Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM

[crasher8]

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.

Sold my 24-105 last week to a friend, she is very happy and I don't miss it. I did get a Tamron 24-70 Di VC however and it blows away both the 24-105 and the 1st gen EF 24-70.

 

[shinjuku-thief]

well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4

So you think there is no difference between the images produced by these two lenses, even though most people are reporting the Sigma is sharper than the Canon?

 

[crasher8]

siggy and canon 35's-Very different bokeh and saturation of certain colors, I can tell.

 

[Viggo]

The main difference between the two can not be seen in pictures. The AF-speed, where the 35 L is superior.

Although I always loved my 35 L I can clearly see, after using the 2470 II for a while, the color and contrast isn't all that awesome on the 35 anymore. I just sold my 35 L today, and no, I will not replace it with a siggy, I have something else in mind. 8)

Anyone know why the Siggy isn't weather-sealed? A disposable camera for 10 bucks is sealed to ten meters, seems strange a lens with no extending parts can't be sealed to handle some heavy rain without braking the bank.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4

Around here the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L costs 5,900 NIS, and the Sigma costs 3,600 NIS. so I could save ~40% and get the same image quality? Sweet...

Some will need the weather sealing, but others could use the different to buy another lens, say an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

 

[j0epayne]

Thanks for a great review. Looking to add this to my arsenal!

http://www.joesphoto.com

 

[drjlo]

I just sold my 35 L today, and no, I will not replace it with a siggy, I have something else in mind. 8)

Pray tell. Zeiss 35 f/1.4 Distagon perhaps?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4

Around here the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L costs 5,900 NIS, and the Sigma costs 3,600 NIS. so I could save ~40% and get the same image quality? Sweet...

Some will need the weather sealing, but others could use the different to buy another lens, say an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

The siggi and Canon 35 f1.4 are not the same and never will be. They have different renderings and bokeh. Colour and contrast are different too...as is flare control and AF competency. Get a Siggi 35mm on it's own merits, but don't kid your self it's a 35L clone, it's not. There is a beauty in the 35L which only comes out in the pictures it produces. Most skilled photographers who regularly use one fall in love with this lens for that very reason.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4

Around here the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L costs 5,900 NIS, and the Sigma costs 3,600 NIS. so I could save ~40% and get the same image quality? Sweet...

Some will need the weather sealing, but others could use the different to buy another lens, say an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

The siggi and Canon 35 f1.4 are not the same and never will be. They have different renderings and bokeh. Colour and contrast are different too...as is flare control and AF competency. Get a Siggi 35mm on it's own merits, but don't kid your self it's a 35L clone, it's not. There is a beauty in the 35L which only comes out in the pictures it produces. Most skilled photographers who regularly use one fall in love with this lens for that very reason.

I am not very skilled but I still love my 35L. There's something about it.

 

[AlanF]

9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.

 

[wickidwombat]

9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.

Honestly i havent used it at all since i got the 50... oh wait i havent taken the 50 off my 5dmk3 since i got it
oh except to attach to the sigma dock for calibration

its still a stunningly great lens but I'm just loving the 50 so much at the moment. I will get around to using the 35 again though. I did find the 35 a really nice 56mm equivalent on my EOS-M though too

 

[AcutancePhotography]

9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.

Very happy with it and have experienced no problems with the lens.

 

[ScottyP]

My 35 lives on the camera. It is insanely sharp, and the focus nails it every time. I had been waiting for the 50 to come out, but I bought the 35 on sale at Christmas. I am glad I waited. It is a perfect length for general shooting, and I can always crop when I need to zoom.

 

[AlanF]

The 35mm A arrived today. It required only +4 AFMA on the 5DIII and -2 on the 70D, by FoCal. The consistency of focus on both is 99.2%, which is better than any of my other lenses. It has a nice balance on the camera, has a an exactly fitting bayonet mount, and feels very well made. The first shots are very sharp. Downloaded the DxO module and it removed the vignetting at f/1.4 nicely. So far so good.

 

[AlanF]

The Sigma 35 is indeed very sharp. However, I tested it carefully against my old Canon 24-105 L at 35mm, using an iso 12233 chart. The 24-105 is sharper (at f/4 on both)! This is the second time the old workhorse has outshone the new pretenders (last time a Tamron 24-70 VC).

The Sigma 35 A is reported by Photozone and lenstip as having significantly superior MTFs to the 24-105. Either I have been unlucky with the Sigma and Tamron and getting poor copies or I have been very lucky and have a 24-105 which is an outlier in the right direction.

 

[risc32]

I got mine at launch or nearly so, and i haven't had any issues at all. it performs like it did when new.
that must be one super 24-105mm you have there. i had one and we got along okay for a while, but it was replaced with by the sigma. when i got the sigma i did some rough test shots to compare them, and the 24-105 just had to go.

 

[vscd]

The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one

If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.

Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway): http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/35mm_compared.png

pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision

 

[infared]

The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one

If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.

Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway): http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/35mm_compared.png

pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision

If you have a great photo, you are not really going to "see." A difference between the Sam Yang and the Sigma. Me..I will take my Sigma and the AF every time. It a way more capable lens for more types of photography.

 

[redsunmiata]

Okay

First off, I'm a new member and I don't see any buttons to start a new thread so I'll post my question in this thread.

I recently bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4. It's been great so far but i had a question about sharpness. I've been pixel peeping too much and have become obsessed with making sure my "copy" is good. Reading some negativity on the lens online made me paranoid. I just need a second opinion on whether my images are as sharp as this lens should produce. Focusing up close, the lens seems to be super sharp. When I have a further subject, it loses some detail, but im assuming this is because of resolution and megapixels? Other than sharpness, the lens isn't too great at focusing. When auto focusing at the wall right in the center from pretty close, it would miss over half the time. But it seemed to miss in the same way. Perhaps getting it calibrated at a shop will help?

Here are the images. They were shot on a 60D

They are all shot at f1.4 except for the last which is 2.8.

What do you guys think. I feel like other people are getting sharper images from further subjects. Thanks!

 

[Sporgon]

The Sigma 35 is indeed very sharp. However, I tested it carefully against my old Canon 24-105 L at 35mm, using an iso 12233 chart. The 24-105 is sharper (at f/4 on both)! This is the second time the old workhorse has outshone the new pretenders (last time a Tamron 24-70 VC).

The Sigma 35 A is reported by Photozone and lenstip as having significantly superior MTFs to the 24-105. Either I have been unlucky with the Sigma and Tamron and getting poor copies or I have been very lucky and have a 24-105 which is an outlier in the right direction.

Photozone miss out the sweet spot of the 24-105L; they test at 24 and 40. I too find the 24-105L to be really excellent between about 30 - 35mm, from f4 to under f8. In fact that lens is unfairly maligned often as not. Switch the IS off, put it on a good tripod, ignore 24 mil and it's a fine GP lens, even for landscape.