Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

[risc32]

it could be, but i've gone down the road of sending things to sigma for calibration, and i wouldn't do it again. I'll take this USB dock any day over that. also it looks like they will be able to tweak the firmware with this dock as well as AF, so i think the days of rechipping your lenses are behind us. Besides, i've had to send lenses to Canon for adjustments as well, so while i think sigma's QC might be problematic, canon's isn't perfect either.

 

[victorwol]

The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?

That is my concern. It seems like a lot of trial and error, and shooting charts many, many times. Fine if it is the only lens in your kit, but seems like a pretty huge investment of time. And what if, like many of us, you shoot multiple bodies? I like the concept of the finite focus control; I'm less crazy about the time investment. Doing AFMA on a few bodies is already a fair investment of time (I do it manually).

One plus, however, is that unlike the slow, multi-step task of making each change in the body, the software at least allows for quick adjustments. It would be great if the hub came with a FoCal type software that could automate part of the process.

 

[GuyF]

The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?

Ask yourself this, "if I have to adjust my new lens up to four times over its range to ensure sharp focus, do I feel I've wasted my money?".

 

[Zv]

The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?

That is my concern. It seems like a lot of trial and error, and shooting charts many, many times. Fine if it is the only lens in your kit, but seems like a pretty huge investment of time. And what if, like many of us, you shoot multiple bodies? I like the concept of the finite focus control; I'm less crazy about the time investment. Doing AFMA on a few bodies is already a fair investment of time (I do it manually).

One plus, however, is that unlike the slow, multi-step task of making each change in the body, the software at least allows for quick adjustments. It would be great if the hub came with a FoCal type software that could automate part of the process.

Having just used Focal for the first time the other day I agree with that. I would love to have four adjustment points on my Canon zoom lenses. At least Sigma users now have that chance! All you need is the data from Focal and you're set!

 

[Kengur]

I tested Sigma and Canon side by side. In the end I chose Canon. First sharpness is not everything, and overall pics from Canon just seem a little bit more pleasing. Second Sigma AF is a bit less responsive, and it misses more in dim light (which is the biggest factor). And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

 

[Viggo]

I had a chance to finally try the Sigma out and it looked cool, it felt heavy and big for a 35 f1.4. Loved the focusing ring, very good color and contrast. I used LV to focus, since it wasn't afma'd, and I wouldn't trade my 35 L for it because of sharpness, others will. But all of that wasn't really important. I wanted to see if the AF is indeed "same as the 35 L" as I've seen claimed, I have always doubted that, because the 35 L is fantastic. And I was right, the AF of the Sigma feels like the 35 L in slow-motion.. VERY slow... I'm not sure if people who have tested the Sigma vs 35 L have used a 5d, and the 1d X spins the 35 L faster because of the higher battery voltage, but it's not even in the same leauge as the 35 L.

So I'll take my small light, VERY sharp, superfast AF 35 L a million times over.

 

[risc32]

And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

While i took the family to a circus yesterday i accidentally gave the sigma a good whack on the aluminum bleachers. It was a pretty forceful blow and i feared some damage. i actually muttered a foul word while in the company of lots of kids. not a scratch. fingers crossed, let's not do that again....

 

[florianbieler.de]

First sharpness is not everything

Blasphemy!

 

[jhanken]

And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

IMHO, because Sigma has been at the lens game for a while, the proto-Batman analogy is clever but not really appropriate in this case. I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.

 

[Quasimodo]

And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

IMHO, because Sigma has been at the lens game for a while, the proto-Batman analogy is clever but not really appropriate in this case. I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.

+ 1

 

[Kengur]

I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.

35L is so ugly I take it outside and shoot it

 

[CanNotYet]

Ankorwatt: I might be missing something here, but I get the impression that your comparison pictures are made with a 35L on a Canon body, and the Sigma on a Nikon body. Is that correct?

If that is the case, then I think your comparison lacks something, color rendition etc might be affected by other things than the lens...

That said, I would get the Sigma if I would choose between them. I would do that even if it was 90% as good as the Canon, as I am one of the price sensitive ones...

But now if it is 105% of what the 35L is (better sharpness, worse AF etc.), then the choice gets even easier.

I also rarely take pictures at 35mm that requires blistering fast AF, I am usually at 70 at above when that occurs. (although I see the point with kids at home)

 

[JVLphoto]

I dunno guys, I've been using this lens for a few months now and it's hasn't fallen apart at the seams. Still getting cracking good images, I *may* have dropped it, and I still think it's the technical better of the two... just saying.

 

[wickidwombat]

That said, I would get the Sigma if I would choose between them. I would do that even if it was 90% as good as the Canon, as I am one of the price sensitive ones...

put it this way i got a brand new sigma 35 f1.4 and a 2 year old used canon 135 f2L for what a canon 35L would have cost me
I think the IQ out of the sigma beats the 35L although i have only tested and not owned the 35L
still thats not saying the 35L is not a great lens i almost pulled the trigger and bought one the day sigma anounced the 35!

 

[garyknrd]

First sharpness is not everything

Blasphemy!

LOL

 

[crasher8]

Mine will be here Thursday!

 

[shinjuku-thief]

I tested Sigma and Canon side by side. In the end I chose Canon. First sharpness is not everything, and overall pics from Canon just seem a little bit more pleasing. Second Sigma AF is a bit less responsive, and it misses more in dim light (which is the biggest factor). And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch

pleasing
less responsive
misses more in dim light

sounds very un scientific

the sigma skates 8 around my canon 35/1,4 and also nikon 35/1,4

Why does an opinion on a lens (or of the images that it is capable of producing) need to be scientific? Numbers are not everything. I am currently tackling the issue of which lens to get at the 30 or 35mm focal length. Whilst the Sigma is undeniably sharp, after spending alot of time comparing images from the two I find that I like the character of images produced by the Canon more. Unscientific perhaps, but I am neither a scientist nor a robot.

 

[crasher8]

omg this things doesn't come off my camera!…..except to put on the 135L

 

[distant.star]

omg this things doesn't come off my camera!…..except to put on the 135L

That's just about where I am. I'll go to the 17-40 if I need it for an UWA, but the 35 goes right back on. My 24-105 is feeling VERY neglected these days.