see lens manufacturers make things still more complex just to serve their strange desires. I think Nininini has a valid point, but I think people who don't want to deal with that complexity don't read seven-page lens reviews with data tables and Youtube sidebars. -Tig

 

[Sabaki]

Industry wide, calibration I feel is something all manufacturers should be doing better.

My DSLR journey started with a Canon 500D, 18-55 & 55-250 bundle. Every shot taken with those lenses on that body was great and I was entirely happy with the images.

I began buying better quality lenses and started with the 100mm macro (non L) and something was off, meaning it had to go in for adjustment but came back fine. I had on/off experiences like that with L series lenses such as my 20-70mkii, 70-200 f/4.0 (non IS) and my 70-200 f/4.0 IS. So the kit goes away for a while and comes back in order.

So then I bought my 7Dii. Sheesh! Every lens that worked properly on the 500D was slightly out here. And yes, I do understand that I could AFMA those lenses (although my 100L & 24-70 had to ultimately go for calibration) but I felt that buying a new, more advanced camera provided me with too many negative moments.

- Parting with kit straight after purchase (I was excited to go shoot!)
- The cost of taking time off work and driving to a service centre that only operates during standard business hours
- Receiving my kit back 8 days later
- Self doubt and not trusting my kit

Had the body been in order from the get go, I would've had a far happier experience with this but I feel as if there is too much onus placed on the consumer to get your kit in order, even though I own 1st party everything.

Please note that I do understand there is a relatively steep learning curve going from a 500D to a 7Dii but I am addressing the fact that quality control of items purchased should be the manufacturer's responsibility.

I also had to go through 3 7Dii bodies (early adopters curse ;D) before I came onto one that worked. The first 2 was acknowledged by Canon as being out of spec.

 

[9VIII]

On the subject of products being easy to use...

http://www.fujirumors.com/instax-rules-them-all-massive-sales-of-fujis-instax-film-instax-cameras-sell-better-than-fujifilm-x-t1/


The problem here is that no-one is ever going to use instant film for their vacation or family photos.
If Canon were to sell a camera that automatically processes and uploads pictures to instagram the moment you press the shutter, I'm sure they would sell millions of them, and no-one would use it for anything serious anyway because people want a serious camera for serious photos.
No one would ever hire a professional if they thought their iPhone was competent.

The whole problem with Canon, Nikon and Sony is software. It's actually something that Canon already does really well compared to the others, but it's still just not good enough.
It does sound like Nikon may be turning a new leaf though, always-on Bluetooth automatically downloading images to your smartphone could be a big deal, and the gimped functions in Live View seem to be a thing of the past, and auto AFMA sounds really nice. If it works then they've taken some big steps toward the goals suggested in the Mayflower presentation, though I think it needs to go a couple of steps further.
Canon and Nikon should have RAW editing software on IOS and Android that links to the social media network of your choice, which fits within the principle of "go where your customers are". Not that Professionals will stop doing their heavy lifting on PC, but 99% of camera users aren't professionals.

They need to aim to produce a catered experience from capture to publishing that takes less than two or three button presses.
Really I really feel like in-camera RAW processing should be a thing, either using the camera processor or by sending processing instructions with the photo to the device that does the processing, and we should be publishing images to the internet directly from the camera.
1. Take pictures 2. select favourites 3. push "auto adjust" (with options for user definied pre-sets for what to adjust) 4. Hit "publish"
That should be the workflow for uploading a small batch of pictures to the internet.


One of the things I'm going to experiemnt with once I get a Fuji X series camera is doing all my photo adjustments on the spot and using JPEG's only, thus allowing me to push images to a tablet or cell phone.
Why not try that with Canon?
Because I already get annoyed trying to shoot in full manual without fine tuning the exposure, I need a dial for every setting, and I need an EVF to intuitively see what the picture looks like as I'm shooting.
No, you probably can't shoot action like this, but pretty much everything other than sports and Birds In Flight should be fine.

 

[Eldar]

I have not read all the replies to this thread, so it may by that I repeat someone else's points.

I have been through 3 different 50mm Art lenses, due to AF INCONSISTENCY. The third is OK, but not great. I have been through 2 different 35 Art and gave up.

The problem I have had is NOT AFMA, but INCONSISTENCY. It front focus on one shot, back focus on the next and may be somewhere in between on the third. I AFMA all my AF lenses (I have and have had quite a few), using FoCal and a manual LensAlign rig. To all those who claim that these AF issues are user error and incompetence, I think I can claim it is not. A tripod mounted setup in controlled light, with a steady high contrast target and the recommended distance, should be pretty easy to call a controlled environment.

My last attempt to make it work was buying the dock. The user experience was rather aweful, but I spent quite a few hours trying to get everything done correctly. Who can claim they have managed to set the offset correctly for the various ranges? I doubt very many. It is a very tedious process. But when the issue is INCONSISTENCY, it does not help the overall performance much, to find the center point of this inconsistency. With the 35mm Art, FoCal was unable set an AFMA value (after more than 60 shots in a singel attempt). I have published the FoCal chart for this previously and it looks like a short barreled shotgun shot.

I agree with Dustin. If the dock is required to get the lens to work, it should have been included. A lens sold under the quality sloagans used, a regular AFMA should have been sufficient.

 

[Pitbullo]

Could be useful if the reviewer would try using the SIGMA dock for SIGMA reviews where relevant.

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.

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.

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.

By all means, a good review. A real world, subjective, review is what I prefer. The decision whether to use the dock or not comes down to who the review is for, I think. For a professional it may be more important that the lens works straight out of the box without any tinkering. For me, as a hobbyist with no income from photography, another day job, mortgage, car, kids and so on, Sigma has provided high quality lenses financially within reach. As you say, spending 4-5 hours tuning the lens should not be necessary, but for me (and many others I guess), tuning the lens is simply worth it considering the bang for the bucks I get.
Now, should the dock be included with the lens? I don't think so, as it is very cheap, and once you have one, you can use it on all compatible Sigma lenses.

 

[YuengLinger]

Core question regarding AFMA: How much would you be willing to pay for a pro body and quiver of lenses manufactured so precisely as to never need AFMA? We're talking NASA standards here.

But--Sigma is TOO slack, and even their docks aren't fixing all problems.

Didn't we see an Art breakdown showing individual elements have little if any room for realignment?

The Sigma lenses are cheaper in part because of lower production standads, I believe.

The 35 Art is brilliant for the price, but the AF issues are a legitimate consideration.

I got lucky with mine, love its performance, color, bokeh. However, bad luck with the 50A, and excellent service by Canon would push me to Canon for a replacement.

Hopefully Sigma will solve AF puzzle, as competition is essential!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hopefully Sigma will solve AF puzzle, as competition is essential!

I agree 100%. Although I get called a Sigma basher, I actually like Sigma lenses, and I desperately want them to succeed in this area because they ARE pushing 1st party lenses in so many other areas. I love their creativity and willingness to take chances. But as for my own personal kit I have this little rule; if I can't rely on the lens in crucial situations, I don't keep it. If I want to be slow and creative, I've got some excellent legacy MF lenses that scratch that itch. Sigma ART lenses are terrible to MF because the focus throw is so short, so they NEED the AF to work right.

In all fairness, though, you've got to credit Sigma for not being afraid to go after large aperture lens designs that put a lot of pressure on the AF system.

P.S. Craig (CanonRumorsGuy) has loaned me his 50mm f/1.0L for review, and in my early tests (just got it yesterday), it seems pretty deadly accurate after AFMA - so it IS possible...even for a now legacy lens.

 

[Viggo]

After 5 Art lenses I'm done with Sigma, and I had the docking and used FoCal and literally tens of thousands of shots just to find the right afma. No chance, dock cannot fix inconsistencies.

Build and image quality are both excellent, but when you're never able to get that sharpness due to useless AF it's no point owning one.

I'm happy for the people that have a lens that works, but please, don't tell people
They're using it wrong or don't do things correctly when they have inconsistencies.

 

[infared]

Oh My ...it's the usual hornet's-nest on this topic....
I love Dustin's reviews.
I also love my Sigma 20mm, 35mm and 50mm ART Lenses (adjusted with the dock)!
They rock. 8)

 

[9VIII]

Given how many people love these lenses and how many people constantly complain about them, I still have to wonder how many people would pick up a Sigma body and carry a system produced entirely by Sigma for the sake of getting reliable autofocus on high quality affordable lenses.

And I'm still scratching my head wondering why Sigma doesn't produce a body for their own lenses in the $1,000 price range. The Merril SD1 in a plastic housing surely wouldn't cost very much to make today, and they could probably boost the burst speed at the same time.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Given how many people love these lenses and how many people constantly complain about them, I still have to wonder how many people would pick up a Sigma body and carry a system produced entirely by Sigma for the sake of getting reliable autofocus on high quality affordable lenses.

And I'm still scratching my head wondering why Sigma doesn't produce a body for their own lenses in the $1,000 price range. The Merril SD1 in a plastic housing surely wouldn't cost very much to make today, and they could probably boost the burst speed at the same time.

That's a good point. I think those best off at the moment are those shooting an A7R II with a quality adapter. Reliable focus + Sigma optics sounds pretty good.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Oh My ...it's the usual hornet's-nest in here.....
I love Dustin's reviews.
I also love my Sigma 20mm, 35mm and 50mm ART Lenses (adjusted with the dock)!
They rock. 8)

Thanks, and I'm glad to hear it. I probably will give the 20mm a look in the near future. Besides the 50mm f/1.0L (more of a hobby project), I'm about to tackle a review of the Rokinon 21mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 lenses for mirrorless systems (I'll test on a M3 body).

 

[AJ]

Given how many people love these lenses and how many people constantly complain about them, I still have to wonder how many people would pick up a Sigma body and carry a system produced entirely by Sigma for the sake of getting reliable autofocus on high quality affordable lenses.

And I'm still scratching my head wondering why Sigma doesn't produce a body for their own lenses in the $1,000 price range. The Merril SD1 in a plastic housing surely wouldn't cost very much to make today, and they could probably boost the burst speed at the same time.

I wonder why Sigma doesn't make camera bodies with Nikon and Canon mounts. They retro-engineer them anyways for lenses, so why not for bodies. What's the point of a Sigma mount. It limits options, rather than expanding options.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

As promised, here is the redo of a fresh copy of the Tamron 45mm VC for the focus accuracy test. Check out this brief video take on it along with a variety of fresh images from my replacement copy:

http://bit.ly/23vKVHd