p.23 #2 · Sigma 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.
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.
norbelthomas wrote:
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.
Why should we not compare lenses with different designs in order to find the lens with the most pleasing image?
How does different sensors affect the bokeh quality of a lens?
A large number of samples in different conditions is more valuable than a single head to head comparison for bokeh. This is because the bokeh quality varies so much with distance and subject matter. A head to head comparison should at least include som different scenarios.
All I am saying is be careful to just looking at objective measures if the images you are going to make will be with mostly out of focus areas.
p.23 #3 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
twistedlim wrote:
Despite all these glowing reviews I just can't seem to get by my "Sigma stigma".... let it go, Rich Never had their 150 f2.8 Macro, great copy of the 30 f1.4
"Times, they are a changin...."
p.23 #4 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
I just can't Will...I am too weak. The canon L just works too well for me. I have never used one that is not the most accurate focusing lens in the line-up. I am glad so many folks like the Sigma though, it will only push canon to make better products and up the quality control.
p.23 #5 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
twistedlim wrote:
I am glad so many folks like the Sigma though, it will only push canon to make better products and up the quality control.
Thats the right way of thinking, competition is always good because we the consumer get better gear.
I got my new Sigma 1.4 last night and when I saw it I just had to smile, what a nice lens with a solid build, images are just amazing, and that will make Canon comeback stronger
p.23 #6 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Tried a 35 2.0 IS today...ehh its ok...much bigger and heavier than I thought it would be. Closer to the 35l in size than to the old 35 2.0. Not a bad lens but not $900 good either from where I stand. Just to be a rebel I walked out with the 35L once again .
p.23 #7 · Sigma 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.
And if Shaq only shot 3-pointers, he would have been the worst center of all time. By every objective measure of optical performance, the Sigma 35 is superior to the competition. We say it about Canon's 85 without drumming up such emotion, I don't know why it's a huge problem here, sheesh.
p.23 #8 · Sigma 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.
Visualiza wrote:
And if Shaq only shot 3-pointers, he would have been the worst center of all time. By every objective measure of optical performance, the Sigma 35 is superior to the competition. We say it about Canon's 85 without drumming up such emotion, I don't know why it's a huge problem here, sheesh.
Sorry, I don't know who Shaq is.
Speaking about drumming up emotions, the emotions seem to be on your part.
Bokeh quality is more of a problem with wide angle lenses than 85 mm lenses, but it counts there too. I know people who selected the Sigma 85 1.4 over the Canon 85 1.2 because of that look. Nobody got upset with "sheesh" comments over that.
p.23 #9 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
twistedlim wrote:
Despite all these glowing reviews I just can't seem to get by my "Sigma stigma"....
I've bought a sigmadud before.... I would give this lens a chance if I were in the market for one.
I've bought a canondud before as well..... wont stop me from buying canon lenses...
p.23 #11 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
alundeb wrote:
Sorry, I don't know who Shaq is.
Speaking about drumming up emotions, the emotions seem to be on your part.
Bokeh quality is more of a problem with wide angle lenses than 85 mm lenses, but it counts there too. I know people who selected the Sigma 85 1.4 over the Canon 85 1.2 because of that look. Nobody got upset with "sheesh" comments over that.
It wasn't me who decided to take a simple observation completely off the rails. Whereas I gave props to Zeiss, as well as acknowledging Canon and Nikon, your entire comment was predicated on the assumption that the RX1's fixed lens "destroys the Sigma's bokeh". Nothing in my initial post invited such a reply; I didn't even mention anything about bokeh, yet for some reason you felt the need to make it the crux of your whole argument, and again here as well.
p.23 #12 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Visualiza wrote:
It wasn't me who decided to take a simple observation completely off the rails. Whereas I gave props to Zeiss, as well as acknowledging Canon and Nikon, your entire comment was predicated on the assumption that the RX1's fixed lens "destroys the Sigma's bokeh". Nothing in my initial post invited such a reply; I didn't even mention anything about bokeh, yet for some reason you felt the need to make it the crux of your whole argument, and again here as well.
The whole point of my post was to mention bokeh, since you didn't do it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
p.23 #13 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Just received my Sigma 35 from B&H. Frankly, I've never paid much attention the aesthetics of lenses themselves (rather than the pictures they take), but this thing is drop-dead gorgeous. I'm working so I haven't had a chance to take any pictures worth sharing, but it seems to focus quickly and accurately.
p.23 #16 · Sigma 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.
I have never found a case when someone can back up the claim of one lens "destroying" the other lens with convincing samples. In reality in most cases the differences are subtle and heavily dependent on the specific conditions. Any such comment in my mind is a hyperbole.
p.23 #17 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
curious80 wrote:
I have never found a case when someone can back up the claim of one lens "destroying" the other lens with convincing samples. In reality in most cases the differences are subtle and heavily dependent on the specific conditions. Any such comment in my mind is a hyperbole.
I admit that "destroy" is a hyperbole. But please try to understand why I used it to illustrate my point. The sharpness and CA differences between the Sigma 35 1.4 and other high quality 35 mm prime lenses are really really subtle in a photograph in an average reproduction size, and especially resized on a monitor. It will be very difficult to see a difference in most images, after proper processing that a photograper will apply. But bokeh differences, being as subtle as they are, are immediately visible and constitute the look of the whole photograph even at small sizes. And it cannot be compensated for in processing.
I am very impressed by the performance of the Sigma, and will probably get one. I must not forget though, that for many images, it will not help, but other lenses can really help in those situations.
p.23 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Yakim Peled wrote:
Joining late to the party. Has anyone comented about AF accuracy? I still remember selling my Sigma 50/1.4 a few years ago just because of this.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Mine has been spot-on in Nikon mount after some focus adjustment. Same with my Sigma 85/1.4 which I also bought recently. Haven't run their through Reikan FoCal yet but will when I have some time this weekend.
p.23 #20 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Yakim Peled wrote:
Joining late to the party. Has anyone comented about AF accuracy? I still remember selling my Sigma 50/1.4 a few years ago just because of this.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Mine was sharp right out of the box with zero MA on my 5d mk3, if this trend continues I wouldn't hesitate to purchase sigma's next 'A' series lens, hopefully it will be a 50
let it go, Rich 
Never had their 150 f2.8 Macro, great copy of the 30 f1.4 
.