jjf88 wrote:
Nice review. Beautiful work. I have the 35G. Gonna keep it as there is a certain look to it that I love. If i did not have it, I would get the Sigma
Quick question on the 800E. Are you finding any issues with moire ?
I haven't had a single issue with moire yet, I've honestly not seen any, and I've used on a wedding with no problems on the wedding dress. I use it as my main body now. Lightroom has a moire removal brush that I have heard works really well, but I havent had to use it yet.
ariel777 wrote:
Nice review and excellent images in support of your conclusions. I have the lens and my experiences are certainly in keeping with your evaluation.
Any idea how this lens does regarding:
- Flare
- Ghosting
- Sharpness near vs. far
- Corner sharpness/coma at or near wide open (at infinity focus)
- Color rendition
Excellent review and some superb "test" shots. The Sigma really does look great.
However, is there a reason you used the Nikon D4 as the test camera rather than the D3X? You did use the older Canon 5DII with 21Mp as your test camera for the Sigma, but the 24Mp of the D3X would be more in line with the Mp count of the 5DII and would give a fairer sharpness result for the 35 f1.4G of 15P-Mpix rather than the 12P-Mpix that the D4 gives, which skews the results a tad.
Nice review. I just packaged my Sigma 35mm lens up and getting ready to return it. The auto focus stopped working and I have to "jump start" it by turning the focus ring to get it to work again. I thought at first I was in manual focus but I checked everything including the contacts on my D800 & D700 and it is doing on both bodies. This is my first Sigma lens but I think I will be sticking with Nikkor lenses from now on. Not that Nikkor lenses are better but I've never had any issues with them. Its unfortunate because I think it is a great lens.
ADCOLE wrote:
Nice review. I just packaged my Sigma 35mm lens up and getting ready to return it. The auto focus stopped working and I have to "jump start" it by turning the focus ring to get it to work again. I thought at first I was in manual focus but I checked everything including the contacts on my D800 & D700 and it is doing on both bodies. This is my first Sigma lens but I think I will be sticking with Nikkor lenses from now on. Not that Nikkor lenses are better but I've never had any issues with them. Its unfortunate because I think it is a great lens....Show more →
Unfortunate, but for the price difference I wouldn't buy the Nikon version. It will be my first non-Nikon also.
Luckily Sigma comes with a 10 year warranty here in Canada.
I really like the idea of this lens but all the "its better than zeiss" is a load of bull. Ok, so maybe its sharper but has anyone done a side by side test? I lost trust in DXOmark when they reported bad results on the 21/2.8 Distagon and that lens is fantastic.
Lance B wrote:
Excellent review and some superb "test" shots. The Sigma really does look great.
However, is there a reason you used the Nikon D4 as the test camera rather than the D3X? You did use the older Canon 5DII with 21Mp as your test camera for the Sigma, but the 24Mp of the D3X would be more in line with the Mp count of the 5DII and would give a fairer sharpness result for the 35 f1.4G of 15P-Mpix rather than the 12P-Mpix that the D4 gives, which skews the results a tad.
I actually just chose the D4 because I thought more people would find it helpful, as I know more professionals that shoot the D4 than the D3X. I agree that the D3X would have been a better choice, but just so you know, the results were exactly the same between the 2. Nothing changed when I changed it from the D3X to the D4.
espressogeek wrote:
I really like the idea of this lens but all the "its better than zeiss" is a load of bull. Ok, so maybe its sharper but has anyone done a side by side test? I lost trust in DXOmark when they reported bad results on the 21/2.8 Distagon and that lens is fantastic.
I personally can't say whether its better or not as I have never shot with the zeiss, but I honestly cant imagine a lens being sharper than this lens at this focal length with no chromatic aberration. BUT, that is mainly in regards to sharpness, so if there are other characteristics that zeiss is known for with this focal length Im not sure. I agree that DXO Mark can be a little shady lately with their reports, but I know a lot of people truly trust their results, which is why I posted it in the review.
trenchmonkey wrote:
B&H pre-order here. FWIW, those samples really don't do it justice.
I agree that some of those sample shots don't truly do it justice, but for how I shoot, and how I personally will be using the lens professionally, I feel that a lot of them are good samples. I didn't really feel that test shots were what I wanted to go for with this review, I wanted to use shots that I got with my clients and personal shots to show off how it worked in real life shooting, not testing.
jhinkey wrote:
Any idea how this lens does regarding:
- Flare
- Ghosting
- Sharpness near vs. far
- Corner sharpness/coma at or near wide open (at infinity focus)
- Color rendition
Us landscape photographers want to know!
Im glad you mentioned these Jhinkey, I realized that I left these out of the review just yesterday and couldn't believe that no one called me out on it yet. I will take some "test" shots for you, and add the results to the review, I will have a lot of time tomorrow as I just got back to the shore house in Jersey to relax for the next couple days. I will shoot you an email to let you know when I have it added. For now though, I can tell you that the flare is good, I love the color, and corner sharpness is the best I've seen. It does have a little distortion, but Im not sure how it compares to the Nikon or Canon versions. I will take some samples of near vs far focus for you, and some landscape shots on the beach. Thanks for reading the review and not bitching about the processing of the photos.
