p.8 #1 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
This is a promising lens. The 35L has nice bokeh, but the 35mm FOV limits how good it's going to be, in my opinion. It's often beautiful, but there are times when it has a nervous quality. I suspect all 35mm lenses will suffer from this in one way or another. All that said, I've been burned on Sigma - it was a struggle to find a Sigma 50 that wasn't deeply flawed in some way. The good Sigmas that I've owned took a good hit on resale. This lens is tempting, but I'll probably stick with the L.
p.8 #2 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
rk-d wrote:
This is a promising lens. The 35L has nice bokeh, but the 35mm FOV limits how good it's going to be, in my opinion. It's often beautiful, but there are times when it has a nervous quality. I suspect all 35mm lenses will suffer from this in one way or another. All that said, I've been burned on Sigma - it was a struggle to find a Sigma 50 that wasn't deeply flawed in some way. The good Sigmas that I've owned took a good hit on resale. This lens is tempting, but I'll probably stick with the L.
If you belive the sigma would take a good hit on resale. Then buy a used one It should be very cheap if you are right
p.8 #5 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Very interesting design, i hope they will upgrade the same design for 50 and 85 as well. Not bad if we can integrate them with multiple mfg bodies though.
p.8 #6 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Tom K. wrote:
Canon 35L bokeh is nothing to brag about. I think it's overrated.
That is exactly my opinion too. The 35 mm is one of my favorite lenses, but I find bokeh quality every now and then just so so. It's with chromatic aberrations the only real fault of this lens. What I see in this Sigma samples isn't really worse or better at all.
Of course we've read Roger's test results for resolving power where the Sigma scores better than the best 35L copy, which is promising of course. Hopefully Sigma's quality spread isn't as scattered as it has been in the past. The biggest question that remains of course, will this Sigma be compatible with all of the Canon EF mount bodies and stay that over the future. I stopped using Sigma glass after several maintenance services for an APO 400, a 15-30 in the past when the lenses didn't autofocus properly anymore and needed new firmware. The next body upgrade that was necessity again. I changed to Canon glass only and have never looked back. As good and affordable the Sigma glass was I just didn't care about it anymore.
For those who like Sigma, in the first place for it's better pricing, being able to choose and make decisions on which 35 to buy is EOSfun. It would be really interesting to see a test in a big 35 mm comparison between Sigma, Samyang, Zeiss, and 35L and the new 35IS. It would making a choice for one these great classic focal lenght primes much easier. I would not be surprised if all of these are very close in performance and all have their own place for a specific reason (price tag, optical performance, IS, build, autofocus).
p.8 #8 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
I actually just got mine today! I don't post too much anymore..just not enough time with two boys, 5 and 1, and a wife that works every other weekend!!
But.. I have had a Zeiss 35 1.4(fantastic lens, no doubt!), 2 Samyang 35 1.4's(another fantastic lens, especially for the price), and currently a Nikon 35 1.4 ai-s lens, all on a Canon 1D4!
In order of quality, I would rate the Samyang as the best overall! The Zeiss was super, super, super sharp from f2 smaller, and very sharp wide open...just suffered from lots of CA! But the bokeh was to die for...nothing else could match it!!
The Nikon is very nice..not as sharp wide open(but is sharp...), and stopped down, probably the match of any other 35 out there, minus the Zeiss 1.4....but it makes up for everything in SIZE!!!! Which is HUGE...especially after lugging around a Zeiss 35 1.4, which is a brick!!
This Sigma 35 1.4, is definitely the match for sharpness wide open as the Zeiss's...and haven't stopped it down too much yet, since I just got it. As far as CA's..they are almost non-existent! So far....The bokeh seems a little harsh and busy, but not bad(leave me alone...just giving my 2 cents!!!), and I have only seen a hint of the onion bokeh so far! I'm not a total pixel peeper, but I think this lens will be a keeper!
Gregg
p.8 #9 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
BTW...all were manually focused, too. And above pics are .jpgs from 1D4 with a little highlight, exposure, and clarity involved, with no post sharpening whatsoever. All done in LR4.3. I haven't tried too much AF yet, but I will eventually. Another reason I bought this lens, was to actually try more AF, and to have a little exif for personal knowledge later on!!
Gregg
p.8 #13 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
rpaul wrote:
Hi guys ... occasional lurker, first time poster. I've had the lens since Wednesday night... since it looks like there's some contention about processing in the samples Legion5 referenced, I have some sample shots up here: http://smu.gs/R40J1P
Taken with a 5Dc, all the shots are RAWs imported to LR and exported w/ default settings (WB "As Shot," "Adobe Standard" image profile, 25/1/25/0 sharpening, no NR, all other settings 0). Analyze away.
Thanks for the samples. So far I'm happy with what I'm seeing and nothing to deter me. Any comment on AF speed?
p.8 #14 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Greggf wrote:
I actually just got mine today! I don't post too much anymore..just not enough time with two boys, 5 and 1, and a wife that works every other weekend!!
But.. I have had a Zeiss 35 1.4(fantastic lens, no doubt!), 2 Samyang 35 1.4's(another fantastic lens, especially for the price), and currently a Nikon 35 1.4 ai-s lens, all on a Canon 1D4!
In order of quality, I would rate the Samyang as the best overall! The Zeiss was super, super, super sharp from f2 smaller, and very sharp wide open...just suffered from lots of CA! But the bokeh was to die for...nothing else could match it!!
The Nikon is very nice..not as sharp wide open(but is sharp...), and stopped down, probably the match of any other 35 out there, minus the Zeiss 1.4....but it makes up for everything in SIZE!!!! Which is HUGE...especially after lugging around a Zeiss 35 1.4, which is a brick!!
This Sigma 35 1.4, is definitely the match for sharpness wide open as the Zeiss's...and haven't stopped it down too much yet, since I just got it. As far as CA's..they are almost non-existent! So far....The bokeh seems a little harsh and busy, but not bad(leave me alone...just giving my 2 cents!!!), and I have only seen a hint of the onion bokeh so far! I'm not a total pixel peeper, but I think this lens will be a keeper!
Gregg...Show more →
Appreciate the samples and comments Gregg. Especially from someone who has experience with so many 35s.
p.8 #18 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Wiiispa wrote:
You think it fair to slate a lens you don't own based on one image that you have no idea has been processed? Looks like you are justifying your Canon L from a fanboy standpoint.
Not true. I am a fan of lenses that delivery good image quality. I could care less which brand they come from. I carefully compare lenses on each of their qualities and their real world performance having both studied photography as art and optical engineering academically. Which is why I consult for major review websites on how to develop testing methods and rate lenses.
The initial batch of photos from this lens appeared to have some very serious issues. I did not say that the lens HAS these issues my exact words were that the lens "looks" like it has issues.
I am actually a huge fan of my Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 85mm 1.2L II I replaced with it, which has much less purple fringing and amazing sharpness and bokeh.
Lord Gnome wrote:
Come, come, now that's not fair..
Legion5's painstaking analysis of the bokeh of this new Sigma has convinced me that I should in fact buy a used Canon 35mm 1.4L.
Perhaps I'll buy the one that Legion5 himself is currently selling:
Flimsy flame bait is not a good way to have a productive discussion. 35mm 1.4 is one of my favorite focal lengths hands down. Due to financial considerations of updating all my photo editing computers, all my bodies and all my zooms I have to let go of my own Canon 35mm 1.4L, but within 3-4 months I will be in the market for another 35mm 1.4 lens.
I will be carefully comparing the Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS, Canon 35mm 1.4L and Sigma 35mm 1.4 and I will chose whichever one is the best regardless of price or brand.
rpaul wrote:
Hi guys ... occasional lurker, first time poster. I've had the lens since Wednesday night... since it looks like there's some contention about processing in the samples Legion5 referenced, I have some sample shots up here: http://smu.gs/R40J1P
Taken with a 5Dc, all the shots are RAWs imported to LR and exported w/ default settings (WB "As Shot," "Adobe Standard" image profile, 25/1/25/0 sharpening, no NR, all other settings 0). Analyze away.
The Onion bokeh is about the same as the other examples. I am noticing less square bokeh though with your copy than the one posted on Sigma's blog and on nepo. More samples would be very useful. I will be looking to loan a Canon 35mm f/2 35mm 1.4 & Sigma 35mm 1.4 for comparison in the next 2-3 weeks.
p.8 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM first impressions
Legion5 wrote:
1. Sigma invented a lens that produces bad Bokeh at every opportunity it gets.
2.Not true. I am a fan of lenses that delivery good image quality. I could care less which brand they come from. I carefully compare lenses on each of their qualities and their real world performance having both studied photography as art and optical engineering academically. Which is why I consult for major review websites on how to develop testing methods and rate lenses.
At the time you posted 1. above, you quoted only one image. There were at that time only a handful of images available. Again I argue, how can you justify such a wide ranging statement based on the limited, incomplete information available to you?
Could you also tell us which major website(s) you consult for? So we can take their reviews with a pinch of salt. Also which academy you studieid at so we can avoid sending our children there.
It should be very cheap if you are right
.
