p.14 #3 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
That site uses extremely high jpg compression which removes the texture from the Sigma's bokeh.
First, I disagree. There is plenty of detail in those shots. Second, if you want to make a point about the Canon and Sigma respective bokeh, the only valid way to do it is a controlled comparison with the same subject matter. That site has done it. You have not.
Anyone can cherry pick examples of ugly bokeh for any lens. Your samples are invalid.
p.14 #4 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
asabet wrote:
First, I disagree. There is plenty of detail in those shots. Second, if you want to make a point about the Canon and Sigma respective bokeh, the only valid way to do it is a controlled comparison with the same subject matter. That site has done it. You have not.
Anyone can cherry pick examples of ugly bokeh for any lens. Your samples are invalid.
That's the last thing I have to say about this.
+1 Absolutely. Anyone who has any scientific background, or experience, knows how easy it is to fool yourself and/or others when the results of comparisons are not controlled - i.e. same subject, same lighting etc...
p.14 #5 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
dude, the Sigma is much better than the Canon's version in all aspects. If I didn't already have a Contax and Leica, I would definitely get the Sigma. I had the Canon and sold it within a week, nothing was good about it.
Then again, I might just get the Sigma. Can't have too many 35mm lenses.
p.14 #6 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
asabet wrote:
First, I disagree. There is plenty of detail in those shots. Second, if you want to make a point about the Canon and Sigma respective bokeh, the only valid way to do it is a controlled comparison with the same subject matter. That site has done it. You have not.
Anyone can cherry pick examples of ugly bokeh for any lens. Your samples are invalid.
p.14 #8 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
That site uses extremely high jpg compression which removes the texture from the Sigma's bokeh. It also uses comparison images that are less than ideal comparisons.
The Canon's onion bokeh has one strong set of onion bokeh rings about 1/4th of the way from the outside of the circle and then one set of strong rings 1/4 of the way from the center very few elsewhere, this isn't especially an eyesore. The Sigma has a rough texture throughout the whole OOF highlight of medium intensity with dozens of closely spaced intense onion bokeh rings.
....
While we could argue about how good the comparison was on that website, I don't think your examples which are trying to compare using widely different images can be called conclusive at all. If you could post controlled comparison shots with same subject under same conditions, then your arguments can be useful. Right now the only resources showing a more apples-to-apples comparison are resources like that website.
p.14 #9 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
I have two questions for people that have used both the 35L and the Sigma.
1) Is the weight and size difference noticeable?
2) Have you noticed a significant difference with color, i.e. the warmer/yellower cast that some Sigma lenses seem to have?
If someone could post an example of the color difference, I'd be grateful.
I'm considering this lens, but I really love my 35L and have never felt that it wasn't sharp enough at f/1.4. That said, I do see the clear improvement in sharpness with the Sigma so I'm curious.
p.14 #13 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Thanks guys ^
It's just a matter of preference at this point, I would not hesitate to use either one, I could easily get more money out of selling the 35L if I decide to let it go. But the money is not the point
p.14 #15 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
vipergts831 wrote:
Took this quick shot of my GF after a gig to shoot the trucks behind her. She was a bit under the weather but is always a good sport:
Just took a look at the rest of your shots with the 35 1.4, great stuff, and damn is that sharp (looking at the 2048p sized images at least). I think I'm sold.
p.14 #17 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Yes the new Sigma is very very impressive
The Sigma comes easily out on top from those tests. Look carefully and it's bokeh is as good, its blur circles are more circular, it makes infinitely better starbursts due to it 9 blades and its sharper.
..
Interestingly in the bokeh tests its the 35L that has more onion ring blur circles than the Sigma.
p.14 #18 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Sharpness is only calibration matter. Colors and AF are two most important things to test a lens. Sigma seems to have a winner here and that does not mean to replace the 35L.
p.14 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The Sigma comes easily out on top from those tests. Look carefully and it's bokeh is as good, its blur circles are more circular, it makes infinitely better starbursts due to it 9 blades and its sharper.
..
Interestingly in the bokeh tests its the 35L that has more onion ring blur circles than the Sigma.
Based on these tests and the pics posted here and dpreview, I'd have to say that the Sigma beats the 35L - pretty convincingly. Assuming the AF speed/accuracy is up to par and the copy variation is not a problem, then Sigma has made a superior lens. Pretty impressive - of course the 35L is an old lens, so we probably shouldn't be too surprised.
p.14 #20 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
mttran wrote:
Sharpness is only calibration matter. Colors and AF are two most important things to test a lens. Sigma seems to have a winner here and that does not mean to replace the 35L.
+1
IMHO If I didn't have a 35, I would def. get the siggy 35 1.4 hands down, if I had the 35L already, I don't think it would justify replacing it, unless you like to have 2 35's with you all the time
