The seemingly amazing Sigma 35

[Nishi Drew]

My consideration of getting the Sigma is mostly price, even then it's still expensive so the 35L is totally out anyways.
If you have the 35L, you're happy with it, then stick with it, same story with any piece of equipment.
If the CA, or being-not-as-sharp bothers you then check out the Sigma.
And, I feel the bokeh "not being good" is vastly overblown, while it not being "as good" as what the 35L can produce, sure, it looks to be the case. But by no means is it awful, there has to be certain L owners that don't want to hear smack about how their precious L isn't as superior in many ways, so they find a single flaw and make it look like the end of the world! Because ya know, today's the day But again, the Sigma brand new is still a lot cheaper then the 35L generally is on the used market, so not everything will be as top notch. It's what you need and what you can afford

Here's a wedding photog who really likes the Sigma though, this guy actually used the lens, not a series of bland tests:
http://www.samhurdphotography.com/2012/gear-reviews/gear-review-sigma-35mm-1-4-lens-for-nikon

 

[51m0n]

Just got my Siggy last week. Very happy with it. It is easily my best lens. ( I have Canon 17-40L,100L,24-105L,28/1.8, 40/2.8,50/1.4, 85/1.8 and Tamron 70-300 sp). It is also the only lens that, using Focal 1.7, does not need microadjustment plus has the highest sharpness scores.

Physically, it is very modern and has a high-quality feel. And it is very very sharp, even at f/1.4.
This photo I took 2 night ago (handheld on 5D3), ambience lighting: dimmed street lights.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8290202541/#in/photostream (this has been resized to 2048px wide)

On the negative side, the bokeh is a bit onionized, but I can live with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8293508226/#in/photostream

A friend took the same picture using Nikkor 35/1.4 on D800 and the result has a better and smoother bokeh.

 

[drjlo]

Why fix what ain't broke? ???

My thoughts exactly. I love my 35L to pieces, which also happens to be smaller and lighter than Sigma.

On the other hand, if Sigma can come up with a 50 mm f/1.2 with super sharpness and great bokeh, that might be something to consider instead of my 50L. And no, I've tried the Sigma 50 f/1.4, and that is not good enough.

 

[51m0n]

Why fix what ain't broke? ???

And no, I've tried the Sigma 50 f/1.4, and that is not good enough.

Yep, I tried Sigma 50/1.4 and 30/1.4 (aps-C) too, they are not good (sent back to store). This new line of Sigma on the other hand is in different league altogether.

 

[takoman46]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

 

[51m0n]

Note: Only some photos show onionized bokeh. Most others are good, like this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toisio/8292629929/#in/photostream

 

[Zlatko]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens? The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?

 

[minim2]

I bought it last week.

For me:

1) It is best looking lens I have used till date (I own 24-105, 24 1.4 II, 50 1.4, 40 STM, 85 1.8, 70-300 L and recently bought used 17-40 and 135L ... none of them look as sexy as this new sigma)... maybe not so imp for many but what I noticed.

2) So far, I am very pleased with the result... esp at that price. I am not any pro or pixel peeper. I am a serious ameature and for me, esp recently, I have started to look more into glasses with better value.
I cannot justify 35L price tag and was waiting for this lens ever since it was announced.
I am getting rid of 50 1.4 and in 2 months time, I will most probably get rid of 24 1.4 II too (I have one trip planned where I feel 24 will be useful for me).

3) I dont give too much notice to sharpness, but this one looks as sharp as my 24 1.4 II if not more (at 100% crop)

4) I do not find colors etc from this lens to be flat. I used this along with 24 1.4 II, and to me, I do not see too much of a difference.

I had L syndrome earlier but I think I am recovering from it slowly. I bought one used sony RX100 recently and images from that are such that I will not miss too much my 5DII+24-105 combination (maybe 24mm end).
Personally, I am actually thinking to trim down lenses I own to speciality lenses (UWA, tele, 35,85,135) and carry one good point and shoot like rx100 along with it.

 

[Canon-F1]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L. Aside from the difference in bokeh, I also found the Sigma wasn't as sharp as the L. Shot both lenses on the 5D3 and 5D2. I can't really say anything about build quality in the case of the 35L because it's barrel is plastic... although it still seems a slightly more robust (better plastic composition). Has sigma ever produced lens elements that are optically superior to the glass in L lenses?

Are you talking about the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM "Art" lens? The one that's bigger and heavier than the Canon 35L?

obviously he is not....

typical case of.. i don´t get the topic.

 

[51m0n]

I was playing around with my friend's Sigma 35 and it's a toy compared to the 35L.

Then you are at odds with almost all professional reviewers testing this lens (which is fine though )

 

[candyman]

REVIEW on DPreview


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm


Gold award

 

[Quasimodo]

REVIEW on DPreview


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm


Gold award

Thanks and looking forward to read it. I would have bought the lens today, except that the one decent store where I am holidaying did not have it yet. I bought the 8-15 today, so I get to have some photofun in between christmas, kids and work.

I have to say I am a bit amazed about the postings in this thread. I love my Canon gear, but I have not found Deity in my camera system. It is a system, and it works great for me, but it is just that.. a system for doing what we all love to do. Suddenly sharpness of a lens is of minor importance, and a bokeh (which looks fine to me) is much more important. I would have bought the 35L a long time ago if I could afford it. Now however, Sigma comes along at half the price and with great results, even better, than the L and the discussion turns. I believe in competition, and this lens will probably help to keep Canon on their feet.

I have the Sigma 85 1.4 and I think it is great. Would I not have preferred to have the 85L if I could cough up the money?, ... sure, but it is not because it is a Canon or a L lens, but because I have used it several times and I love the pictures it enables me/us to take.

Happy shooting.

 

[EvilTed]

DxO have this to say about it:

"This Sigma lens scores higher than any other lens in its focal length, including many that are much more expensive, and is among the highest, for sharpness, of any tested by DxOMark on a Canon body."

ET