Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#104
PVS said:
and fully in english:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=359
Click to expand...

Wow, that was by far the most interesting review of the lens I have read so far, and very eye opening. Their conclusion was that this was the best overall 35mm f/1.4 lens they have ever tested (including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samyang, and Zeiss equivalents). In many tests it blows everything else away. It stumbles only with very strong vignetting (something I personally don't care a lot about, particularly as [to me] if often suits the style of photographer one does with large aperture primes) and the bokeh isn't as fabulous as it could be.

Sharpness, however, is off the charts...almost literally. Very impressive, Sigma, very impressive.
 
Upvote 0
#105
given that the bokeh quality is, to my eye, better than the Canon L's ... it's all relative since we can't all go out and make our own perfect lens. better than the current gold (or red) standard is definitely good enough in my book.
 
Upvote 0
#107
photozone seems to lag behind a bit. nothing against them, what they do it very nice, i like it a lot. If i was in the EU i would be offering up some lenses to them for testing.

DXO just posted their thoughts and findings on the SIGMA, so that might tide you over.
 
Upvote 0
#112
Sounds like the Sigma 35mm is sharper but perhaps there is too much rosey enthusiasm about this lens among some. I am glad to have Canon play defense... competition is always good for the customers but let me share my subjective view of the Sigma pictures I've seen so far.

When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.

Now, in all fairness, had the Canon 35L been used on the same model, same night lighting, would it be any better? I don't know as there was no head-to-head comparison. So I hope for Sigma's sake that Canon 35L would also have produced the same picture.

But what is more significant is that lensrentals gallery in their Sigma review/blog also has those rather flat looking pictures with color rendition that just doesn't grab me. And Roger from lensrental goes on to say bokeh is in fact subpar with this lens. Another review cited in this thread earlier also states the same thing about the Sigma bokeh.

So sharpness is not everything. There is such a thing as "Je ne sais quoi" about the images that lenses generate and I think 35L has it in spades. It hasn't seen much use with me for some time...but perhaps it is time I paid an old friend some much deserved attention.
 
Upvote 0
#113
Ray2021 said:
When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.
Click to expand...

ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right ::)
 
Upvote 0
#114
wickidwombat said:
Ray2021 said:
When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.
Click to expand...

ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right ::)
Click to expand...

That is misreading what I said...I was not saying the football OOF shapes shouldn't occur... I said they are not a good way to judge the quality of bokeh in general...say furniture in the back or trees. Lensrentals' Roger's gallery pics of the sigma 35mm 1.4 is more telling in his recent blog...and ...oddly he directly addresses the sigma bokeh also in the canon 35mm f2 IS review blog with some graphs to boot. All said, I think sigma may very well be sharp, but the bokeh quality may still be behind 35L.
 
Upvote 0
#115
Ray2021 said:
wickidwombat said:
Ray2021 said:
When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.
Click to expand...

ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right ::)
Click to expand...

That is misreading what I said...I was not saying the football OOF shapes shouldn't occur... I said they are not a good way to judge the quality of bokeh in general...say furniture in the back or trees. Lensrentals' Roger's gallery pics of the sigma 35mm 1.4 is more telling in his recent blog...and ...oddly he directly addresses the sigma bokeh also in the canon 35mm f2 IS review blog with some graphs to boot. All said, I think sigma may very well be sharp, but the bokeh quality may still be behind 35L.
Click to expand...

ah gottcha I thought you were blaming the lens for the footballs
did you see the wasp pic in the gallery someone took? that quite frankly is pretty awesome oof blur
 
Upvote 0
#117
I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pong0814/5596735626/#

And, unlike the Sigma, the 35L doesn't keep rounded circular highlights when stopped down if that matters for anyone.
 
Upvote 0
#119
Nishi Drew said:
I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pong0814/5596735626/#

And, unlike the Sigma, the 35L doesn't keep rounded circular highlights when stopped down if that matters for anyone.
Click to expand...

+1

Very, very well said.

I've always complained about Canon's 8-blade apertures... you start seeing octagons in OOF highlights when you stop down even 2/3 of a stop on many of Canon's primes (e.g. the 'venerable' 85/1.2). What I hate even more is that 8-blade aperture lenses produce 8-point sunstars.

Just adding one blade gives you 18-point sunstars. AND circular OOF highlights.

Nikon's had 9-blade apertures for a while now.

What took Canon so long?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Yongnuo Announces the YONGNUO YN50mm F1.8 II, With Super Bokeh Effect
Replies
15
Views
8K
3kramd5
3kramd5
Canon Rumors
Preorder: Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM
Replies
24
Views
10K
nubu
nubu
Canon Rumors
Well, Here's Another Mirrorless Option for Your Canon Glass
Replies
42
Views
14K
jolyonralph
jolyonralph
Canon Rumors
Samyang Optics Launches the Premium Photo Lens- XP 50mm F1.2
Replies
22
Views
9K
lexaclarke
L
Canon Rumors
Yongnuo Develops a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II Alternative, Not a Clone
Replies
27
Views
14K
FramerMCB
FramerMCB
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu