Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

[Nishi Drew]

The bokeh, and the odd "sigma" color pallet apparent in the galleries that me and others have mentioned are issues to consider.

[/quote]

You see, if I and others can afford the top quality stuff to begin with, or at least justify paying such a high price just for the 'colors' (which, as important as color fidelity is, sounds utterly ridiculous in paying so much for in this digital age). Then there wouldn't be these competitive brands releasing such products, and frankly, doing good business.
If you've got a 35L already and are upset that people are dissing 'your' lens and don't want to feel left behind then get the Sigma for yourself, while if you're happy with the 35L then KEEP IT! Sigma is here for people like me, who can pay just enough for their new lens and not quite enough for even a used copy of Canon's 14+ year old design.
So what if there's hype, it's there for a reason, let the potential losers be disappointed and run back to Canikon and have them say "sorry, you're right, I'm never getting Sigma" and then there will be winners who produce great shots with the lens regardless.

And bokeh rendition and how good/bad it is is so subjective, if it's busy, swirly albeit still smooth and not full of CA then that's great for me (sure, busy and smooth don't always go together), but I personally like what the Sigma is producing in terms of bokeh, and after reading some blog posts from real-world pros that ditched their name brand 35mm lenses for the Sigma and report how happy they are with it (with the "yeah the colors don't pop as much, but I don't care" response), I feel fairly confident that I'll personally report back that I'll like the lens once I get it.

As for their history of poor AF, yeah, my 70-200 OS is fast and spot on, never missed, although it needed some AFMAing after I adjusted I never had to touch that, if anything my Canon 5DII that has LOUSY AF might not lock focus. Oh, but we're not talking about camera but lens AF, reason for Sigma to bring out the USB lens dock to fine adjust the lens in the future... don't know how effective that'll be but at least they're not selling-and-forgetting.

 

[minim2]

At least, with this new sigma, no of potential used 35L buyers (or maybe 24L buyers too who are not sure which FL to get or get first) will be lot less. even used 35L is lot costlier than new sigma... which is a good thing for us as a consumer. Even I was thinking to buy one used 35L earlier but decided on sigma.. so far I am happy.

 

[friedmud]

Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...

ET

The first 70-300L I bought this year was no better than my 70-300 non-L, so I returned it (the second one I bought is marvelous, but failed after 3 weeks; it's now fine again - for now, at least). On Black Friday I bought a (brand new) 70-200 L IS II and was dismayed to see that it produced images that were soft along the right edge, in the bottom right corner (extending well into the image) and along the bottom edge, along with dreadful colour fringing in the same area; I returned it too. So no, not always....

Indeed. I had a 17-55 f/2.8 that was WAY soft on the right (but still a great lens!). I also went through two copies of 16-35 f/2.8's that were soft on the left (even on a crop body!) before giving up.

Moral of the story? Check your gear when you buy it! I've switched completely to buying locally so I can test gear and return it easily. Yes, I pay a bit more for the privelege (although not much)... but man is it nice to have a return happen in minutes instead of weeks!

 

[Ewinter]

Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D

 

[Quasimodo]

Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D

+ 1000 I hope I bought mine yesterday. Getting it in January when I return from Christmas holidays @ my in-laws

 

[Ewinter]

Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D

+ 1000 I hope I bought mine yesterday. Getting it in January when I return from Christmas holidays @ my in-laws

It hasn't dropped focus yet in any way that wasn't my fault. I'm not used to a DOF this thin

 

[Quasimodo]

Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D

+ 1000 I hope I bought mine yesterday. Getting it in January when I return from Christmas holidays @ my in-laws

It hasn't dropped focus yet in any way that wasn't my fault. I'm not used to a DOF this thin

 

[jeffabbyben]

I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma

http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78

 

[Ewinter]

I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma

http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78

Cool, what camera was it?

 

[risc32]

Perhaps i'm one of the sigma fanboys? that's a good one. For me, purchasing the sigma 35 was really going out on a limb. I've wrote things on this site before about my discontent with Sigma. biased? yes, and not in sigma's favor. I pretty much hated sigma. crummy construction, poor AF, questionable IQ, crap for shooting against light, and probably the worst- crap service. Once they had a 70-200 of mine for AF calibration. they had it for something like 2 months. I was actually told that they were waiting on a part that was on a ship coming from japan. when i finally got the lens back, it had a nice nick on it, down to bare metal. They also nicked my 24mm 1.8. they've since released like 7 different versions of their 70-200mm, very comforting. it's nice until you get your hands on a canon 70-200.
As i've said this sigma lens is different. It's an order of magnitude better than anything i've ever seen from them. feel free to move the goal posts so that the old canon is still the one for you. this reminds me of my minolta days, they are always quick to find some canon/nikon characteristic that they thought was a dealbreaker.

really, that's enough sigma bashing. call me what you will, i couldn't care less. i'm just here to learn, advise and perhaps get a laugh.

 

[jeffabbyben]

I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma

http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78

Cool, what camera was it?

Canon 5D mark III

 

[EvilTed]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

 

[Hobby Shooter]

if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

With all that fantastic equipment, are you not able to capture magic?

 

[jondave]

if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp

Simple - 'cause the fanboys don't want to accept that a $900 Siggy is better than their $1500 Canon. The red 'ring of power' does have that effect on some people...

 

[Quasimodo]

if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

Jeg er interessert!

 

[Albi86]

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET

Don't you think it's a bit beside the point to bring it all down to sharpness alone?

This Sigma has been widely appreciated for being "sharp enough" @f/1.4 already, for the aberration control and for the smooth bokeh - all in a well built package and at a reasonable price.

If it's all about sharpness I would try with a macro lens...

 

[Hobby Shooter]

if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp

Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.

Jeg er interessert!

;D

 

[cliffwang]

Here is CR. I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans. You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search. Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better. If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine. However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown. Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.

Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent.

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage.

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data.

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot!

I only quoted the part I disagree with you. I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4? Not all websites follow lensrental.com. Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing. You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4. However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.

 

[RS2021]

Here is CR. I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans. You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search. Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better. If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine. However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown. Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.

Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent.

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage.

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data.

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot!

I only quoted the part I disagree with you. I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4? Not all websites follow lensrental.com. Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing. You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4. However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.

Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon.

In fact, at least couple of sites clearly indicate the bokeh is suboptimal including lensrental blog which was gleefully cited to support sigma's ascendancy, but conveniently ignored when it suggested shortcomings.

My own view upon viewing the gallery of pics on lensrental, the Korean site, and Flickr, is that the the sigma bokeh looks "nervous". It is not pleasing to the eye. I also can't say I like the sigma pallet of colors. Some of these issues have cropped up in comments here repeatedly and reviews as well but we all know supporters ignore anything contrary and selectively cite the possitive aspects.

Your reply again provides platitudes ... No hard evidence... The only graphs or comparisons exist in the lensrental followup blog on 35 f2.

I wish that sigma has turned the corner...at the very least sigma may have forced canon to move up its own 35mm 1.4 release... But I won't be joining the sigma choir anytime soon without more comparisons from reputable sources... Comparisons, data, graphs... Not words.