# Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Pricing



## AdamJ (Oct 21, 2012)

One UK online retailer has come out early with a price on the Sigma 35mm, of £599. For comparison, that is slightly less than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/sigma-35mm-f14-dg-hsm-lens-for-canon-p-9455.html


----------



## Imagination_landB (Oct 22, 2012)

So it should be 700-800$ US/CA.. I just can't wait to see how it performs against it's canon and bower/rokinon etc rivals.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 22, 2012)

Oh man.... why do the 35mm with AF have to be so expensive  I dont like the Sigma 30mm since i also use FF analog sometimes. Then the only cheap alternative is Samyang but its MF and im worried im too dumb for that :'(

Can somebody explain to me why the 35mm price is so high? Is it really THAT complicated to build a 35mm lens? Does adding AF really cost 300$ more (compared wiv samyang) ?


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 22, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Oh man.... why do the 35mm with AF have to be so expensive  I dont like the Sigma 30mm since i also use FF analog sometimes. Then the only cheap alternative is Samyang but its MF and im worried im too dumb for that :'(
> 
> Can somebody explain to me why the 35mm price is so high? Is it really THAT complicated to build a 35mm lens? Does adding AF really cost 300$ more (compared wiv samyang) ?



Honestly, I'm pleased with the Sigma's price. My guess is that it will be a better performer than the 35mm L which is $500-600 more.

If you're worried about MF on the Samyang, then perhaps you'll see the value in the Sigma. I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic and my eyesight varies literally by the hour, so MF on the fly just isn't an option for me. :-\


----------



## MK5GTI (Oct 24, 2012)

I seriously don't know why 35mm cost that much more to make than the 50mm, ok, i know 50mm is the easiest to make, 85mm F1.4 being more expensive i can understand it, the aperture in diameter is actually larger, but 35mm aperture diameter will be smaller too.

it use a smaller filter size compare to the 50mm & 85mm brother, so in theory, the manufacture use less glass.

but since i have been wiating for this 35L alternative for so long, i will still buy it!

Sigma, make the 24L and 135L alternative please!


----------



## panchoskywalker (Oct 27, 2012)

Well the price they sell the 35mm is not directly related to its cost, it has a lot to do with the higher price they think they can ask. And I guess that given the fact that the canon 35L is about US$1400 US$800 is a good price for the sigma 35.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 27, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> Honestly, I'm pleased with the Sigma's price. My guess is that it will be a better performer than the 35mm L which is $500-600 more.



That would be a HUGE presumption IMO.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 28, 2012)

drjlo said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I'm pleased with the Sigma's price. My guess is that it will be a better performer than the 35mm L which is $500-600 more.
> ...



As presumptions go, I'd say it's just short of a racing certainty! The MTF charts indicate that the Sigma is a superior performer, which should be no surprise given its much more sophisticated design compared with the 14 year old Canon. We just have to hope that Sigma's build consistency is up to scratch.


----------



## brianleighty (Oct 28, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Oh man.... why do the 35mm with AF have to be so expensive  I dont like the Sigma 30mm since i also use FF analog sometimes. Then the only cheap alternative is Samyang but its MF and im worried im too dumb for that :'(
> 
> Can somebody explain to me why the 35mm price is so high? Is it really THAT complicated to build a 35mm lens? Does adding AF really cost 300$ more (compared wiv samyang) ?


Well when you combine the 1.4 aperture with the fact that it's a moderately wide lens on full frame, then it makes sense. I believe there are more things you have to correct for the wider you go from 50mm than you do going tighter than 50mm. I think I'd also argue that most of the 50mm designs are simpler without any special elements until you get up to the highest level ones. If you try to make a cheap lens by not using aspherical and other glass to correct then nobody's going to buy it as most people prefer zooms and one of the main benefits of a prime is at least as good of quality (most of the time better) with a larger aperture. If the prime lacks in image quality, is it really better than the zoom then which is a lot more convenient? I'm pretty excited about the 35mm. I've used the 85 and it's a great lens in my opinion. If this hits in the $600-$900 region and can beat the quality of the Canon 35 1.4 then I'll definitely consider buying it. 

EDIT:
just noticed the Sigma 50 1.4 has an aspherical element. That helps explain it's better quality than the two lower Canon's. Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar). A price increase of $200-$400 for the increased complexity isn't unreasonable. Especially considering Canon's 35 1.4 II will probably cost somewhere close to the $2000 range.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 29, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> EDIT:
> just noticed the Sigma 50 1.4 has an aspherical element. That helps explain it's better quality than the two lower Canon's. Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar). A price increase of $200-$400 for the increased complexity isn't unreasonable. Especially considering Canon's 35 1.4 II will probably cost somewhere close to the $2000 range.



I've linked Sigma's description below. As you can see, it's a more complex design than existing Canon or Nikon products.

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14.html

Here is Canon's most recent patent for a new 35mm.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-canon-ef-35-f1-4l/


----------



## CharlieB (Oct 29, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar)



Keep in mind, its not the number of elements, but how they're used.... precision. Put another way, lens designs can be had, with few elements, that give outstanding performance, but the designs, not only of the glass, but of the mechanical parts, precision of element spacing, centering, how one group moves versus another, is paramount.

Example: Look at what Leica is doing with few elements. 

Lens optical designs are compromised to the degree that makes them build-able in a production environment.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 30, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > Then again, it's close to a $500 lens and it only has 8 elements vs the 85's 11 and the Canon 35's 11 (I'd assume the Sigma will have similar)
> ...



Precision manufacturing undoubtedly helps but so does Leica's much shorter flange distance which obviates the need for a large-front-element retrofocus design in their 35mm lenses. It isn't really a fair comparison.


----------



## bchernicoff (Nov 7, 2012)

B&H has available for pre-order: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?is=REG&Q=&A=details&O=productlist&sku=898831


----------



## Imagination_landB (Nov 9, 2012)

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/a_35_14/ just came out..


----------



## kubelik (Nov 9, 2012)

I agree that the price is fantastic, but how many folks here are confident enough in terms of Sigma's AF speed and accuracy to purchase this pre-order? I ask this in all seriousness, I'm curious to see especially the responses of folks who own the newer Sigma lenses. I sold all of mine 3 years ago after not enjoying hit/miss rate very much.


----------



## aznable (Nov 11, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I agree that the price is fantastic, but how many folks here are confident enough in terms of Sigma's AF speed and accuracy to purchase this pre-order? I ask this in all seriousness, I'm curious to see especially the responses of folks who own the newer Sigma lenses. I sold all of mine 3 years ago after not enjoying hit/miss rate very much.



my 70-200 f/2.8 OS has a good autofocus hit rate...i have to audjust a bit with mcrofus adj on 50D a +6...with the old 70-200 f/2.8 ii i had to psuh to a +15.

the speed is slower than canon, also because they dont provide a limiter, but i dont think thet af speed of 35mm will be much lower than canon equivalent.

i tought they provide software to adjust focus also on camera that doesnt have mfa... am i wrong? that's a very nice option; never seen on any lens from other manufacturers


----------



## brianleighty (Nov 12, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I agree that the price is fantastic, but how many folks here are confident enough in terms of Sigma's AF speed and accuracy to purchase this pre-order? I ask this in all seriousness, I'm curious to see especially the responses of folks who own the newer Sigma lenses. I sold all of mine 3 years ago after not enjoying hit/miss rate very much.


Won't be pre-ordering, but will definitely be renting it for a wedding sometime next year for sure. I rented the 85 1.4 and was pretty impressed by it. It's hard to tell how much of the keeper rate was due to my own technique and what was the lenses fault but overall I thought it did pretty good as long there wasn't a huge change in the subjects position.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> One UK online retailer has come out early with a price on the Sigma 35mm, of £599. For comparison, that is slightly less than the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.
> 
> http://www.microglobe.co.uk/sigma-35mm-f14-dg-hsm-lens-for-canon-p-9455.html



I like the Price. If its any good, I will Buy one ASAP. I tend not to buy first gen products immediately.


----------

