Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

[Pi]

THANK GOD!!!!!!

same here, notice that I have the both lenses and are a little bit allergic to peoples statements when they not have a clue what they are talking about and have not tested the lenses against each other
So here comes two new files. Which is best regarding bokeh ? f-1,4 from sigma and canon and the background
I see clearly green ca from one of the lenses, is this to short or to long from the sharpness plane and to the back ground?

The only thing deserving attention here are the letters on the bottle: "TRE" and "47". The Sigma is much worse, as expected. The background is blurred enough not to matter.

please explain, you do not se any difference in CA? one lens is much better corrected than the other

Because in normal viewing conditions, the CA is not visible. On the other hand, the double lines are, and can dominate the whole picture.

Look at this:

Do you see CA? I do not (but there is, at 100% zoom). What grabs my attention are the double lines on the back.

Let us say that I tested the same lens with closeups. Like those here:

Look good, right? Based on those closeups, you would never say that those double lines could be a problem. But they are. And I have many shots on my HD with double lines, and many more without them.

All those shots are with the 35L on FF.

 

[Pi]

not visible?
canon 35/1,4 is known for ca and at 1,4 .http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1
the sigma is better corrected and also also known for that
give me 2 exact same exposure from the two lenses.

now, because of different contrast/resolution in the lenses there can be different results.
which one is better than the other?

If you shoot charts, disable the lens corrections and look for CA, it might be visible. Do you see it in any of the shots I posted?

The most visible difference above is the contrast and the colors.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with the CA correction with the Sigma, Canon should do the same with its 35LII. But the Sigma is more corrected lens (not just for CA). This made it sharper but screwed up the bokeh. Canon did exactly the opposite with the 50L and the 85LII. The 50L is much softer than the 35L but it has much better bokeh. The 85LII has stronger PF than the 35L but much better bokeh.

Where is the CA here:

 

[Pi]

send me the original file, the one you show is to small to look at

My point exactly. Do you need the original file to tell how awful this looks?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/z/in/photostream/

 

[Pi]

again you are showing some pictures with out any comparison, I have a different view about the two lenses also dpreview,lens tip and photo zone have tested the sigma and have i different opinion than you have..
not much more to discuss, or what do you think


The Sigma has the best results of all 1.4/35 lenses, tested by us so far in the categories of resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration and coma correction. It also fares very well in the case of astigmatism correction and the autofocus accuracy, being one of the cheapest lenses in this class of equipment. I think I don’t have to add anything more…

Nothing about bokeh there.

It is OK if you do not care about it, but you should not dismiss my concerns just because Klauss liked the lens (but not the bokeh). Keep using it in real life, and you will see what I mean.

 

[Pi]

I have done it now for some weeks now , compare the lens with my 35/1,4 Canon, as I said, we have a different view and I think my pictures shows that 1. the sigma lens has higher resolution 2. there are no difference in bokeh , except that sigma has higher contrast. So I leave you with that we have a different view of the two lenses.

Fair enough. Thanks for posting those comparisons. Even though they are not what I wanted (focus too close), I can still see a confirmation of what I expected.

 

[infared]

Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.

Notice how I don't do that in my reviews

THANK GOD!!!!!!

same here, notice that I have the both lenses and are a little bit allergic to peoples statements when they not have a clue what they are talking about and have not tested the lenses against each other
So here comes two new files. Which is best regarding bokeh ? f-1,4 from sigma and canon and the background
I see clearly green ca from one of the lenses, is this to short or to long from the sharpness plane and to the back ground?

I do not need to sit around testing lenses...I let professionals do that for me and I read their results. The results lead me to buy the Sigma which is easily $400-$500 less than the Canon and rated superior by all the pro reviewers, not a weekend warrior. Also, to read Justin's review, a review from a VERY COMPETENT real world photographer just puts it over the top for me. My Sigma is an incredible lens. The price is amazing. If Canon comes up with update, the price will approach $2000. So the purchase for me was a no brainer, and I have been out making images with the lens, in the real world and have been nothing but pleased with my decision. Great lens!

 

[BLFPhoto]

I own the 35 L. Last night I got to try the Sigma at a wedding I was shooting. Wile there were no direct, same comparison shots, the shots I took are virtually indistinguishable in a real world shooting situation. I have to look at the EXIF to see which shot is from which lens.

Of greater interest to me would be the makeup and design of the internals. I know the Canon is a workhorse, having shot it for years without issue. Will the Sigma withstand pro level shooting for years, in all conditions? Has someone disassembled one to observe? Are the moving parts quality or not? My frame of reference would be the older Canon 24-70 L which had internals notorious for wear under heavy use. While those are replaceable with service, other lenses are much better constructed. The Sigma certainly feels as good as my Canon. What would we find under the hood, though?

 

[distant.star]

.
Thanks, ankorwatt. I don't think I fully understand all you're showing us, but it's interesting, and a good learning experience. I appreciate your professional efforts!

I tend more toward infared's inclinations -- just looking at results I get when I'm pushing the shutter button. Since most folks say it's as good or better than the Canon version, I figure I've saved a lot of money if nothing else.

As for the question of internal components holding up to everyday professional use, I guess we'll have to see. Not an issue for me as I'm not using it that way.

 

[infared]

.....yawn.....DS....let's go make some art!!!!!!

 

[Sporgon]

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?

 

[Albi86]

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?

It's a matter of framing. Sharp corners mean you can frame the scene as you like, compared to center framing + cropping.

 

[Viggo]

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?

Here's a quick example shot at 1.2 to show the need for corner sharpness. Aimed at his eyes.

 

[Pi]

Here's a quick example shot at 1.2 to show the need for corner sharpness. Aimed at his eyes.

To satisfy the pixelpeeper's corner requirement, one of the eyes needs to be out of the frame.

 

[Krob78]

Certainly looks like a competent option for many...

 

[Viggo]

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?

you will never get critical corner sharpness at 1,4 but it shows that sigma in this case is much better than canon at 1,4 which not can be bad parameter.

Last pictures regarding the bokeh issue, to me they are very equal

Well, I will wait to agree with that until after I get
The Zeiss 55 ;D

 

[Pi]

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?

you will never get critical corner sharpness at 1,4 but it shows that sigma in this case is much better than canon at 1,4 which not can be bad parameter.

Last pictures regarding the bokeh issue, to me they are very equal

You keep using those lenses as macro lenses...

 

[Pi]

yes , what ever , 1,5 m with a 35mm to the target and 1m to the book shell behind the focus plane , macro?
you seems to have trouble to understand that the sigma can be good as the canon

You have trouble understanding that both can be bad, as I and many other people demonstrated already. If you blur the background enough, as you did, you will see no essential difference. I told you that a few days ago.

Try to challenge both lenses. Look at the other thread for examples of bad bokeh. DO NOT FOCUS CLOSE! Use the lens, well, the way you will use it. Instead of a miniature, put a real person there.

 

[Pi]

I don't have any problem to understand that the back ground or fore ground can be nervous , but here are the 2 lenses compared at the same distances and there are several distances.

But neither of them reveals anything like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav8/8574231708/#sizes/c/in/pool-2109177@N20/

Your "several distances" are too short. You concluded that both lenses have wonderful bokeh, which is incorrect in many situations. They typically include shooting half-body environmental portraits, not miniature toys; and not always wide open.

 

[millan]

I don't have any problem to understand that the back ground or fore ground can be nervous , but here are the 2 lenses compared at the same distances and there are several distances.

But neither of them reveals anything like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav8/8574231708/#sizes/c/in/pool-2109177@N20/

Your "several distances" are too short. You concluded that both lenses have wonderful bokeh, which is incorrect in many situations. They typically include shooting half-body environmental portraits, not miniature toys; and not always wide open.

Pi, ankorwatt says, and pictures prove that, the Sigma has not worse bokeh, than canon has, despite it has less CA and is sharper - optically better. No more, no less. And no one says the bokeh of 35 mm f1.4 lens is as nice as 70-200 f2.8 II or 135 f2 for example. But from 35 mm f1.4 lens bunch it is the best one.

 

[Pi]

I do not care what others have done or not if they not have compared the 2 lenses side by side, , here you can se the 2 lenses at the side of each other and the same motive
and stop now telling me that the distance are to short.

This is more like it. Why can't we see the whole frames?