Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions

[RVB]

I haven't read this thread,I just jumped to the last page,one point I wanted to mention is that the sigma is not weather sealed,But the new 35mm L will almost certainly be weather sealed.. I have the sigma lens and it's excellent but I would prefer weather sealing.. and for this reason I will sell it when the new L is released..

I posted these pictures by mistake in the HDR area.. please ignore that mistake..

 

[Albi86]

About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes. Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.

 

[RVB]

About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes. Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.

Bokeh @1.4

 

[elflord]

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.

lenstip have reviewed it as have dpreview (and thedigitalpicture has their test shots). They include data, is their data "hard" enough for you ? Besides photozone, everyone whose reviews I care for have reviewed it, so I don't really understand why anyone would feel the need to go on a fear mongering exercise about the lack of "serious" reviews. I think Cliff nailed it with the remark about "fanboys". Sigma fanboys ? Who are we trying to kid ?

 

[jeffabbyben]

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.

I'm confused about your comment. You say that you will only accept hard numbers and graphs but those have all favored the Sigma. However your complaints are about subjective factors such as bokeh and color rendition (although equally valid more subjective than objective). I suspect someone is worried about the resale value of there Canon 35mm 1.4 now that a third party has an excellent competing product. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays

 

[brad-man]

If I remember correctly, when the EF70-200 2.8L II came out there were similar arguments. Oh yes, it's very sharp, but I prefer the bokeh from the version I. I don't seem to see those arguments anymore

 

[EvilTed]

HobbyShooter,

I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it

The Fuji's continue to really impress me.
The fact they can give better IQ than the 5D MK3 is the kicker (and no, it's not just me, check Scoopit for X-Pro1 | XE-1 to see how many pros think the Fuji is better than their old 5D MK2 or D700. The IQ of the MK3 is about the same as the MK2 - they just fixed the AF and ergonomics a bit).

I just bought a Contax Carl Zeiss Sonar 90mm F/2.8 from the 80s in mint condition from Japan.
This humble lens mounted to either Fuji produces the magic I'm looking for.

Maybe the analogy is more film versus digital?
Fuji developed their X-Trans sensor to mimic the grain structure of film.
It is said to produce film like images.

I'm waiting for the rumored FF Fuji

ET

 

[aprotosimaki]

For what it is worth I have been in the market for a 35mm and tomorrow I am going to buy the Sigma for my 5d2. I have read enough reviews that I am fully persuaded that the lens is worth it and that spending more money on a Canon 35L would not be the correct decision:

$899 vs $1300+

Maybe I will regret it but I am hoping I won't. Will be up at the store by 8:30 for its 9:00 opening.

 

[persiannight]

Sigma 35

Canon 35L

Same exposures, 1/640sec, f/1.4, ISO 100

 

[kubelik]

I gotta say, I can see the difference between the Sigma and Canon in terms of bokeh, but I can't honestly say which one I like better. both have a bit of "nervousness" that makes them less than perfect, but then again it's with the worst possible background (trees without leaves!). thanks persiannight for posting this!

I don't know if it's just me but even at this size the Sigma looks quite a bit sharper than the Canon L in the in-focus region. impressive. to me it's a sigma win, given that the bokeh is really a toss-up, but the Sigma is definitely sharper. I wonder what sort of hardware Canon will respond with in january?

 

[persiannight]

The Sigma shows more fine detail in it's bokeh, I'm assuming due to it being a sharper lens? Is that possible?

 

[persiannight]

I did use the same contrast curve

Larger Sigma 35
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8216/8310332535_2f2ba44257_o.jpg

Larger 35L
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8311382428_26f2036be2_o.jpg

 

[kubelik]

I think the difference in perceived contrast is just the nature of each of the lenses. it's expected that they render slightly differently.

persiannight, are you planning on keeping one over the other, given the results of your personal experience?

 

[persiannight]

That's what I'm struggling with... I mean, I love the sharpness wide open of the Sigma but I love the smoothness to the Canon's bokeh. I know all the "tests" keep saying the bokeh is better on the Sigma, which I agree with only as far as CA is concerned. I've had images from the Sigma where bokeh areas are jittery and give the illusion of movement. I've never really experienced that on the 35L.

The Canon overall image, again, to me, is more pleasing because of the smoother bokeh. Ughhh, I don't know. It's not an easy decision.

 

[jeffabbyben]

I see the jittery bokeh in both lenses. Definitely don't see the smoothness in the canon lens you are referring to (IMHO). Since you are only a few days away from the announcement of the canon 35mm 1.4 version ii why don't you wait to decide ;D

 

[Hobby Shooter]

HobbyShooter,

I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it

The Fuji's continue to really impress me.
The fact they can give better IQ than the 5D MK3 is the kicker (and no, it's not just me, check Scoopit for X-Pro1 | XE-1 to see how many pros think the Fuji is better than their old 5D MK2 or D700. The IQ of the MK3 is about the same as the MK2 - they just fixed the AF and ergonomics a bit).

I just bought a Contax Carl Zeiss Sonar 90mm F/2.8 from the 80s in mint condition from Japan.
This humble lens mounted to either Fuji produces the magic I'm looking for.

Maybe the analogy is more film versus digital?
Fuji developed their X-Trans sensor to mimic the grain structure of film.
It is said to produce film like images.

I'm waiting for the rumored FF Fuji

ET

Fair enough. I think you and I are playing in deiiferent leagues, rendering different expectations. Im an amateur and I think I get some magic in my images, on the other hand that is what I see. This is one of the things I lile about this forum. The possibility to learn more and move forwary boundaries and develop my skills. Cheers!

 

[Quasimodo]

Just unboxed my copy this night. It is not a picture to remember, but to my unskilled eyes it looks quite sharp. Camera 5D II and ISO 100, AWB. The first is the original downsized to 150 to get the file small enough, and the other one is a 100 percent crop of the first knife in focus.

G.