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.6 #1Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Wow. The bokeh look really terrible. When will these third party manufacturers learn to stop making lenses with MTF being the only consideration. I've spoken to some of Canon's reps and questioned them about their image quality standards for L glass and Canon would throw this lens design straight into the trash in 3 seconds flat.
Besides the onion bokeh, the bokeh blur is also really non gausian and harsh, almost having a sqaure falloff. No other major lens has such terrible bokeh falloff, it reminds me the old errors you saw with square bokeh falloff in older versions of Adobe Camera Raw which they patched. Shame you can't patch an optical design. When looking at their sample photos (those posted on lens rentals then sigma's blog) I could instantly tell something was not right for this lens even in the small images. I've tried the Canon 1.4 Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 1.4 and the Nikon 1.4. All have fantastic bokeh and none of these problems. It's not hard to design a great 35mm lens.
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467320/img/Picture-Box/sigma-35mm-square-bokeh.jpg
Sigma 35mm 1.4 Sample @ 1.4
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467238/img/Picture-Box/sigma-35mm-onion-bokeh.jpg
Sigma 35mm 1.4 Sample @ 1.4
kewlcanon wrote:
you've never owned 50L it has onion bokeh too huh
From speaking to Canon reps I learned that Canon put a hard limit on OOF highlight quality and lack of onion bokeh. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 exceeded those limits by a huge margin.
For comparison here's the 50mm 1.2L's onion bokeh. Which is kept to a reasonable level. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is off the charts. I think anyone would agree the 50mm 1.2 is much less disturbing.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467431/img/Picture-Box/canon-50mm-12-onion-bokeh.jpg
Canon 50mm 1.2 @ 1.4
Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 07:09 PM · View previous versions
Besides the onion bokeh, the bokeh blur is also really non gausian and harsh, almost having a sqaure falloff. No other major lens has such terrible bokeh falloff, it reminds me the old errors you saw with square bokeh falloff in older versions of Adobe Camera Raw which they patched. Shame you can't patch an optical design. When looking at their sample photos (those posted on lens rentals then sigma's blog) I could instantly tell something was not right for this lens even in the small images. I've tried the Canon 1.4 Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 1.4 and the Nikon 1.4. All have fantastic bokeh and none of these problems. It's not hard to design a great 35mm lens.
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467320/img/Picture-Box/sigma-35mm-square-bokeh.jpg
http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467238/img/Picture-Box/sigma-35mm-onion-bokeh.jpg
kewlcanon wrote:
you've never owned 50L it has onion bokeh too huh From speaking to Canon reps I learned that Canon put a hard limit on OOF highlight quality and lack of onion bokeh. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 exceeded those limits by a huge margin.
For comparison here's the 50mm 1.2L's onion bokeh. Which is kept to a reasonable level. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 is off the charts. I think anyone would agree the 50mm 1.2 is much less disturbing.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/11467431/img/Picture-Box/canon-50mm-12-onion-bokeh.jpg
Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 07:09 PM · View previous versions
Nov 22, 2012 at 01:43 PM
p.6 #2Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
^^ Yes and Sigma puts a limit on the price...now how much is it for Canon 35mm 1.4 L ? 
.
Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 01:49 PM · View previous versions
.Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 01:49 PM · View previous versions
Nov 22, 2012 at 01:48 PM
p.6 #3Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
So people have a choice, pay more for a canon with nicer bokeh or get the cheaper sigma which is probably sharper.
Who looses?
Who looses?
Nov 22, 2012 at 01:49 PM
Guest
Offline
Guest
Details
p.6 #4Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Looks like Sigma has a real winner. Thank Heaven I have no real need for a 35mm lens so I think I'm safe... but only until they follow suit with a 24/1.4 made in the same vein. Then, I'm afraid, I'll end up with a full rack of knives in my body for embezzling the family funds.
goosemang wrote:
let me run this logic by my wife... will report back
And he's still conspicuously absent...
goosemang wrote:
let me run this logic by my wife... will report back
And he's still conspicuously absent...
Nov 22, 2012 at 01:54 PM
p.6 #5Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?
Nov 22, 2012 at 02:37 PM
p.6 #6Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Whaaat? Photography is supposed to be fun? I thought it was some kind of game played on internet forums. Oh, well...
Nov 22, 2012 at 03:13 PM
p.6 #7Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
And keep the samples coming - seems like I'll let my Sigma 50/1.4 go for this. A 35/85 kit will cover 90% of my needs.
Nov 22, 2012 at 03:15 PM
p.6 #8Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Too soon to decide whether this Sigma is going to replace my Zeiss 35 1.4
Nov 22, 2012 at 03:27 PM
p.6 #9Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
vsg28 wrote:
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
Nov 22, 2012 at 03:35 PM
p.6 #10Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
If there's something that makes photos look like junk ... it's probably not the subtleties of how slightly OOF areas transition.
vsg28 wrote
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
If there's something that makes photos look like junk ... it's probably not the subtleties of how slightly OOF areas transition.
Nov 22, 2012 at 03:49 PM
p.6 #11Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
What's with the disdain for the new Sigma
.
It's shaping up as an excellent alternative to the 35L.
And just wait until Canon updates the 35L with a newer/better version for ... $2000+.
Those onion rings on the Sigma will start looking pretty good.
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
What's with the disdain for the new Sigma
.It's shaping up as an excellent alternative to the 35L.
And just wait until Canon updates the 35L with a newer/better version for ... $2000+.
Those onion rings on the Sigma will start looking pretty good
.Nov 22, 2012 at 03:52 PM
p.6 #12Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
Any lens can produce bad ( nervous ) bokeh from time to time. It depends on the background mostly.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpg
vsg28 wrote
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
Any lens can produce bad ( nervous ) bokeh from time to time. It depends on the background mostly.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpg
Nov 22, 2012 at 04:08 PM
p.6 #13Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
eosfun wrote:
Well that would be a first. In general Sigma's offerings hardly have to anything with Canon products and their pricing. I don't see a lot of 35L owners trade their lens for a Sigma. New buyers might be tempted and will have to make decisions where to put their money, but there is hardly a movement from Canon glass owners to Sigma glass in general.
Anyway, having alternatives and all these 35 mm decisions (third party glass, L or IS) they are all kind of EOSfun
I think the Sigma 85/1.4 had an effect on the 85L II's price on the used market. Not sure if the Sigma 50/1.4 did on the Canon 50mm's.
Earlier quote
If Lens Rentals is correct, watch for a massive price drop on the 35L used market in coming months...Anyway, having alternatives and all these 35 mm decisions (third party glass, L or IS) they are all kind of EOSfun
I think the Sigma 85/1.4 had an effect on the 85L II's price on the used market. Not sure if the Sigma 50/1.4 did on the Canon 50mm's.
Nov 22, 2012 at 04:24 PM
p.6 #14Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Apologies if I'm being slow but where did the images that Legion5 has annotated come from? Are these from the Sigma 35mm 1.4?
Thanks
Thanks
Nov 22, 2012 at 04:27 PM
p.6 #16Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Orestis.Ch wrote:
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.Any lens can produce bad ( nervous ) bokeh from time to time. It depends on the background mostly.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpg
Canon made a 70-200mm that produces bad bokeh at certain focal lengths and focus points. And people complained.
Sigma invented a lens that produces bad Bokeh at every opportunity it gets.
Canon's 35mm is one of my favorite lenses and that lens is a master of good bokeh. It's a real shame Sigma messed up the bokeh on lens who's reason for existing at least for me is bokeh.
Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 06:40 PM · View previous versions
Legion5 wrote
vsg28 wrote
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpg
Canon made a 70-200mm that produces bad bokeh at certain focal lengths and focus points. And people complained.
Sigma invented a lens that produces bad Bokeh at every opportunity it gets.
Canon's 35mm is one of my favorite lenses and that lens is a master of good bokeh. It's a real shame Sigma messed up the bokeh on lens who's reason for existing at least for me is bokeh.
Edited on Nov 22, 2012 at 06:40 PM · View previous versions
Nov 22, 2012 at 06:22 PM
p.6 #17Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
Are you asking what is wrong with a lens that makes your photos look like junk?
The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.Any lens can produce bad ( nervous ) bokeh from time to time. It depends on the background mostly.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpgCanon made a 70-200mm that produces bad bokeh at certain focal lengths and focus points. And people complained.
Sigma invented a lens that produces bad Bokeh at every opportunity it gets.
Canon's 35mm is one of my favorite lenses and that lens is a master of good bokeh. It's a real shame Sigma messed up the bokeh on lens who's reason for existing at least for me is bokeh.
I guess you can just continue to use your bokehilious 35L while others try out the Sigma.
Orestis.Ch wrote
Legion5 wrote
vsg28 wrote
If you are really concerned about a square gaussian bokeh and things like this, then what is the point of doing photography for fun?The answer is it makes your photos look like junk.
The highly esteemed 70-200 F2.8L IS from canon can also produce poop bokeh :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8324/8099714738_8aa075503f_b.jpg
Sigma invented a lens that produces bad Bokeh at every opportunity it gets.
Canon's 35mm is one of my favorite lenses and that lens is a master of good bokeh. It's a real shame Sigma messed up the bokeh on lens who's reason for existing at least for me is bokeh.
I guess you can just continue to use your bokehilious 35L while others try out the Sigma.
Nov 22, 2012 at 06:33 PM
p.6 #18Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
chez wrote:
I guess you can just continue to use your bokehilious 35L while others try out the Sigma.
The sad thing is that Sigma has a history of making truly excellent lenses. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is god-like and is one of the sharpest lenses you can buy, with perfect bokeh. I dumped my Canon 85mm 1.2L II for that Sigma lens as it had much less purple fringing with equally amazing if not better bokeh.
The Canon 35mm 1.4 L is so so so bokelicious though. It's a 14 year old design but it's just better.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5110/5615525217_b618346e3b_b.jpg
Canon 35mm 1.4L Bokeh
I guess you can just continue to use your bokehilious 35L while others try out the Sigma.
The sad thing is that Sigma has a history of making truly excellent lenses. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is god-like and is one of the sharpest lenses you can buy, with perfect bokeh. I dumped my Canon 85mm 1.2L II for that Sigma lens as it had much less purple fringing with equally amazing if not better bokeh.
The Canon 35mm 1.4 L is so so so bokelicious though. It's a 14 year old design but it's just better.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5110/5615525217_b618346e3b_b.jpg
Nov 22, 2012 at 07:01 PM
p.6 #19Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5110/5615525217_b618346e3b_b.jpg
Canon 35mm 1.4L Bokeh
great shot!
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5110/5615525217_b618346e3b_b.jpg
great shot!
Nov 22, 2012 at 07:15 PM
p.6 #20Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
The sad thing is that Sigma has a history of making truly excellent lenses. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is god-like and is one of the sharpest lenses you can buy, with perfect bokeh. I dumped my Canon 85mm 1.2L II for that Sigma lens as it had much less purple fringing with equally amazing if not better bokeh.
The Canon 35mm 1.4 L is so so so bokelicious though. It's a 14 year old design but it's just better.
Canon 35mm 1.4L Bokeh
It would be better if you could present the results of a controlled test, testing each lens under identical conditions. Any lens can get horrible looking bokeh under the right conditions.
Also who gives a flying rat's ass what Canon reps think of Sigma lenses. Of course they will trash talk it, it's their job.
chez wrote
I guess you can just continue to use your bokehilious 35L while others try out the Sigma.The Canon 35mm 1.4 L is so so so bokelicious though. It's a 14 year old design but it's just better.
It would be better if you could present the results of a controlled test, testing each lens under identical conditions. Any lens can get horrible looking bokeh under the right conditions.
Also who gives a flying rat's ass what Canon reps think of Sigma lenses. Of course they will trash talk it, it's their job.
Nov 22, 2012 at 08:09 PM