I know the 35mm focal length is a popular one with wedding photographers, I love it myself, so I thought you guys may be interested in seeing the review I put together with a lot of sample shots taken on the D800E. I have used it for few photo shoots now and absolutely love it, looking forward to using it with my next wedding.

http://jaycassariophoto.com/tutorials-and-reviews/2012/12/28/lens-review-sigma-35mm-f14-dg-hsm-nikon-mount

I have it as well. It's a beast for sure.

ATCO in the house...

thank you Jay,

will buy it!


have a nice start into 2013...

I got the lens in the mail the day after our last 2012 wedding, but it has been the only lens on my camera since then (Canon version). I love it...love it love it. Granted, I still love my siggy 85 and 50 (which I know others here have fallen out of love with).I plan to write a review once I have the time

why did people fall out of love with the 50 and 85? must have missed that in my photo hiatus

cbradio09 wrote:

why did people fall out of love with the 50 and 85?

I shot Sig's 50 side-by-side with Canon's 50/1.4 and the Sig had much more difficulty getting in-focus shots in servo mode. Additionally, Canon's 50 was much more "sure-footed" in all lighting conditions at locking focus whereas the Sig would be making continual minor adjustments. And in a little bit lower light, the Sig would sometimes hunt briefly and give up whereas the Canon, compared in the exact same condtions, would quickly lock focus in one-shot mode without issue.

I am considering this as an alternative to the inconsistent performance of the Nikon 35 f/1.4g.

D. Diggler wrote:
cbradio09 wrote:

why did people fall out of love with the 50 and 85?

I shot Sig's 50 side-by-side with Canon's 50/1.4 and the Sig had much more difficulty getting in-focus shots in servo mode. Additionally, Canon's 50 was much more "sure-footed" in all lighting conditions at locking focus whereas the Sig would be making continual minor adjustments. And in a little bit lower light, the Sig would sometimes hunt briefly and give up whereas the Canon, compared in the exact same condtions, would quickly lock focus in one-shot mode without issue.


You must have had a REALLY bad copy of the Sigma. For me, the two lenses that deserved comparisons to and with each other were the Sigma and the Canon 50 1.2. I had two copies of the Canon 50 1.4, and I so hated that lens. My Sigma 50 is so much better than that lens that it does not even warrant comparisons

form wrote:
I am considering this as an alternative to the inconsistent performance of the Nikon 35 f/1.4g.

I've been hearing this comment a lot. AF trouble, right? I'm really tempted to jump on the Sigma, but with the 28 f1.8G, I think I'm set for a while. I'm really trying to ensure all the gear I buy can make a business case.

cbradio09 wrote:
why did people fall out of love with the 50 and 85? must have missed that in my photo hiatus

I don't think that the falling out of love really had much to do with performance, as it did with support. Sigma is definitely capable of developing a high end product. The 50 was first.. the 85 improved on that and now the 35 is amazing. To me, it is apparent that Sigma is very serious about making products that professionals can and will use. The weak link that I see is their support and service. I'm convinced that they can make a professional product. I'm not convinced that they can and will support those products in a way that we as professionals, require. We make a living from our gear and if something breaks or goes down, we need it fixed quickly and accurately... Most reports of Sigma service have repairs taking anywhere from 2 to 3 weeks and that is really just unacceptable. I know that at one point, Tony had stated that for the price of an 85L he could buy 2 Sigma 85's and rotate them in and out of service if one needed to be repaired... I know that he has since switched back to the Canon version, though... so I'm guessing that he found problems with that line of thinking.

Again... the new 35 is a beast. I have not played with a canon version, but I've handled a Nikon one and it was impressive... The build quality to me felt more impressive than any Canon L I've ever felt. If Sigma steps up their service.. i think they're going to be a force to be reckoned with.

Hopefully sigma is beefing up the insides of their lenses... the 85 was sweet no doubt but after burning two of them out I am not sure if I can trust their engineering.

There has to be some reason the lens is SOOO much cheaper than the Canon/Nikon version. It is not just because Sigma is the "nice guy" and wants to make everyone feel all warm inside.

I will test it when I get back to the states... should be interesting to see if it can hold up to my servo assault.

joelconner wrote:

I had two copies of the Canon 50 1.4, and I so hated that lens. My Sigma 50 is so much better than that lens

I would agree that, optically, the Sigma is much better than Canon's 50/1.4, especially noticeable near wide open.

What I was faced with is choosing a lens that was superior optically but had focus acquisition issues vs. a lens that is only mediocre optically but that gave me a higher percentage of focus hits. The Canon gives me passable shots 70-80% of the time so that I'm not missing important moments completely.

joelconner wrote:

the two lenses that deserved comparisons to and with each other were the Sigma and the Canon 50 1.2

Having worked with all three - the Sig 50, the Canon 50/1.2, and Canon's 50/1.4 - I would agree that, optically, the Sigma is closer to the 50/1.2 than it is to Canon's 50/1.4.

hmmm...I still think you must have had a really bad copy of the lens. I would say that 95%+ of my shots with the siggy 50 do exactly what I want...and quickly.

eNoBlog wrote:
form wrote:
I am considering this as an alternative to the inconsistent performance of the Nikon 35 f/1.4g.

I've been hearing this comment a lot. AF trouble, right? I'm really tempted to jump on the Sigma, but with the 28 f1.8G, I think I'm set for a while. I'm really trying to ensure all the gear I buy can make a business case.

Yes, AF trouble.

I also have all 3 now and have never had any problems with the 50 or 85, AF or anything else. I appreciate everyone checking the review, and I will be adding more to it this week for the landscape guys. I have a wedding in February I will be using it on and cant wait, I used the Nikon 35mm G lens in the past, so I know this lens will shine.

I have used/owned

One 50L which was perfect
Two 85Ls which were both perfect

One Sigma 50 which was sketchy
One Sigma 85 which was sketchy

My experience is not unique either. I won't be putting my money in the Sigma 35 anytime soon other than to just play around with it, then resell it. For me, dependability is just as important as image quality and Sigma just has not delivered on this front. They has a long way to go to regain my trust in their fast aperture lenses.

I've had the Sigma 50 f/1.4 for around two years, and have never been thrilled with it -- I've had too many focus misses with it. When it hits, it's great. When it misses, the shot is useless.

I've just picked up the Sigma 35. It's clearly in a different league. I don't have the 85 to do a direct comparison, but from folks who do, I gather it's as much better than the 85 as the 85 was better than the 50. Sigma seems to be carrying its momentum in the right direction.

I would not have recommended the 50. I would not hesitate to recommend this 35, at least on my early experience with it.

I think the problem with Sigma has been highlighted quite nicely in this thread; consistency, and the complete lack of it.