Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions

Sort by date Sort by votes
A

aleshaloginov

Jun 28, 2014
19
0
4,776
www.flickr.com
#1
Good day,
I'm planning to buy 35mm lense and my doubt is about Sigma's built quality. I know that this is a perfect lense, sharp and fast, but is it as unkillable as the canon 35mm 1.4?

The fact is I don't care much about dark corners, extreme sharpness etc, I think canon 35mm is as well extremely sharp. Vignetting can be creative also.

I heard that Sigma's autofocus is a mess sometimes, can this be the reason for choosing canon?

In other words, I like the picture made with Sigma (it's very NIKON-alike), but I'm afraid of some small things like micro adjustments and I don't wan't to buy some docstations.
 
#3
The Sigma has stellar optical performance, except for bokeh, which is not its strong side. The real issue is AF. Mine (copy no.2, the first was crap) has inconsistent AF. I have experienced drifting over time, so I have had to redo AFMA a number of times. I upgraded the firmware (you need the dock for that) and it seems to be more stable now, but I still have too many out of focus shots to be happy with it. I believe a number of others on CR have similar experiences. But it also seems that quite a few is very happy also.

If you can live with the sharpness level of the Canon 35/1.4L, I would go for that every day. A piece of advice is to look at actual images produced by that lens and not drown in pixle peeping and graph interpreting reviews. Crisp, sharp, high resolution images, out of focus are still ... out of focus images ...
 
Upvote 0
#5
Had two copies of the 35 Art, both cr@p AF and issues all over. 50 Art is superb though. I will never ever buy another 35 Art. But I would buy a 35 L in a heartbeat, if I didn't already only used the 50 Art. 35 L is the best AF performer of
Any 1.4 lens.
 
Upvote 0
#6
aleshaloginov said:
Good day,
I'm planning to buy 35mm lense and my doubt is about Sigma's built quality. I know that this is a perfect lense, sharp and fast, but is it as unkillable as the canon 35mm 1.4?

The fact is I don't care much about dark corners, extreme sharpness etc, I think canon 35mm is as well extremely sharp. Vignetting can be creative also.

I heard that Sigma's autofocus is a mess sometimes, can this be the reason for choosing canon?

In other words, I like the picture made with Sigma (it's very NIKON-alike), but I'm afraid of some small things like micro adjustments and I don't wan't to buy some docstations.
Click to expand...

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so if you want the lens that will give you less problems go with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the least reliable lenses ever made and one of the most prone to focus related problems. In fact Canon's 35mm has more autofocusing issues alone than Sigma's lens has issues in all categories combined according to historical reliability data.
 
Upvote 0
#7
Radiating said:
The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so if you want the lens that will give you less problems go with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the least reliable lenses ever made and one of the most prone to focus related problems. In fact Canon's 35mm has more autofocusing issues alone than Sigma's lens has issues in all categories combined according to historical reliability data.
Click to expand...
I have never owned the 35/1.4L, so I cannot argue your point. But I have had my fair share of others in that series and my experience with those are quite different.. Apart from focusing speed, like with the 85/1.2L and some focus hunting here and there, I have never had any problem with the rest of my L-lenses. And I have not seen any threads here on CR making that point.

Do you have the statistics for this? Sure would be interesting to see.
 
Upvote 0
#8
aleshaloginov said:
Menace said:
Check out the review below :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/35mm-f14.htm

Disclaimer: I do not read this gentleman's reviews but perhaps you may find your answers in there.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, the guy speaks about everything I think.
I can't believe that $900 lens can be better than $1200. I don't think that I pay for canon's name here, but for quality.
Click to expand...

Easily solved. I shall sell you my Sigma 35 Art for $1,500.00, which by your logic, makes it better than the Canon which is just a $1,200.00 lens. ;)

Then I will repurchase the Sigma 35, and apply the difference towards a copy of the upcoming Sigma 85 Art.
 
Upvote 0
#9
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012
Some lens repair data. I have had both the Sigma and the Canon. I found the bokeh on both to be good for a wide angle but worse than most fast lens 50mm or above. The Canon has terrible CA and LoCA and not great aperture shape, the Sigma is nervous. The Canon focuses faster in good light and much faster in low light, in the dark I could get the Canon to focus sometimes, Sigma not as much. In decent light my Sigma focuses accurately(5D MarkII I mostly use centre point then crop, or slight recompose)The Sigma is sharper, noticeably. The Sigma "feels" well built and mine has been working just fine, but the Canon feels and works a little quicker and lighter in the field, plus it's weather sealed I think.
 
Upvote 0
#10
.
You may want to add the Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS to your consideration also. Dustin Abbot makes a compelling case for it here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/03/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-review/


The folks at Lens Rentals have this to say about all three:

Canon 35mm f/1.4:

This is the wide angle member of the Holy Trinity of L prime lenses: the 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and 135 f/2.0. It’s one of the older designs in Canon’s lineup but still nearly flawless: sharp even in the edges, contrasty, and has smooth out-of-focus highlights. I find myself trying to find a way to frame a shot at this focal length, just so I can use this lens. If you’ve ever asked the question “why would you shoot with a prime lens when zooms are so much more convenient” this lens will demonstrate the answer for you.

However, from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh.
April, 2013


Sigma 35mm f/1.4A:

This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.

If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.

Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price.



Canon 35mm f/2.0IS:

A modern day update to a versatile, compact and lightweight wide-angle lens, the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is incredibly bright and offers image stabilization, superb image quality and construction. The EF 35mm f/2 IS USM features a GMo aspherical lens element for high image quality, an 8-blade circular aperture diaphragm for soft backgrounds, a minimum focusing distance of 0.79 ft./0.24m, plus optimized lens coatings for minimized ghosting and flare.

A rear focus system, and ring-type USM with micro-stepping drive provide faster, quieter, and more precise autofocus performance perfect for video. It has a 4-stop Image Stabilizer system that detects panning and automatically switches to the optimal IS mode.


I'm not sure what you mean by "unkillable," but my Sigma 35 has the feeling of a well put-together Swiss watch. It is not weather-sealed if that matters.

By the way, you've got a nice bunch of pictures on your flickr site.
 
Upvote 0
#12
I've used both. And this sounds dumb to some, but I actually like that the 35L is not as sharp as the Sigma. The one thing I noticed with images from the 35L is that many of them had a more ethereal quality. Moody. Magical almost. It "feels" right. I almost think that the lower resolution may contribute to "feel." I really liked the one I shot with and a 35L is probably going to be my next lens.

If you need sharpness, definitely go for the Sigma. FWIW I did not experience any AF problems with the Sigma. I just liked my images out of the 35L better.
 
Upvote 0
#13
I love my Sigma 35 Art. The thing is a guaranteed focus machine, even wide open, and Since I bought it 7-8 months ago it has been on my camera almost constantly. I did a puddly little +2 AFMA but it really wasn't crying out for it to begin with. And of course it is so amazingly sharp.

Also, the colors are so vivid I almost can't believe it.

It feels very solid. Really solid, and high-quality. More solid-feeling than my 24-105L, which is plasticky (though in a solid package, same way a Corvette is plasticky fiberglass). Almost as solid as my 70-200 2.8 L Mk 2, and some of the difference there may simply be the fact it isn't so dang heavy!

Get what you are comfortable with, though I do not see the burningly-important point in IS in a short lens like a 35mm. If you are shooting people you can't really do that a lot slower than its theoretical reciprocal shutter(1/35th) anyway, because the subject's motion blur will kill you. I cant shoot my elementary school kids below like 1/60th, and they are not even all that squirmy. And if you are shooting landscape in dim light at 1 second, you should just bring a tripod, or rest the camera on a rock or something----gheeesh. ;)
 
Upvote 0
#14
What do you really need from a 35mm lens?

I had the Sigma 35 for a year, then started doing more video so I bought the Canon 35 IS (which is the best!)

I kept the Sigma for about 2 months after I got the Canon, then sold it. After doing a series of image comparisons, portraits of people, animals, landscape, all in different lighting, I found the Canon overall better for my needs. At f2 my Canon was sharper than the Sigma at f2. I never had a single problem the Sigma, (aside from some chipping of the finish) and if I could do it all over again, I'd go straight Canon. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper and has IS. I never missed the 1.4 - 1.8 of the Sigma when I was using my Canon at f2.

Overall, both excellent lenses for me, but the Canon 35 IS has become my all time fave lens!
 
Upvote 0
#15
Renaissance said:
What do you really need from a 35mm lens?

I had the Sigma 35 for a year, then started doing more video so I bought the Canon 35 IS (which is the best!)

I kept the Sigma for about 2 months after I got the Canon, then sold it. After doing a series of image comparisons, portraits of people, animals, landscape, all in different lighting, I found the Canon overall better for my needs. At f2 my Canon was sharper than the Sigma at f2. I never had a single problem the Sigma, (aside from some chipping of the finish) and if I could do it all over again, I'd go straight Canon. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper and has IS. I never missed the 1.4 - 1.8 of the Sigma when I was using my Canon at f2.

Overall, both excellent lenses for me, but the Canon 35 IS has become my all time fave lens!
Click to expand...

I need it for portraits. I love to shoot people wide open and that's why I want exactly 1.4. I hear people saying that canon's 35mm 1.4 is sharp enough wide open, whether sigma gets extremely sharp — not sure if it's good for portraits, people not often like it (neither do I).

And when it comes to the moment of sharpness lacking we all can use postproduction to make it a bit sharper.

I'm not really sure that a 35mm lens needs IS, it's useless to shoot people at 1/4 or slower because they actually can't stand still. I'd rather use my flash or wouldn't shoot at all.
 
Upvote 0
#18
Hey

I work in one of the largest Danish Camera stores and I got the very first Sigma 35mm 1.4 that came to DDenmark in December 2012

Its one of my favorite lenses- even though I got 50 1.2 og 85 1.2

Its sharp, fast and better built than the very OLD canonwhich I really dont like

Ive never had to get the lens calibrated to my new houses- but had to get a +1 on my old 1d mk 4 body

Ive thinks its way better that the canonb except in very dark conditions where the AF can be fooled

If and this is a big if... canon comes with a new 35mm 1.4 thats better- then I would consider changing

-frederik
 
Upvote 0
#19
I like my Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art, but I shoot landscape, so autofocus is off for those shots. I am an amateur, and if an occasional shot is not focused , I can live with that, I am not under the gun to produce, as an event photographer would be. The lens is very sharp and it has minimal coma wide open, compared to a lot of older 35s, so I use it for some astro-landscape photography on full frame.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Another important question for you guys

The AF problem is crucial(I believe), so is it really so predictable? They say 10-20% of pictures are rubbish and only the rest is dead on.

I think I don't wan't a $1000 lens that has such a problem.

I shoot with 6d and I wish to hear some feedback from people like me.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard-CN
Sigma Announces the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG II Art
Replies
10
Views
1K
mimbu
mimbu
J
Sigma USB DOCK for Canon EF Discontinued
Replies
4
Views
929
Jon741
J
YuengLinger
Dustin Abbot's RF 35mm f/1.4 review
Replies
13
Views
4K
koenkooi
koenkooi
S
R5 Mk 2 and Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens - strange noise
Replies
4
Views
2K
super_claret
S
A
Canon RF 24/1.8 versus Sigma 28/1.4
Replies
18
Views
11K
SwissFrank
S
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu