Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

[risc32]

oh my.

 

[ishdakuteb]

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?

no more sensor, now talking about lens? yes, i do know some of sigma lenses are better than canon but i prefer to use canon due to possibility of unknown unexpected/intermittent communication erroneous (proprietary interface specs and designs). however, to match these two particular images together (not the rest of them):

PULL BLACK TO THE LEFT TINY BIT PLEASE... MIGHT NEED TO ADJUST A LITTLE OF HIGHLIGHT... BUMMER

worth to risk? NO

 

[Pi]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

Speaking about corner resolution wide open - not that it really matters - can you find any confirmation of what we see here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is a bad case of astigmatism: the Sigma has very poor vertical resolution and very good horizontal one. The Canon is much more uniform but it has lower contrast (which I can confirm - there is some diagonal, comma-like smearing).

 

[Sporgon]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

Speaking about corner resolution wide open - not that it really matters - can you find any confirmation of what we see here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is a bad case of astigmatism: the Sigma has very poor vertical resolution and very good horizontal one. The Canon is much more uniform but it has lower contrast (which I can confirm - there is some diagonal, comma-like smearing).

I'm not seeing TDP result reflected in the pictures posted by ankowatt - again. I say again because I started a thread about inconsistencies between test results from TDP and photozone, citing the 70-300L as an example, but no one was interested.

ankorwatt's examples show the Sigma to be far better in the extreme corners than the Canon 35L, more so than you would guess from the TDP results. However my guess is that photozone will make the difference very clear. As I stated in an earlier post I wouldn't change my 35L because of soft extreme corners at f1.4 anyway

 

[Pi]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

Speaking about corner resolution wide open - not that it really matters - can you find any confirmation of what we see here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is a bad case of astigmatism: the Sigma has very poor vertical resolution and very good horizontal one. The Canon is much more uniform but it has lower contrast (which I can confirm - there is some diagonal, comma-like smearing).

I'm not seeing TDP result reflected in the pictures posted by ankowatt - again. I say again because I started a thread about inconsistencies between test results from TDP and photozone, citing the 70-300L as an example, but no one was interested.

ankorwatt's examples show the Sigma to be far better in the extreme corners than the Canon 35L, more so than you would guess from the TDP results. However my guess is that photozone will make the difference very clear. As I stated in an earlier post I wouldn't change my 35L because of soft extreme corners at f1.4 anyway

The results may depend on where you focus - in the center, or in the corners. Not that I will ever focus in the corners. TDP focus only in the center.

BTW, the 35L is the best focusing lens I own or even tried; and this includes 20+ lenses. I would think twice before I let it go, when the 35LII materializes. I get consistently good results even with the outer AF points of the 5D2, which we all know are useless.

 

[Pi]

I did not ask you for numbers that I can find myself on the web. I asked you if you can confirm what I see on TDP. If you do not want to do the test, fine. I did not say anything to defend either lens. You are too sensitive.

BTW, this numbers do not distinguish between horizontal and vertical resolution. My guess would be field curvature, and with proper focusing, I expect the Sigma to look better that on TDP, and much better than the Canon. Does this sound as a defense of the Canon?

 

[infared]

So sad.

 

[wickidwombat]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider

 

[Hobby Shooter]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider

Many times I can't tell a good picture from a not so good picture, my eyes are not so good and I am not skilled enough. Having said that I am still very happy with my 35L. I think it delivers great character in the images I capture, maybe the Sigma is better but I still wouldn't make a change as it simply doesn't makes sense. First of all since it's not a priority, I have other priorities gear-wise, secondly as I have said before, the 35L has proven itself over soon 15 years, we still don't know how the Sigma will keep up over years of hard use. But competition ie always good and I hope Sigma keeps launching new exciting lenses to push both Nikon and Canon to improve even further.

 

[distant.star]

.
While I can appreciate all the technical stuff, after a while it does grow wearying. Almost like arguing that one fish hook will catch more fish because it has a sharper point and its barb is 2 millimeters longer.

Today I did two events, around 1000 pictures, almost all with the Sigma 35mm. It makes me feel almost giddy with joy. On a 5D3, it's like there's no picture beyond my reach (at least within the focal range limits). I'll bet if I had a Canon 35mm I wouldn't feel much different -- but I do love this extra money I have!

 

[infared]

.
While I can appreciate all the technical stuff, after a while it does grow wearying. Almost like arguing that one fish hook will catch more fish because it has a sharper point and its barb is 2 millimeters longer.

Today I did two events, around 1000 pictures, almost all with the Sigma 35mm. It makes me feel almost giddy with joy. On a 5D3, it's like there's no picture beyond my reach (at least within the focal range limits). I'll bet if I had a Canon 35mm I wouldn't feel much different -- but I do love this extra money I have!

The fishing hooks sound really exciting after that endless, pointless diatribe of meaningless minutiea! ;D

 

[wickidwombat]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider

Many times I can't tell a good picture from a not so good picture, my eyes are not so good and I am not skilled enough. Having said that I am still very happy with my 35L. I think it delivers great character in the images I capture, maybe the Sigma is better but I still wouldn't make a change as it simply doesn't makes sense. First of all since it's not a priority, I have other priorities gear-wise, secondly as I have said before, the 35L has proven itself over soon 15 years, we still don't know how the Sigma will keep up over years of hard use. But competition ie always good and I hope Sigma keeps launching new exciting lenses to push both Nikon and Canon to improve even further.

I almost bought a 35L before the sigma came out, glad i held off I bought a used 135 f2L with the savings


I dont think the 35L is bad at all I just think the sigma is better (personal opinion only)

 

[Hobby Shooter]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider

Many times I can't tell a good picture from a not so good picture, my eyes are not so good and I am not skilled enough. Having said that I am still very happy with my 35L. I think it delivers great character in the images I capture, maybe the Sigma is better but I still wouldn't make a change as it simply doesn't makes sense. First of all since it's not a priority, I have other priorities gear-wise, secondly as I have said before, the 35L has proven itself over soon 15 years, we still don't know how the Sigma will keep up over years of hard use. But competition ie always good and I hope Sigma keeps launching new exciting lenses to push both Nikon and Canon to improve even further.

I almost bought a 35L before the sigma came out, glad i held off I bought a used 135 f2L with the savings


I dont think the 35L is bad at all I just think the sigma is better (personal opinion only)

I think you came out of it better than me then with two great lenses. From all I understand the Sigma is better than the 35L, that's just how it goes. As I said, the competion will only make things better for us users. Next purchase I hope to be able to get that kind of deal you got.

 

[Quasimodo]

What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.

I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider

Many times I can't tell a good picture from a not so good picture, my eyes are not so good and I am not skilled enough. Having said that I am still very happy with my 35L. I think it delivers great character in the images I capture, maybe the Sigma is better but I still wouldn't make a change as it simply doesn't makes sense. First of all since it's not a priority, I have other priorities gear-wise, secondly as I have said before, the 35L has proven itself over soon 15 years, we still don't know how the Sigma will keep up over years of hard use. But competition ie always good and I hope Sigma keeps launching new exciting lenses to push both Nikon and Canon to improve even further.

I almost bought a 35L before the sigma came out, glad i held off I bought a used 135 f2L with the savings


I dont think the 35L is bad at all I just think the sigma is better (personal opinion only)

I think you came out of it better than me then with two great lenses. From all I understand the Sigma is better than the 35L, that's just how it goes. As I said, the competion will only make things better for us users. Next purchase I hope to be able to get that kind of deal you got.

+1. Well said. I also believe that tough competition will make Canon better. We are not talking about switching a system for another, but for some a lens. Canon shooters have bought third party lenses all the time (i.e. With the understanding that people give up quality for a lower price), but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

 

[Hobby Shooter]

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

They will probably go bankrupt before the end of the year.

 

[Quasimodo]

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

Another can of worms altogether I am not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on that matter, nor do I want to. All I know is that it is more than good enough for me as it is now. I truly do not believe that it is the "inferior" sensor from Canon that is keeping me from being great!

 

[infared]

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

They will probably go bankrupt before the end of the year.

+1 (sarcastically) 8)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.

 

[Quasimodo]

With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.

+ 1

 

[Sporgon]

... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...

Canon has been over taken in the sensor department by Sony/Nikon and now they're being overtaken in the lens department.

But you're overlooking that fact that the EOS system delivers.