This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
p.22 #1Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Lars, if you insist, compare them both at f 5.6...........
handheld.
handheld.
Dec 13, 2012 at 05:41 PM
p.22 #2Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
I guess that the IS of the Canon 35 F2.0 could be a real plus for handheld videos.
Dec 13, 2012 at 09:21 PM
p.22 #3Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Ordered my S35. It should get here next week.
Dec 13, 2012 at 10:10 PM
p.22 #4Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
I should really avoid threads like these - eventually I'm going to get sucked back in to the FF world.
With a fast 35 
With a fast 35
Dec 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM
p.22 #5Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Bearmann wrote:
Lars, if you insist, compare them both at f 5.6...........
handheld.
Yes the Sigma will easily beat all the Canon 35mm lenses at f/5,6 also. The Sigma is better in the center and also in the corners/edges. It also have less Chromatic aberration than any of the Canon lenses. And Superior and better micro contrast. Less color fringing. Both Roger Cicala and Lloyd Chambers diglloyd tests confirm this.
Edited on Dec 14, 2012 at 01:36 AM · View previous versions
Lars, if you insist, compare them both at f 5.6...........
handheld.
Yes the Sigma will easily beat all the Canon 35mm lenses at f/5,6 also. The Sigma is better in the center and also in the corners/edges. It also have less Chromatic aberration than any of the Canon lenses. And Superior and better micro contrast. Less color fringing. Both Roger Cicala and Lloyd Chambers diglloyd tests confirm this.
Edited on Dec 14, 2012 at 01:36 AM · View previous versions
Dec 14, 2012 at 01:34 AM
p.22 #6Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Bearmann wrote:
No I don't! I can do what I want!
Obviously if I need the f1.4 aperture then only of these lenses has it. Those who are considering the Canon f2 are the ones who feel they can live without f1.4. The question for them then becomes that which of these is better at f2 and smaller apertures. Obviously to evaluate that you want to compare at same apertures.
Really, though, stopping down any lens 1 stop from wide open usually results in a significant improvement. Isn't that what we expect? Now if the Canon had surpassed the Sigma at f2, that really would have been quite exceptional.
Not really. f1.4 lenses (specially wide-angle) are extreme designs and their wide open performance is always a compromise. The f2 lenses on the other hand are easier to optimize and many f2 lenses are able to achieve excellent performance wide-open. Indeed there are many examples where high quality f2 lenses perform better at f2 than f1.4 lenses stopped down to f2.
Also it is amazing that Sigma at f1.4 has better corners than Canon at f2. Typically f1.4 lenses struggle at the corners wide open and you definitely expect a good f2 lens to have better corners wide open than an f1.4 lens wide open.
Lars Johnsson wrote
You have to compare them at the same aperture. And look at both at f/2 Obviously if I need the f1.4 aperture then only of these lenses has it. Those who are considering the Canon f2 are the ones who feel they can live without f1.4. The question for them then becomes that which of these is better at f2 and smaller apertures. Obviously to evaluate that you want to compare at same apertures.
Really, though, stopping down any lens 1 stop from wide open usually results in a significant improvement. Isn't that what we expect? Now if the Canon had surpassed the Sigma at f2, that really would have been quite exceptional.
Not really. f1.4 lenses (specially wide-angle) are extreme designs and their wide open performance is always a compromise. The f2 lenses on the other hand are easier to optimize and many f2 lenses are able to achieve excellent performance wide-open. Indeed there are many examples where high quality f2 lenses perform better at f2 than f1.4 lenses stopped down to f2.
Also it is amazing that Sigma at f1.4 has better corners than Canon at f2. Typically f1.4 lenses struggle at the corners wide open and you definitely expect a good f2 lens to have better corners wide open than an f1.4 lens wide open.
Dec 14, 2012 at 01:34 AM
p.22 #7Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Loving this thread... please keep it going! I'm really exciting about the Sigma now.
Dec 14, 2012 at 08:59 AM
p.22 #8Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
cputeq wrote:
I should really avoid threads like these - eventually I'm going to get sucked back in to the FF world.
With a fast 35
Please forgive a 'darkside' test shot & crop, but you're DEFINITELY gonna wanna suck
I should really avoid threads like these - eventually I'm going to get sucked back in to the FF world.
With a fast 35
Please forgive a 'darkside' test shot & crop, but you're DEFINITELY gonna wanna suck
Dec 14, 2012 at 09:03 AM
p.22 #9Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Roger's quick eval of the 35 f2IS is a pretty strong endorsement for the Sigma: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon
The IS lens is looking like a video tool in comparison. Hopefully price will drop on both lenses, but given the demand for the Sigma, I don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Dec 14, 2012 at 09:14 AM
p.22 #10Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
OK, I concede a partial defeat. However, Roger didn't test at smaller apertures and I don't have access to LLoyd Chambers review. Still, if you're doing a lot of handheld work, the Canon may be better suited. A difference between the theoretical and the actual. With the Canon, I may feel a bit cheated that I didn't buy the sharper lens, even though my handheld photos may be superior to those of the Sigma.
Dec 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM
p.22 #11Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Lars Johnsson wrote:
handheld. Yes the Sigma will easily beat all the Canon 35mm lenses at f/5,6 also. The Sigma is better in the center and also in the corners/edges. It also have less Chromatic aberration than any of the Canon lenses. And Superior and better micro contrast. Less color fringing. Both Roger Cicala and Lloyd Chambers diglloyd tests confirm this.
When looking at Lloyd Chambers' comparison, I am completely put off by the focus difference very evident in the center, and the field curvature at work in the corners.
Yes, it is easy to see that the Sigma is a much better corrected lens, but to me the Canon 35L seems to be sharper in the center at f/2.8 -f/4. Not a very interesting property for real imaging though. Other than that, it is not very interesting to look at crops with completely different parts of them actually in focus.
Bearmann wrote
Lars, if you insist, compare them both at f 5.6...........handheld.
When looking at Lloyd Chambers' comparison, I am completely put off by the focus difference very evident in the center, and the field curvature at work in the corners.
Yes, it is easy to see that the Sigma is a much better corrected lens, but to me the Canon 35L seems to be sharper in the center at f/2.8 -f/4. Not a very interesting property for real imaging though. Other than that, it is not very interesting to look at crops with completely different parts of them actually in focus.
Dec 14, 2012 at 12:27 PM
p.22 #12Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Love my 35
Phil
Doesn't look like onion Bokeh to me
Edited on Dec 16, 2012 at 05:34 PM · View previous versions
Phil
Doesn't look like onion Bokeh to me
Edited on Dec 16, 2012 at 05:34 PM · View previous versions
Dec 16, 2012 at 02:34 PM
p.22 #13Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Here are a few, just because... 1-4 are f2 through f1.4; 5 is f1.4 for bokeh
5D III, my normal processing
1
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0266.jpg
2
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0265.jpg
3
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0264.jpg
4
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0263.jpg
5 (CA removed (level 4) in ACR)
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0269.jpg
5D III, my normal processing
1
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0266.jpg
2
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0265.jpg
3
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0264.jpg
4
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0263.jpg
5 (CA removed (level 4) in ACR)
http://photos.imageevent.com/bhakti_rider/900pixelfilesforfm/temp/0W1B0269.jpg
Dec 16, 2012 at 03:33 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.22 #15Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Great shots!
I should probably hang out less in the gear forums... this thread makes me want to buy this lens even though I have no real need for a 35mm lens (or any other new lens for that matter...)
I should probably hang out less in the gear forums... this thread makes me want to buy this lens even though I have no real need for a 35mm lens (or any other new lens for that matter...)
Dec 17, 2012 at 02:07 AM
p.22 #16Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
DxoMark's conclusion of Sigma 35mm 1.4 review:
"It is clear that Sigma has done something very special with the 35mm f1.4 DG HSM A, they have produced a lens that performs better than Canon’s own 35mm lenses and better than a Carl Zeiss 35mm f1.4. ..." <snip>
And then they have a really strong endorsement:
"There are really only two contenders where 35mm lenses for Canon are concerned. If you want the best then Sigma is the choice for you and if you want a bargain, then Canon’s EF 35mm f2, launched in 1990 could be a good alternative."
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design
"It is clear that Sigma has done something very special with the 35mm f1.4 DG HSM A, they have produced a lens that performs better than Canon’s own 35mm lenses and better than a Carl Zeiss 35mm f1.4. ..." <snip>
And then they have a really strong endorsement:
"There are really only two contenders where 35mm lenses for Canon are concerned. If you want the best then Sigma is the choice for you and if you want a bargain, then Canon’s EF 35mm f2, launched in 1990 could be a good alternative."
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design
Dec 17, 2012 at 01:09 PM
p.22 #17Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
curious80 wrote:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design
Thanks for the link. It wins in every single metric they have, including T-stop.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design
Thanks for the link. It wins in every single metric they have, including T-stop.
Dec 17, 2012 at 01:24 PM
p.22 #18Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
By all accounts...looks like this is the best 35mm on the planet. I can't wait to see how Canikon respond; that new 55 from Zeiss looks to be a killer as well.
Dec 18, 2012 at 01:09 AM
p.22 #19Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Visualiza wrote:
By all accounts...looks like this is the best 35mm on the planet. I can't wait to see how Canikon respond; that new 55 from Zeiss looks to be a killer as well.
Unless I use it at wide apertures with 95 % of the image not in focus (but not totally blurred either). I would then care about how 95 % of my image looks, and the f/2 Zeiss sonnar glued to the RX1 destroys the Sigma in that department from the samples I have seen. Just a subjective call, I can understand if you like the Sigma bokeh. The various Zeiss f/1.4 variants are also bought for bokeh quality primarily.
By all accounts...looks like this is the best 35mm on the planet. I can't wait to see how Canikon respond; that new 55 from Zeiss looks to be a killer as well.
Unless I use it at wide apertures with 95 % of the image not in focus (but not totally blurred either). I would then care about how 95 % of my image looks, and the f/2 Zeiss sonnar glued to the RX1 destroys the Sigma in that department from the samples I have seen. Just a subjective call, I can understand if you like the Sigma bokeh. The various Zeiss f/1.4 variants are also bought for bokeh quality primarily.
Dec 18, 2012 at 03:58 AM
p.22 #20Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
alundeb wrote:
Unless I use it at wide apertures with 95 % of the image not in focus (but not totally blurred either). I would then care about how 95 % of my image looks, and the f/2 Zeiss sonnar glued to the RX1 destroys the Sigma in that department from the samples I have seen. Just a subjective call, I can understand if you like the Sigma bokeh. The various Zeiss f/1.4 variants are also bought for bokeh quality primarily.
It takes different method to design lens with the same focal but different aperture. It is not objective to compare each other since it is much harder to design a lens with larger aperture. Further, without the same body, it is also not objective. I did come across some great sample with FF+S35, but some bad images from RX1. Without any head to head comparison, it is all hard to tell.
Visualiza wrote
By all accounts...looks like this is the best 35mm on the planet. I can't wait to see how Canikon respond; that new 55 from Zeiss looks to be a killer as well.It takes different method to design lens with the same focal but different aperture. It is not objective to compare each other since it is much harder to design a lens with larger aperture. Further, without the same body, it is also not objective. I did come across some great sample with FF+S35, but some bad images from RX1. Without any head to head comparison, it is all hard to tell.
Dec 18, 2012 at 06:29 AM