# Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART questions



## aleshaloginov (Jul 10, 2014)

Good day,
I'm planning to buy 35mm lense and my doubt is about Sigma's built quality. I know that this is a perfect lense, sharp and fast, but is it as unkillable as the canon 35mm 1.4?

The fact is I don't care much about dark corners, extreme sharpness etc, I think canon 35mm is as well extremely sharp. Vignetting can be creative also.

I heard that Sigma's autofocus is a mess sometimes, can this be the reason for choosing canon?

In other words, I like the picture made with Sigma (it's very NIKON-alike), but I'm afraid of some small things like micro adjustments and I don't wan't to buy some docstations.


----------



## Menace (Jul 10, 2014)

Check out the review below 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/35mm-f14.htm

Disclaimer: I do not read this gentleman's reviews but perhaps you may find your answers in there.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 10, 2014)

The Sigma has stellar optical performance, except for bokeh, which is not its strong side. The real issue is AF. Mine (copy no.2, the first was crap) has inconsistent AF. I have experienced drifting over time, so I have had to redo AFMA a number of times. I upgraded the firmware (you need the dock for that) and it seems to be more stable now, but I still have too many out of focus shots to be happy with it. I believe a number of others on CR have similar experiences. But it also seems that quite a few is very happy also.

If you can live with the sharpness level of the Canon 35/1.4L, I would go for that every day. A piece of advice is to look at actual images produced by that lens and not drown in pixle peeping and graph interpreting reviews. Crisp, sharp, high resolution images, out of focus are still ... out of focus images ...


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 10, 2014)

Menace said:


> Check out the review below
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/35mm-f14.htm
> 
> Disclaimer: I do not read this gentleman's reviews but perhaps you may find your answers in there.



Very interesting, the guy speaks about everything I think.
I can't believe that $900 lens can be better than $1200. I don't think that I pay for canon's name here, but for quality.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 10, 2014)

Had two copies of the 35 Art, both [email protected] AF and issues all over. 50 Art is superb though. I will never ever buy another 35 Art. But I would buy a 35 L in a heartbeat, if I didn't already only used the 50 Art. 35 L is the best AF performer of
Any 1.4 lens.


----------



## Radiating (Jul 10, 2014)

aleshaloginov said:


> Good day,
> I'm planning to buy 35mm lense and my doubt is about Sigma's built quality. I know that this is a perfect lense, sharp and fast, but is it as unkillable as the canon 35mm 1.4?
> 
> The fact is I don't care much about dark corners, extreme sharpness etc, I think canon 35mm is as well extremely sharp. Vignetting can be creative also.
> ...



The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so if you want the lens that will give you less problems go with the Sigma.

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the least reliable lenses ever made and one of the most prone to focus related problems. In fact Canon's 35mm has more autofocusing issues alone than Sigma's lens has issues in all categories combined according to historical reliability data.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 10, 2014)

Radiating said:


> The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is 3 times less reliable than the Sigma 35mm f/1.4, so if you want the lens that will give you less problems go with the Sigma.
> 
> The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is one of the least reliable lenses ever made and one of the most prone to focus related problems. In fact Canon's 35mm has more autofocusing issues alone than Sigma's lens has issues in all categories combined according to historical reliability data.


I have never owned the 35/1.4L, so I cannot argue your point. But I have had my fair share of others in that series and my experience with those are quite different.. Apart from focusing speed, like with the 85/1.2L and some focus hunting here and there, I have never had any problem with the rest of my L-lenses. And I have not seen any threads here on CR making that point.

Do you have the statistics for this? Sure would be interesting to see.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 10, 2014)

aleshaloginov said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > Check out the review below
> ...



Easily solved. I shall sell you my Sigma 35 Art for $1,500.00, which by your logic, makes it better than the Canon which is just a $1,200.00 lens. 

Then I will repurchase the Sigma 35, and apply the difference towards a copy of the upcoming Sigma 85 Art.


----------



## Cinto (Jul 10, 2014)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/lensrentals-repair-data-january-july-2012
Some lens repair data. I have had both the Sigma and the Canon. I found the bokeh on both to be good for a wide angle but worse than most fast lens 50mm or above. The Canon has terrible CA and LoCA and not great aperture shape, the Sigma is nervous. The Canon focuses faster in good light and much faster in low light, in the dark I could get the Canon to focus sometimes, Sigma not as much. In decent light my Sigma focuses accurately(5D MarkII I mostly use centre point then crop, or slight recompose)The Sigma is sharper, noticeably. The Sigma "feels" well built and mine has been working just fine, but the Canon feels and works a little quicker and lighter in the field, plus it's weather sealed I think.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 10, 2014)

.
You may want to add the Canon 35mm f/2.0 IS to your consideration also. Dustin Abbot makes a compelling case for it here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2014/03/canon-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-review/


The folks at Lens Rentals have this to say about all three:

*Canon 35mm f/1.4:*

_This is the wide angle member of the Holy Trinity of L prime lenses: the 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.2, and 135 f/2.0. It’s one of the older designs in Canon’s lineup but still nearly flawless: sharp even in the edges, contrasty, and has smooth out-of-focus highlights. I find myself trying to find a way to frame a shot at this focal length, just so I can use this lens. If you’ve ever asked the question “why would you shoot with a prime lens when zooms are so much more convenient” this lens will demonstrate the answer for you.

However, from a pure resolution standpoint it has now been passed up by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens, which is sharper both in the center and along the edges and corners. The Canon remains a bit more predictable, though, both in autofocus accuracy and bokeh.
April, 2013_


*Sigma 35mm f/1.4A:*

_This is the sharpest 35mm made. It costs a lot less than the Canon 35 f/1.4mm or the Zeiss 35mm lenses. Any questions? It’s extremely well built and everything I’ve been able to see, inside and out, indicates quality control has really improved at Sigma.

If you’re a bokeh fanatic, you may like something else better (or maybe not, that’s a subjective call). If you need Image Stabilization, then the 35mm f/2 IS may be worthwhile. Otherwise, this is the 35mm lens.

Arguably as good or better than anything else made, and at a lower price.
_


*Canon 35mm f/2.0IS:*

_A modern day update to a versatile, compact and lightweight wide-angle lens, the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is incredibly bright and offers image stabilization, superb image quality and construction. The EF 35mm f/2 IS USM features a GMo aspherical lens element for high image quality, an 8-blade circular aperture diaphragm for soft backgrounds, a minimum focusing distance of 0.79 ft./0.24m, plus optimized lens coatings for minimized ghosting and flare.

A rear focus system, and ring-type USM with micro-stepping drive provide faster, quieter, and more precise autofocus performance perfect for video. It has a 4-stop Image Stabilizer system that detects panning and automatically switches to the optimal IS mode._


I'm not sure what you mean by "unkillable," but my Sigma 35 has the feeling of a well put-together Swiss watch. It is not weather-sealed if that matters.

By the way, you've got a nice bunch of pictures on your flickr site.


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 10, 2014)

Thank you very much for your responses.
It seems like i have to go for canon 35mm 1.4 as far as I'm a huge fan of delicious bokeh and I really care about how AF performs.


----------



## DRR (Jul 10, 2014)

I've used both. And this sounds dumb to some, but I actually like that the 35L is not as sharp as the Sigma. The one thing I noticed with images from the 35L is that many of them had a more ethereal quality. Moody. Magical almost. It "feels" right. I almost think that the lower resolution may contribute to "feel." I really liked the one I shot with and a 35L is probably going to be my next lens.

If you need sharpness, definitely go for the Sigma. FWIW I did not experience any AF problems with the Sigma. I just liked my images out of the 35L better.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 11, 2014)

I love my Sigma 35 Art. The thing is a guaranteed focus machine, even wide open, and Since I bought it 7-8 months ago it has been on my camera almost constantly. I did a puddly little +2 AFMA but it really wasn't crying out for it to begin with. And of course it is so amazingly sharp.

Also, the colors are so vivid I almost can't believe it. 

It feels very solid. Really solid, and high-quality. More solid-feeling than my 24-105L, which is plasticky (though in a solid package, same way a Corvette is plasticky fiberglass). Almost as solid as my 70-200 2.8 L Mk 2, and some of the difference there may simply be the fact it isn't so dang heavy!

Get what you are comfortable with, though I do not see the burningly-important point in IS in a short lens like a 35mm. If you are shooting people you can't really do that a lot slower than its theoretical reciprocal shutter(1/35th) anyway, because the subject's motion blur will kill you. I cant shoot my elementary school kids below like 1/60th, and they are not even all that squirmy. And if you are shooting landscape in dim light at 1 second, you should just bring a tripod, or rest the camera on a rock or something----gheeesh.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 11, 2014)

What do you really need from a 35mm lens?

I had the Sigma 35 for a year, then started doing more video so I bought the Canon 35 IS (which is the best!)

I kept the Sigma for about 2 months after I got the Canon, then sold it. After doing a series of image comparisons, portraits of people, animals, landscape, all in different lighting, I found the Canon overall better for my needs. At f2 my Canon was sharper than the Sigma at f2. I never had a single problem the Sigma, (aside from some chipping of the finish) and if I could do it all over again, I'd go straight Canon. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper and has IS. I never missed the 1.4 - 1.8 of the Sigma when I was using my Canon at f2. 

Overall, both excellent lenses for me, but the Canon 35 IS has become my all time fave lens!


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 11, 2014)

Renaissance said:


> What do you really need from a 35mm lens?
> 
> I had the Sigma 35 for a year, then started doing more video so I bought the Canon 35 IS (which is the best!)
> 
> ...



I need it for portraits. I love to shoot people wide open and that's why I want exactly 1.4. I hear people saying that canon's 35mm 1.4 is sharp enough wide open, whether sigma gets extremely sharp — not sure if it's good for portraits, people not often like it (neither do I).

And when it comes to the moment of sharpness lacking we all can use postproduction to make it a bit sharper.

I'm not really sure that a 35mm lens needs IS, it's useless to shoot people at 1/4 or slower because they actually *can't stand still*. I'd rather use my flash or wouldn't shoot at all.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 11, 2014)

My Canon 35L is very reliable.

(Sure I am curious about the Sigma, but I am very satisfied with my Canon)


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 11, 2014)

Get the Sigma, it's definitely built better than the Canon.


----------



## Frederik32 (Jul 11, 2014)

Hey

I work in one of the largest Danish Camera stores and I got the very first Sigma 35mm 1.4 that came to DDenmark in December 2012

Its one of my favorite lenses- even though I got 50 1.2 og 85 1.2

Its sharp, fast and better built than the very OLD canonwhich I really dont like

Ive never had to get the lens calibrated to my new houses- but had to get a +1 on my old 1d mk 4 body

Ive thinks its way better that the canonb except in very dark conditions where the AF can be fooled

If and this is a big if... canon comes with a new 35mm 1.4 thats better- then I would consider changing 

-frederik


----------



## NancyP (Jul 12, 2014)

I like my Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art, but I shoot landscape, so autofocus is off for those shots. I am an amateur, and if an occasional shot is not focused , I can live with that, I am not under the gun to produce, as an event photographer would be. The lens is very sharp and it has minimal coma wide open, compared to a lot of older 35s, so I use it for some astro-landscape photography on full frame.


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 16, 2014)

Another important question for you guys

The AF problem is crucial(I believe), so is it really so predictable? They say 10-20% of pictures are rubbish and only the rest is dead on.

I think I don't wan't a $1000 lens that has such a problem.

I shoot with 6d and I wish to hear some feedback from people like me.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

aleshaloginov said:


> Another important question for you guys
> 
> The AF problem is crucial(I believe), so is it really so predictable? They say 10-20% of pictures are rubbish and only the rest is dead on.
> 
> ...



My 35mm Art is amazingly reliable both on my 5D MkII and MkIII, no MFA required and spot-on AF.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 16, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> aleshaloginov said:
> 
> 
> > Another important question for you guys
> ...



The big problem is that you can just as easily have one that is completely useless. Only way to make sure you get a good one is to buy where you can easily return/exchange it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > aleshaloginov said:
> ...



That is always a sensible thing to do especially for more expensive equipment.


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 16, 2014)

To sum up, it seems like Sigma is much less reliable than canon here. 35L has been tested for more than 10 years and the only real problem is CA when wide open, though it's not often seen. The AF is more stable on canon's side.

Seems like I'd better remove CA when retouch a pic... yeah, 35L is my choice, for sure.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 16, 2014)

aleshaloginov said:


> To sum up, it seems like Sigma is much less reliable than canon here. 35L has been tested for more than 10 years and the only real problem is CA when wide open, though it's not often seen. The AF is more stable on canon's side.
> 
> Seems like I'd better remove CA when retouch a pic... yeah, 35L is my choice, for sure.



Have we been reading the same thread posts? I'm gathering it's actually trending towards Sigma. At best for Canon, it's 50/50.

I've used both on my 5DM3, and there's no comparison - I love my Sigma. 

I guess that's harsh...Canon is good, but Sigma is great.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 16, 2014)

My Sigma 35L arrived on Monday. On FoCal testing, the AFMA on the 5DIII was +4 and on 70D -2. The focus consistency on both bodies is the best ever I have ever encountered: 99.2% consistency of focus on both bodies and incredibly sharp. The lens is very well built and fits very precisely with no play on to the body.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 16, 2014)

Personally, my favorite is Canon's 35mm f2 IS. It's excellent. AF is super fast and accurate, sharp, contrast, and buttery bokeh. I actually owned the Sigma 35 months before the Canon, and after testing them side by side, even at 1.4 vs 2.0 hard to see why I'd pay more for the Sigma. And in my case, IS is much better for me. I've never owned the Canon 35L. 

I will add that after 2 months, my Sigma had 3 small paint chips on the finish. My Canon still looks perfect today.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 16, 2014)

To sum up, after buying two 35 Art that was absolute [email protected] and owned 6 or 7 35 L's I would soo not buy another Sigma, but happy to own a 35 L again, hm, I might just buy one. 

If you're looking for one of the best lenses ever made, outside of super tele, the 50 Art is incredible.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 16, 2014)

Viggo said:


> To sum up, after buying two 35 Art that was absolute [email protected] and owned 6 or 7 35 L's I would soo not buy another Sigma, but happy to own a 35 L again, hm, I might just buy one.
> 
> If you're looking for one of the best lenses ever made, outside of super tele, the 50 Art is incredible.



Copy variation?

So you got lucky with the 50, not so with the 35's. In much the same way I have a superb 35A and 50 EX.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 16, 2014)

I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.

The 35L was the most accurately focusing lens I have ever owned. The sigma does decently well in good lighting. Still a tad slower than the Canon and a few more misses than I'd like. In decent lighting, the miss rate goes up a little. In less than desirable lighting, I have trouble getting it to focus on anything whereas the Canon would have had zero issues.

I currently have both the Sigma and the Canon 35/2 IS in the bag, and the Sigma continues to show it's inferiority with regard to AF.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 17, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.
> 
> The 35L was the most accurately focusing lens I have ever owned. The sigma does decently well in good lighting. Still a tad slower than the Canon and a few more misses than I'd like. In decent lighting, the miss rate goes up a little. In less than desirable lighting, I have trouble getting it to focus on anything whereas the Canon would have had zero issues.
> 
> I currently have both the Sigma and the Canon 35/2 IS in the bag, and the Sigma continues to show it's inferiority with regard to AF.



What camera body are you using? I'm thinking this lens may be hit and miss with some bodies. On my 5D2 and 3: no issues.


----------



## aleshaloginov (Jul 17, 2014)

For god's sake, it seems like buying this sigma is the best way to learn how lucky you are. Very strange for a $1000 glass.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 17, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.
> 
> The 35L was the most accurately focusing lens I have ever owned. The sigma does decently well in good lighting. Still a tad slower than the Canon and a few more misses than I'd like. In decent lighting, the miss rate goes up a little. In less than desirable lighting, I have trouble getting it to focus on anything whereas the Canon would have had zero issues.
> 
> I currently have both the Sigma and the Canon 35/2 IS in the bag, and the Sigma continues to show it's inferiority with regard to AF.



Sounds much like what I've experienced and the 35 L has superb AF.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 17, 2014)

Just a little side note here, I was editing some 85 L shots in Lr yesterday and wow, compared to the 50 Art it's absolutely horrible, not as sharp and the CA is ruining the shots for, me really really bad... And I have also start noticing the bending of the corners. I can't tell how much better the 50 Art really is. Such a shame you must count on never getting one as good as it's supposed to be. I know I am never selling this great one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 17, 2014)

I bought my 35Art last October, and it had, I believe, the third generation of firmware. It did need AFMA on my 5DIII, nothing extreme, but it is super accurate with AF and produces spectacular landscapes stopped down, and lovely close-up stuff with better bokeh than the ef 35mm 1.4 L that I sold. Very little CA even wide open, solid build. I love it.

But I'm no Sigma fan after being teased by the awesome IQ of the 50Art, only to be let down by erratic AF beyond five feet.

The 35Art spoiled me, and I'm in a hectic time now, so I did not want to pay another $60 for the USB dock, spend a lot of time working with it, and possibly find that the AF was still erratic (not just in need of calibration).

So...Before I got the 50Art, I would have gushed about Sigma. Now I just scratch my head.

Funny, Viggo, you mention the 85L, because I was just telling a friend that the 50Art had the best bokeh under 100mm I've seen on any lens EXCEPT the 85L II. I know, the 85 has clunky AF, but for portrait stuff, it truly excels. Also, I've had minimal issues with CA, and I'm usually shooting between f/1.2 and f/2.2. But I do control my backgrounds for portraits, don't play much with lens flare or include metallic surfaces or reflections on water with the portraits.) Not good for much else, but I still think it is the best at what it does. (But I did give up fast on the 50Art.)


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm now on my third copy of the Sigma which is the best one out of the three. That being said, it is still nowhere near the performance of the 35L I had with regard to Autofocus accuracy and speed in all scenarios.
> ...



Not this time around with the dock. Just used FoCal a handful of times at different distances and lighting. It was close enough during testing at all variables. However, shifting over to actual shooting yielded plenty of misses consistently. That being said, I still get about 80-85% hit rate in good lighting conditions which makes it usable enough for my purposes at the moment. At anything from moderate to low light, it is terrible. Suffice to say if I were doing paid work all the time, it would definitely not cut it.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 17, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> What camera body are you using? I'm thinking this lens may be hit and miss with some bodies. On my 5D2 and 3: no issues.



The first two copies I had when the 35 Art first came out were mounted on a 5D3. The current one is on a 6D which seems to be working much better than the previous two on the 5D3 which seems odd to me considering the difference in AF systems.


----------



## gigabellone (Jul 21, 2014)

I use one on a Canon 6D, and i think it's a stellar performer. Maybe i'm not as picky as other fellow forumers, but my copy didn't need AFMA, and the AF is accurate, though not fast. Bear in mind that i always take photographs of static subjects, and that i always use the central focus point.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 21, 2014)

gigabellone said:


> I use one on a Canon 6D, and i think it's a stellar performer. Maybe i'm not as picky as other fellow forumers, but my copy didn't need AFMA, and the AF is accurate, though not fast. Bear in mind that i always take photographs of static subjects, and that i always use the central focus point.



I even did a shoot with AI Servo enabled on the 5D MkII and the keeper rate was excellent! All wide angle shots in the following series were shot like this:

http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/auto-motorsport/assen-tt-city-racing/


----------

