# Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG HSM First Impressions



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 21, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11984"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=11984">Tweet</a></div>
<strong>From LensRentals.com


</strong>Roger at LensRentals.com has written his first impressions of the brand new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM. This may be the first time I’ve ever seen him this positive about a Sigma product.</p>
<blockquote><p>As always, this isn’t a review, it’s my quick first impression after putting the lens through our normal intake tests. I’m not a lens reviewer. Also, as always, my summary comes first, for those of you who have trouble reading more than 150 words without a picture (and a picture comes after that).</p>
<p>This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on.</p></blockquote>
<div id="attachment_11985" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296"><img class="size-full wp-image-11985" title="sigma35mtf" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sigma35mtf.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="103" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Sigma 35 f/1.4 MTF 50 – Higher Numbers are Better</p></div>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/sigma-35mm-f1-4-arrives-announces-new-world-order" target="_blank">Read the entire article</a> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Buy the Sigma 35 f/1.4 at B&H $899</a></strong></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r </strong></p>
```


----------



## AtSea (Nov 21, 2012)

That's more like it..

Well done Sigma.

I already own the 50 1.4 - now I'm just unsure whether I should keep it and own a 35 as well, or simply exchange them out. 

Anyone have any thoughts on whether both primes get good use on a full frame - 35 and a 50? Or if they find it redundant?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 21, 2012)

AtSea said:


> That's more like it..
> 
> Well done Sigma.
> 
> ...



No, the 35L and 50L are very different.


----------



## zim (Nov 21, 2012)

_"This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on."_

Ah! at last a lens review I can understand, no techno bollocks just straight to the point ;D ;D


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

i said people should wait for this lens.
the MTF chart looked impressive already.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 21, 2012)

Weathersealing?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 21, 2012)

That makes me excited. I am looking forward to a more extensive review, but it is ironic that Roger compares it to a Zeiss, as I commented on another thread today that this lens physically/cosmetically looks very much like a Zeiss (a good thing, for me, as I am not a fan of the Sigma crinkle finish).

I'm interested in some head to head vs. the new Canon 35mm f/2 IS. One of these is going to end up in my bag. I'm leaning towards the Sig right now.


----------



## MK5GTI (Nov 21, 2012)

no surprise, just another L lense killer, has been waiting for this forever.

the APSC version 30mm F1.4 already beat the 35L from some reviews i see.....


----------



## jukka (Nov 21, 2012)

Sigma 70mm (I-R reference lens) , 105mm , 150mm , 180 macro is also high quality lenses.
One big problem with Sigma lenses is that Canon service center will not not adjust the Sigma lenses to the camera body if there are any AF focusing problems .


----------



## zim (Nov 21, 2012)

OK I read more than 150 words. Interesting article and it looks pretty too, I agree Dustin, Zeiss like.

Really looking forward to learning more about the focus/update software that accompanies this (and all new?) lens and of course more sample pictures

How does this fit in with AFMA?
(bottom of page)
http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/a_35_14/features.html#features06


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

jukka said:


> Sigma 70mm (I-R reference lens) , 105mm , 150mm , 180 macro is also high quality lenses.
> One big problem with Sigma lenses is that Canon service center will not not adjust the Sigma lenses to the camera body if there are any AF focusing problems .



with the new lens series from sigma you don´t need canon for that.
you can do it yourself.


----------



## zim (Nov 21, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> with the new lens series from sigma you don´t need canon for that.
> you can do it yourself.



Which means you don't need to have a camera with AFMA or software like FoCal??


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 21, 2012)

zim said:


> How does this fit in with AFMA?



It certainly means that the Sigma is better on camera bodies w/o afma like the Rebels or 60d - I hope they refresh their 50mm, too as they did with the 120-300mm f2.8 tele which is just 1.5 years old. So less excuses for Canon to keep their current 35L design because it's sooooo expensive and difficult to design new lenses...



> The new Sigma Optimization Pro software and USB Dock are designed exclusively for these new product lines and will enable Sigma users to connect their lenses to their computers to update lens firmware and fine-tune focus parameters via easy-to-use, on-screen controls.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 21, 2012)

I was trying to hold out until the canon f2 IS came out so i could compare them but knowing how good the sigma 85 is and seeing this review i think i'm gonna pre-order this 35 tomorrow


----------



## drjlo (Nov 21, 2012)

I always welcome any good third party lenses. That really is the only way to force Canon from pricing their lenses so stratospherically in the long run. 

BTW. For the gallery. For the several Sigma lenses I've used, I have noticed a little bit of color balance difference from Canon L glass. Anyone else notice this?


----------



## heptagon (Nov 21, 2012)

zim said:


> Gothmoth said:
> 
> 
> > with the new lens series from sigma you don´t need canon for that.
> ...



Correct me if i'm wrong, but you use FoCal to estimate the error and then enter that number into the AFMA field of the camera. Now you replace the AFMA of the camera with the lens adjustment but you still need FoCal (or you just use magic lantern and jog the focus around manually).


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 21, 2012)

Wow...I might have to pull trigger on this baby.


----------



## photogaz (Nov 21, 2012)

Sigma are certainly not doing too bad. The original 30mm was one of the greatest lenses ever. 

I just wonder when Canon are going to renew their 35L.


----------



## yogi (Nov 22, 2012)

I have the sigma 50 1.4 and have been very satisfied and impressed so far. The canon 35L is in my wish list, but if the sigma gets good reviews i might consider it instead, especially considering the price difference.


----------



## jukka (Nov 22, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> jukka said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma 70mm (I-R reference lens) , 105mm , 150mm , 180 macro is also high quality lenses.
> ...



it depends, try to micro adjust a 105 macro or a zoom from the macro mode up to infinity . the best solution is to have all Canon lenses adjusted by a canon service center, a zoom for example 24-105 are adjusted in 8 different positions in the zoom range, in 5dmk2 we have one, and in 5dmk 3 we have 2 adjustments points.


----------



## HughHowey (Nov 22, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Wow...I might have to pull trigger on this baby.



I just did. Excited about this lens. Also finally caved and ordered the 70-200 2.8 II. Early Christmas!


----------



## jukka (Nov 22, 2012)

And when we are discussing AF and micro adjustments , there are minor variations in the AF system, this together with 1. camera AF is incorrectly calibrated 2. the lens AF is incorrectly calibrated 3. Both the camera and the lens is faulty. 4. minor variations, its means, take a series of 5 shoots and place your hand in front of the lens so every shoot against your target will be a new AF measure, then you can se in a series of pictures that the absolute sharpness varies / focusing accuracy and can look like this.
Number of incorrect parameters can therefore be many .


----------



## sarangiman (Nov 22, 2012)

jukka said:


> it depends, try to micro adjust a 105 macro or a zoom from the macro mode up to infinity . the best solution is to have all Canon lenses adjusted by a canon service center, a zoom for example 24-105 are adjusted in 8 different positions in the zoom range, in 5dmk2 we have one, and in 5dmk 3 we have 2 adjustments points.



Thanks for that info on the 8 different positions at Canon FSC. Did not know that.

I've always wondered about this though. Since AFMA can only be accurately set for one subject distance, is it better to get a lens that has a AFMA of 0 with your body than to adjust a lens to, say, -12 for 25x focal length subject distance?

For that matter, is it even possible to get a lens that focuses perfectly (AFMA=0) for both near & far subject distances?

I would guess so, as AFMA appears to me, in my understanding, to simply be an extra correction factor on top of all other correction factors (e.g. correction due to spherical aberration, etc.; more here: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=109296); and a simple multiplier (or whatever exactly AFMA is) may not hold across the entire range of subject distances.


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 22, 2012)

I am getting one of these... I think... Or Canon 24 1.4?


----------



## sarangiman (Nov 22, 2012)

Oh, also: 9 blade aperture primes for Canon FTW!! I can finally get my 18-point sunstars


----------



## adhocphotographer (Nov 22, 2012)

Hmmm... 

I am looking for a prime around here... lets see how the 35 f/2 IS stacks up with it... still, maybe a shorty40 is still the best option? who knows!  Too many options drives me mad, but too few is worse!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 22, 2012)

photogaz said:


> Sigma are certainly not doing too bad. The original 30mm was one of the greatest lenses ever.



Mine was a dud; poor AF performance and a squeeky focus ring. It did however produce that fabulous bokeh 

I now have the Siggy 50/1.4 and 20/1.8. Both of these are fabulous lenses and I have no issues with them whatsoever, they are exemplary copies.

Now for the 35 mm: I had the 35/2 from Canon but it was was an old, second hand copy that was less than stellar. It made me wonder if 35mm really is the focal length for me, but these new lenses make me re-consider.

The first results from both the new Canon 35/2 IS and the Sigma 1.4 seem very good. Price-wise they are roughly in the same ball-park so that makes it very interesting to compare them head-to head. I consider the compactness of the Canon a real advantage though, it doubles as a good low-light lens for travel (the example shots on the Canon website are typically the kind of photo's I'd use this type of lens for).


----------



## cliffwang (Nov 22, 2012)

It might be the time to say goodbye to my Siggy 50mm and get this 35mm. Just let's see more reviews and I will make the final decision.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> It might be the time to say goodbye to my Siggy 50mm and get this 35mm. Just let's see more reviews and I will make the final decision.



Don't you feel these focal lengths are so different you cannot just replace them even if the newer lens is better (and more expensive, btw - often forgotten)?


----------



## infared (Nov 22, 2012)

I am so glad that someone like Roger is raving about this lens:
"OK...you can get out your crayons and color me fanboy!"...LOL!..I,was considering waiting 4 the new "rumored" Canon 35mm f/1.4...but I already own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ( which is a FANTASTCIC alternative to my mostly "L"-Glass quiver in spite of the mixed reviews...GREAT LENS!), but with this praise From Roger and the $899 price tag it will be a joy to purchase this hunk of glass and thumb my nose to Canon's new pricing policies and loooooooooooooong waits for products to come to market. 
COOL! Immediate cost- saving fun...I LOVE IT!
(regarding the above post..I have to agree:as a full-frame shooter, for me...the 35mm certainly cannot replace the 50mm...it is a nice addition to it...and helps me avoid buying the over-priced Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II...Can U say DOUBLE BONUS!).


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2012)

I've never owned Sigma before. I was put off third party manufacturers after I bought a Tamron lens. I've started looking into Sigma since this new hype about the 35 and I've heard good things about the 50 and 85 too. 

I'm looking to add another prime and possibly replace my Canon 50 1.8 II. This 35 might be the ticket. 

Things are really heating up now with the 35 f/2 IS on the horizon also ...


----------



## risc32 (Nov 22, 2012)

After having a horrible time with sigma repair a few years ago, and not being to impressed with their IQ or build, i swore off sigma forever. Looking at their new 35mm, and reading what Roger has said about the apparent sigma company turnaround, and very kind words for this lens, i'm very strongly reconsidering. 

in fact, i'd said i'm 90% sure i'll buy this lens in the next week or two. maybe later today. ?


----------



## infared (Nov 22, 2012)

Zv said:


> I've never owned Sigma before. I was put off third party manufacturers after I bought a Tamron lens. I've started looking into Sigma since this new hype about the 35 and I've heard good things about the 50 and 85 too.
> 
> I'm looking to add another prime and possibly replace my Canon 50 1.8 II. This 35 might be the ticket.
> 
> ...


----------



## TommyLee (Nov 22, 2012)

I have only Canon L lenses at the moment...
am considering a wide, manual focus like a distagon...

I USED to have a sigma 30mm for a 20D..
it got played-with by Sigma and became fairly accurate..in focus
I remember loving the look...and the bokeh from this lens
(one shot I found - attached)

I have been waiting for a replacement to my 35L (good.. but some CA, etc)

this Sigma 35 looks interesting to me ...since the 30 f1.4

I actually HOPE this pushes Canon to immediately release the 35L II ...and that it is PERFECT 
...I dont use 50mm...35 is normal for me. 

interesting to see the report on this lens,,,need to see some hard tests from others though

TOM



SIGMA 30mm f1.4


----------



## cliffwang (Nov 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > It might be the time to say goodbye to my Siggy 50mm and get this 35mm. Just let's see more reviews and I will make the final decision.
> ...


You are right. I always use my 50mm F/1.4 at home for low light environment. However, my son is 2 year old now and very active. 50mm is very difficult for me to catch him. If I get this 35mm lens, I may not going to use my Siggy 50mm since I use it only at home. Let me think about it. I might get this 35mm and still keep my 50mm.


----------



## Craig Richardson (Nov 22, 2012)

risc32 said:


> After having a horrible time with sigma repair a few years ago, and not being to impressed with their IQ or build, i swore off sigma forever. Looking at their new 35mm, and reading what Roger has said about the apparent sigma company turnaround, and very kind words for this lens, i'm very strongly reconsidering.
> 
> in fact, i'd said i'm 90% sure i'll buy this lens in the next week or two. maybe later today. ?



I am very wary of buying Sigma after my horrible copy of the 50mm. I will wait to see a full review from somebody who understands focus shift, like Lloyd Chambers, before making a decision.


----------



## sgshum (Nov 22, 2012)

i want this lens!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2012)

infared said:


> As was mentioned by someone else earlier in the posts...How does a 35mm replace a 50mm? They are two completely different focal lengths.



... unless you dual-use them on two different sensor sizes - 35mm on ff = ~50mm on crop, a good combination and that's why the prime I'd get would be 35mm.


----------



## Zv (Nov 22, 2012)

infared said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I've never owned Sigma before. I was put off third party manufacturers after I bought a Tamron lens. I've started looking into Sigma since this new hype about the 35 and I've heard good things about the 50 and 85 too.
> ...


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 22, 2012)

I used to use a Zeiss 35mm 1.4 with my Canon 50D and it was an amazing combination. I hope Sigma keeps up the good work...


----------



## infared (Nov 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > As was mentioned by someone else earlier in the posts...How does a 35mm replace a 50mm? They are two completely different focal lengths.
> ...



I think u mean a 50mm on FF and a 35 on a crop? Were we supposed to magically know that??? LOL,


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2012)

infared said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



Um... no: 35mm lens on ff equals 35mm * 1.6 (crop factor for Canon aps-c) = 56mm


----------



## AJ (Nov 22, 2012)

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-Sample-Images


----------



## birdman (Nov 22, 2012)

I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 22, 2012)

Aj, thanks for that link. the shots that were done against the sun are very informative to me. Nothing got washed out, as i've had happen in the past with a few of the sigma lenses i had. Some were so damn bad i had replace them just due to that issue. nice 18pt sunstars, and at least at these sizes, very sharp and colorful. but with it being autumn they should have a problem being colorful. 

i ordered one. also, note B&H have extended their return period until jan 18th !!! If i can't find a deal breaker by then, i probably never will. fingers crossed.


----------



## CJRodgers (Nov 23, 2012)

There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent. 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5

However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?


----------



## PVS (Nov 23, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5
> 
> However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?



Yet that same user complaining about OoF rendering quality of Sigma is selling his 35L:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1166631/0?keyword=x#11124098

:


----------



## friedmud (Nov 23, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.
> 
> http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1167718/5
> 
> However im not very knowledgeable about how often situations that create onion brokeh occur. All the other samples seem to have a very nice brokeh. Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this should be something to be concerned about?



Weird - if you look at the OOF highlights here http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-Sample-Images I don't see any onion bokeh problems... look fairly uniform to me.

Also - I cannot see any fringing. To me, it looks like someone processed that file on FredMiranda incorrectly... or someone had sharpness turned way up in their camera and was shooting JPG... I don't know, but it just looks messed up.

Finally, bokeh looks smooth and creamy in all those tistory shots to me (look at the shot of the dog for instance).

Overall, that guy on FM looks like he went a little crazy with one test shot that he found somewhere...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 23, 2012)

I applaud you sigma! This will be my next purchase.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 23, 2012)

jukka said:


> And when we are discussing AF and micro adjustments , there are minor variations in the AF system, this together with 1. camera AF is incorrectly calibrated 2. the lens AF is incorrectly calibrated 3. Both the camera and the lens is faulty. 4. minor variations, its means, take a series of 5 shoots and place your hand in front of the lens so every shoot against your target will be a new AF measure, then you can se in a series of pictures that the absolute sharpness varies / focusing accuracy and can look like this.
> Number of incorrect parameters can therefore be many .


#2 does not look like the lens is correctly calibrated to me, when I calibrate my 35mmL its sharp.
I focus on infinity before each shot. However, a mfd AF works if you are adjusting AF for a long distance. 

When putting your hand in front of the lens, you don't know where the lens focused, so its not something that another person can repeat.
I've also found that failing to block the viewfinder results in erratic AF.


----------



## jukka (Nov 24, 2012)

Its only for that the AF shall make a new measurement and go from close distance up to the test target= 50x focal length= 50mm lens and distance to target =2,5 m, 100mm = 5m and so on. (same for micro adjustments) Canon own technicians does it also between measurements and calibration of lenses AF.
The minor variations is variations in the absolute focal plane and F-2,8 sharpness depth
If you have a 1,2 lens the difference can be huge


----------



## sarangiman (Nov 24, 2012)

jukka,

Not sure if you saw my previous post, but do you know the answer to this question:

Since AFMA for a particular body/lens combo changes as a function of subject distance, it's not possible to have an AFMA value for all subject distances. Is this any different for a lens that appears to require 0 AFMA? I.e. will it also have 0 AFMA for all subject distances?


----------



## aznable (Nov 24, 2012)

birdman said:


> I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.



because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 24, 2012)

aznable said:


> birdman said:
> 
> 
> > I had the 35L. simply amazing lens!! If price was near equal, why buy Sigma? I'm not put off by 3rd party glass, a I love Tokina and some Tammys I've owned. I would try to get a used copy for about 700 or so once plenty are in the market....assuming the lens is as good as advertised.
> ...



Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?


----------



## aznable (Nov 24, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one



Don't you mean, you'd rather a silver "A" than the red ring?
[/quote]

i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)


----------



## infared (Nov 24, 2012)

friedmud said:


> CJRodgers said:
> 
> 
> > There are some signs of onion brokeh which isnt too pleasent.
> ...


----------



## infared (Nov 24, 2012)

aznable said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one
> ...



i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)
[/quote]


Hate to disillusion you guys...but there is no gold ring on the New Sigma 35mm.
I have mostly L glass but own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. First thing I did when I got the lens was cover up that cheap, unsightly gold ring with some model-makers pinstripping tape!!!! LOL! God that is tacky!!!
The 50mm Sigma is a great lens, tho. The images from mine are stunning and the Brokeh (LOL!) is wonderful.
I for one am buying this new 35mm...considering that the new Canon, when it is released a year from now will be $2000....no doubt!


----------



## risc32 (Nov 24, 2012)

I noticed the somewhat funny looking bokeh in most of the shots posted on the net, but really for my style anyway, it isn't an issue at all. YOU guys who see creamy goodness in hte 35mm samples need your eyes checked, and i just bought one of these. People who are into bokeh, and blowing things OOF really shouldn't be fooling with 35mm lenses in the first place. usually it's a guy with a 1/2 frame camera using a 35mm for OOF effects. I would simply say, get a man's camera. And don't tell me you can't afford one, 35m film cams are super cheap and the 5dc isn't terribly expensive either.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 24, 2012)

aznable said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > because the sigma is a better lens than canon optically and mechanically? also someone would prefere the gold ring than red one
> ...



i meant the gold ring on sigma ex lenses (my english is limited..maybe i cant understand what you asked)
[/quote]

gold rings are gone on the new art series style they actually look more like zeiss lenses now


----------



## jukka (Nov 24, 2012)

despite gold or silver rings the sigma 35/1,4 will be a new player on the market, if we are lucky the sigma lens will do a better job than the Canon 35/1,4 lens and to the half (60%) price


----------



## jukka (Nov 24, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> jukka,
> 
> Not sure if you saw my previous post, but do you know the answer to this question:
> 
> Since AFMA for a particular body/lens combo changes as a function of subject distance, it's not possible to have an AFMA value for all subject distances. Is this any different for a lens that appears to require 0 AFMA? I.e. will it also have 0 AFMA for all subject distances?


hmm My Finnish English do not understand what you're asking, can you simplify the question and I try to answer


----------



## sarangiman (Nov 24, 2012)

jukka said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > jukka,
> ...



Ok, let me try to rephrase.

Let's say you get a 85/1.2 prime lens that needs no microadjustment for perfect focus. Will it focus perfectly for both close & far (infinity) subjects (at f/1.2)? 

My 85/1.2 needs a microadjustment of +12 for a subject distance of 25x focal length (~85 inches distance). But now infinity is no longer perfectly in focus.

So what I'm asking is: since the AFMA value you enter into the camera is only really valid for the subject distance you used to determine that AFMA value, is it better to get a lens that appears to need *no microadjustment* whatsoever with your body?

Or will even those lenses show different back/front-focusing for subjects at various differences?

Of course, I'm only speaking of wide-aperture primes here... Above f/2.8 or f/4 you won't even notice these sorts of variations (unless your lens is really, really far off).


----------



## Zv (Nov 25, 2012)

Maybe Urban Dictionary could add "brokeh" as a new term that means unsightly and nasty looking out of focus highlights. E.g - that lens gives nuthin but brokeh! 



infared said:


> friedmud said:
> 
> 
> > CJRodgers said:
> ...


----------



## aznable (Nov 25, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> gold rings are gone on the new art series style they actually look more like zeiss lenses now



gold ring is for EX lenses...this one despite the good build quality hasnt an EX designation.

maybe signa dropped the EX deisgnation, but all my EX lenses have a gold ring, like the latest zooms released...120-300 and 50-150


----------



## syder (Nov 25, 2012)

aznable said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > gold rings are gone on the new art series style they actually look more like zeiss lenses now
> ...



Which part of this is the first lens in the new art series did you not understand? That would be new as in new - not as part of the old EX series


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 25, 2012)

I get the impression that, like Tamron and it's new 24-70mm VC or upcoming 70-200mm VC, Sigma is wanting to reinvent it's reputation. Tamrons typically (in my experience) had good to great optics while sporting subpar AF and build quality. The glass was definitely the best part of the lens. But with these new lens they are trying to move into a new level of overall quality (and price). I have the new Tamron, and I personally wish they had a new designation/look to set this lens apart from previous attempts that weren't nearly at this quality level. Sure it is called an "SP" lens, but so have any number of other lens that cost far less. This is the first weather sealed lens they have developed. I though that using some new designator would have been wise.

I think Sigma is going about this the right way. A Sigma "EX" lens has never quite meant a Canon "L". They had too many products with that designation that weren't premium products. Starting these new lines gives them a chance to visually distinguish their products and hopefully develop a new type of brand recognition. I personally think the cosmetic appearance of this new lens is gorgeous, and I've never been a huge Sigma fan.


----------



## Quasimodo (Nov 25, 2012)

Looking forward to someone in here actually trying it. It looks very promesing


----------



## infared (Nov 25, 2012)

Zv said:


> Maybe Urban Dictionary could add "brokeh" as a new term that means unsightly and nasty looking out of focus highlights. E.g - that lens gives nuthin but brokeh!
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!


----------



## aznable (Nov 25, 2012)

syder said:


> aznable said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



... do they dropped the EX designation? i didnt know, but i hope you are wrong 

@twi

sigma started to improve quality (and prices) of their lenses well before the new tamron lenses


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 25, 2012)

aznable said:


> sigma started to improve quality (and prices) of their lenses well before the new tamron lenses



That is debatable. Roger from LensRentals said clearly that this current lens is changing his mind regarding Sigmas. He had previously warned against them because of having so many issues with them (including the 85mm f/1.4). My point is that Sigma is clearly trying to reinvent itself and has overtly stated that their quality control side of the business is going to vastly improve. I think that is why they have come with new lens designations (and designs).

Tamron is also trying to upgrade their product line. I wish that they too had come up with a new designation for their premium lens than the old "SP" designation.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 25, 2012)

aznable said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > aznable said:
> ...









yep the new art series looks pretty sweet IMO I have the 85 and 50 1.4 EX which are not bad

only thing I utterly hate is how the AF /MF switch sticks out too far in is constantly getting bumped into MF
I was hoping they would recess it better

I'm looking forward to seeing what sigma do with a 24-70 f2.8 OS too should be better than the tamron and piles cheaper than the canon


----------



## aznable (Nov 26, 2012)

the new art is minimal and elegant but i will miss the old dark grey EX 

anyway the latest lenses from sigma are very good

the 70-200 OS, the revamped line of stabilized macros (105-150 and 180) and the new 120-300 are very good quality lenses both optically and costruction wise.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 27, 2012)

_First thing I did when I got the lens was cover up that cheap, unsightly gold ring with some model-makers pinstripping tape!!!! _ 

LOL, that's a great idea. I'll have to get some for all of my lenses! Red tape of course. Much cheaper than buying L - lenses. I'll just tell my friends that they are the new lightweight L lenses.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 29, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> I get the impression that, like Tamron and it's new 24-70mm VC or upcoming 70-200mm VC, Sigma is wanting to reinvent it's reputation. Tamrons typically (in my experience) had good to great optics while sporting subpar AF and build quality. The glass was definitely the best part of the lens. But with these new lens they are trying to move into a new level of overall quality (and price). I have the new Tamron, and I personally wish they had a new designation/look to set this lens apart from previous attempts that weren't nearly at this quality level. Sure it is called an "SP" lens, but so have any number of other lens that cost far less. This is the first weather sealed lens they have developed. I though that using some new designator would have been wise.



Actually I think this trend started with the Tamron SP 70-300mm VC USD; it was the first Tamron with IS and HSM equivalent technology. I was quite impressed with this lens when it came out and I now use it for travel photography where I need something compact and reasonably light to have a tele-option. Optically it roughly compares with Canon's 70-300 IS but the VC and USD and a non-rotating front element closed the deal for me.

The *new* Tamron lenses _do_ have a subtly new design/look, what with the sloping line at the rear of the lens and a bit more 'slick' looking but true, it is not a big departure (I don't think they need a new design anyway - I like it the way it is).


----------



## nomad85 (Nov 29, 2012)

If there is such thing as a Sigma holy trinity, I have it . 
The Sigma 35 1.4 , 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are all in my bag. The 35mm I got yesterday and the 85mm not long before that as well. So both are new to me.

If there are any questions, my english is just fine, so ask away . I work with the 5d3.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 29, 2012)

How does it compare to Samyang 35mm 1.4 MTF?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

mrsfotografie said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > I get the impression that, like Tamron and it's new 24-70mm VC or upcoming 70-200mm VC, Sigma is wanting to reinvent it's reputation. Tamrons typically (in my experience) had good to great optics while sporting subpar AF and build quality. The glass was definitely the best part of the lens. But with these new lens they are trying to move into a new level of overall quality (and price). I have the new Tamron, and I personally wish they had a new designation/look to set this lens apart from previous attempts that weren't nearly at this quality level. Sure it is called an "SP" lens, but so have any number of other lens that cost far less. This is the first weather sealed lens they have developed. I though that using some new designator would have been wise.
> ...



I agree with you regarding the 70-300. Still, that being said, the 24 to 70 mm is the first lens that Tamron has produced to really compete with a professional series lens. The 70 to 30 competed more with the 70 to 300 IS lens, not the 70 to 300 L


----------



## Brand B (Nov 29, 2012)

I recall from the 5D III manual that third party lenses are not able to use as many of the focus points as Canon's. For lenses like this one, whose optical performance and focusing speed seem to be on par with Canon's, is that the only downside?


----------



## nomad85 (Nov 29, 2012)

Brand B said:


> I recall from the 5D III manual that third party lenses are not able to use as many of the focus points as Canon's. For lenses like this one, whose optical performance and focusing speed seem to be on par with Canon's, is that the only downside?



Have the 5d3 and 35mm 1.4 Sigma and can use all the AF points like my L 2.8 glass can on the camera. All 45 cross and 61 points are usable.


----------



## aprotosimaki (Nov 29, 2012)

> Have the 5d3 and 35mm 1.4 Sigma and can use all the AF points like my L 2.8 glass can on the camera. All 45 cross and 61 points are usable.



What are your impressions of it?


----------



## nomad85 (Nov 29, 2012)

My impression is quite good regarding the Sigma 35 and the combination with the 5d3.
Focussing is accurate in all the shots I have taken so far. Which I can not say of the 50 1.4 Sigma, which has a bigger rate of unsharp photo's.
The 85mm 1.4 from Sigma is very precise as well regarding focussing, so it seems the 35mm might have the same bit of software/hardware for focussing as the 85mm.

So far there are a bunch of things that I really noticed with the 35mm from Sigma:

positive:
- It's very sharp, from 1.4 onward. No need to stop down for sharpness.
- Build quality is very good, better then anything I know from Sigma and on par with Canon 35mm 1.4.
- Even the front and back cap are new and have a better construction
- Lens does not need AFMA and is sharp straight out of box

negative: 
- Sigma colors are present in this lens as well, so a bit of a yellowcast. The 35L has more red/blue coloring and gave the photo's more spark/vivid/positive feel to it. The yellowcast from the Sigma is not perse my favorite. Though it bothers me little and goes away in postprocessing in a flash 
- Focussingring is nicely damped and smooth, but has to much friction to be operated easily with one finger. The 35L has an easier focusring to turn and can be used with one finger (as I always like to do).
- Focussing speed is about the same as the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 from Sigma that I also have. The 35L is a wee bit faster focussing, but not by much. Next to eachother, you notice the difference, but they are both fast enough for wedding/action/walking/sprinting.

So far I really like the 35 1.4, what I notice most of all is the sharpness at 1.4 already and that is unseen with the 1.4 Canon 35mm.
If they were both exactly equal pricing, the Canon and the Sigma, I might go with the Canon, due to the colors.
But since there is a 400 euro difference, I believe I have made the right choice to go with the Sigma tool.


----------



## Zv (Nov 29, 2012)

nomad85 said:


> If there is such thing as a Sigma holy trinity, I have it .
> The Sigma 35 1.4 , 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are all in my bag. The 35mm I got yesterday and the 85mm not long before that as well. So both are new to me.
> 
> If there are any questions, my english is just fine, so ask away . I work with the 5d3.



I was thinking about that today too - Sigma trinity. It exists now! Sounds like an awesome setup you have there, have fun!


----------



## Ewinter (Nov 29, 2012)

I played with this lens today-and while the af may be a little slow now, the rep who brought it in told me things like af speed are all going to be adjustable when the usb dock comes out. watch this space


----------



## risc32 (Nov 30, 2012)

So far I'm very pleased with my sigma 35mm. i still can't even believe i'm saying that. I posted some crops taken with it on my 5dmk3 over in the lens gallery section of this forum. nothing very exciting. i've been much to busy to really do anything with it yet, but so far i'm very pleased with it's build, and IQ. really, i can't believe it. up until i got it, i hated Sigma. really, i did. one time they really did me wrong, but now things are looking up.


----------



## aprotosimaki (Nov 30, 2012)

nomad85 said:


> My impression is quite good regarding the Sigma 35 ...



Thanks for the review.


----------



## PVS (Nov 30, 2012)

Compared to 35L:
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L


----------



## Bentley2012 (Nov 30, 2012)

I've been following this site for some time now. Looking into the new Sigma 35mm 1.4. I am really curious about the bokeh. I'm willing to trade off some sharpness for this since I have read so far that the new Sig is super sharp. I just need some info on the bokeh. Thanks ahead of time.


----------



## jeffabbyben (Nov 30, 2012)

PVS said:


> Compared to 35L:
> http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L



Wow. Thanks for this post. Unless my newly ordered Canon 35mm 1.4 is stellar I think I will send it back for the sigma. To my undereducated eye the Sigma looks like it beat the canon in every aspect


----------



## sarangiman (Nov 30, 2012)

PVS said:


> Compared to 35L:
> http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L



Yes thanks, that's a great review/comparison.

Look at those gorgeous 18-point sunstars & the circular bokeh even at f/2. Canon's 8-blade apertures has been one of my biggest gripes. Nikon has been putting out 9-blade aperture lenses for some time now; Canon's only playing catch-up now. And who knows when they'll replace their 24L, 35L, & 85L lenses...

Also, if you look at the OOF bokeh with pictures of the leaves, it appears to me that either the Canon lens has more contrast or has a lower exposure. Does anyone else see this?


----------



## smithy (Nov 30, 2012)

aprotosimaki said:


> nomad85 said:
> 
> 
> > My impression is quite good regarding the Sigma 35 ...
> ...


Haha!


----------



## dirtcastle (Nov 30, 2012)

nomad85 said:


> negative:
> - Sigma colors are present in this lens as well, so a bit of a yellowcast. The 35L has more red/blue coloring and gave the photo's more spark/vivid/positive feel to it. The yellowcast from the Sigma is not perse my favorite. Though it bothers me little and goes away in postprocessing in a flash



Awesome. Thanks for the review!

With regard to the "yellowcast" are we talking a white balance type of cast, or something a bit more complex?


----------



## dirtcastle (Nov 30, 2012)

jeffabbyben said:


> PVS said:
> 
> 
> > Compared to 35L:
> ...



Light fall-off might be the one thing where the Canon slightly outperforms.


----------



## nomad85 (Nov 30, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> nomad85 said:
> 
> 
> > negative:
> ...



I always shoot RAW, so if it were a mere whitebalance problem I would hardly notice it, because whitebalance is the first thing I do in post processing. It is as you "a bit more complex". But still well able to be corrected.
The cast is definitely not a show-stopper to get this lens btw and I don't see it in all the photos.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 2, 2012)

FYI- if you follow that link that was posted a page or so ago to that korean site you'll see a very nice side-by-side with the sigma and canon. And if you dig a bit deeper (page2) you'll find the same side-by-side stuff with the sigma -vs- others. namely a converted Contax, the Samyang. if you want to skip to the end, just know the sigma beats them all.


----------



## PVS (Dec 2, 2012)

Those Korean links really pushed the OoF rendition to the limits, naked branches + leaves make the busiest backgrounds, IMO. I don't think I saw nice bokeh examples from any of the 35/1.4 lenses on that site, be it canon, samjunk, contax, nikkor or sigma.

however, here's an example where background is not that much demanding: http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/review/lens_review/20121127_575328.html

I think I'm really liking this lens.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 2, 2012)

photozone guys always mentions how he's never seen a really great bokeh from a wide or semi wide lens, esp one with an asph element. it looks like it can be nice sometimes, maybe 8/10 times, but then there are times when it's just a mess. from what i've found though, it doesn't take much of a distance/framing change to really change the OOF rendering with these wider lenses. i guess it's like most things with wide lenses, a few inches here of there, and you have something very different.


----------



## Brand B (Dec 2, 2012)

nomad85 said:


> Brand B said:
> 
> 
> > I recall from the 5D III manual that third party lenses are not able to use as many of the focus points as Canon's. For lenses like this one, whose optical performance and focusing speed seem to be on par with Canon's, is that the only downside?
> ...



This is the post from Lensrentals where I had partly gotten the idea that this wasn't necessarily the case:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/5d-mk-iii-af-points-and-3rd-party-lenses

Going by that, it seems likely the Sigma would be group C at best, all points but no dual cross points, whereas the Canon 35 is in group A, so a very small reduction in AF ability.

I read some speculation as to whether the 5D3 is looking at the lens model, or if there is a test using other methods to determine how many of the focus points can be used. Some here with a reply from Canon that does not fully resolve the question:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00aVZk

How did you confirm the camera uses the full point array with all 45 points as cross points? In a similar way of checking the points for focus functionality? Any idea if any are functioning as dual cross?

BB


----------



## dirtcastle (Dec 4, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > nomad85 said:
> ...



I'll bet I could create a preset in Lightroom that would neutralize it. A combination of HSL and split toning would probably cure it.


----------



## bchernicoff (Dec 4, 2012)

Not sure if this thread has noticed, but I posted several full-size samples in this thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11210.0


----------



## PVS (Dec 4, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Sigmas coating gives a little more yellow results than Nikon,Canon etc



Some of my nikkors give more yellowish color casts than my other nikkors. Some of my EF lenses have different coatings. Nothing PP never could fixed.


----------



## PVS (Dec 11, 2012)

Those polish guys did a very nice review, here's a google translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.optyczne.pl%2F282.1-Test_obiektywu-Sigma_A_35_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Wst%25C4%2599p.html


----------



## PVS (Dec 12, 2012)

and fully in english:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=359


----------



## PVS (Dec 12, 2012)

that boils down to 'claim vs. experience' type of argument.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 12, 2012)

PVS said:


> and fully in english:
> http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=359



Wow, that was by far the most interesting review of the lens I have read so far, and very eye opening. Their conclusion was that this was the best overall 35mm f/1.4 lens they have ever tested (including Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samyang, and Zeiss equivalents). In many tests it blows everything else away. It stumbles only with very strong vignetting (something I personally don't care a lot about, particularly as [to me] if often suits the style of photographer one does with large aperture primes) and the bokeh isn't as fabulous as it could be.

Sharpness, however, is off the charts...almost literally. Very impressive, Sigma, very impressive.


----------



## kubelik (Dec 12, 2012)

given that the bokeh quality is, to my eye, better than the Canon L's ... it's all relative since we can't all go out and make our own perfect lens. better than the current gold (or red) standard is definitely good enough in my book.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 16, 2012)

Why is there no photozone review on this lens yet? I have checked their site every day for the last three weeks...


----------



## risc32 (Dec 17, 2012)

photozone seems to lag behind a bit. nothing against them, what they do it very nice, i like it a lot. If i was in the EU i would be offering up some lenses to them for testing.

DXO just posted their thoughts and findings on the SIGMA, so that might tide you over.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 17, 2012)

risc32 said:


> photozone seems to lag behind a bit. nothing against them, what they do it very nice, i like it a lot. If i was in the EU i would be offering up some lenses to them for testing.
> 
> DXO just posted their thoughts and findings on the SIGMA, so that might tide you over.



Do you have a link?


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 17, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:



> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design



Cool  I am seriously thinking about this one.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 17, 2012)

Anyone done any tracking tests against the 35 L? I've read that is "as fast" but measured with still subjects, pretty useless. Can it track a kid running here and there?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 18, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f1.4-DG-HSM-A-Canon-A-Prime-Example-of-Lens-Design



Sigma seems to have done themselves proud with this lens. It is definitely on my wish list for the future


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 19, 2012)

Sounds like the Sigma 35mm is sharper but perhaps there is too much rosey enthusiasm about this lens among some. I am glad to have Canon play defense... competition is always good for the customers but let me share my subjective view of the Sigma pictures I've seen so far.

When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me. 

Now, in all fairness, had the Canon 35L been used on the same model, same night lighting, would it be any better? I don't know as there was no head-to-head comparison. So I hope for Sigma's sake that Canon 35L would also have produced the same picture.

But what is more significant is that lensrentals gallery in their Sigma review/blog also has those rather flat looking pictures with color rendition that just doesn't grab me. And Roger from lensrental goes on to say bokeh is in fact subpar with this lens. Another review cited in this thread earlier also states the same thing about the Sigma bokeh. 

So sharpness is not everything. There is such a thing as "Je ne sais quoi" about the images that lenses generate and I think 35L has it in spades. It hasn't seen much use with me for some time...but perhaps it is time I paid an old friend some much deserved attention.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.



ever shot a 70-200 f2.8L IS II wide open or a 50 f1.4 from canon at 1.4? football shaped bokeh happens on any lens if the conditions are right :


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > When I first saw the Sigma head shot of the girl here on the forum somewhere (someone please link it if you remember), my thoughts were: beautiful subject, sharp lens, very nice OOF but the bokeh is not very pleasing. Granted, one can't look at football-shaped off focus lights always to judge this.. they all tend to look the same...one needs to look at real world backgrounds ...and the quality of the bokeh is not always measurable...it is subjective. I simply did not like the Sigma rendition. There was also something about the color...microcontrast...I dunno... Sigma was clearly a sharp lens but it did not speak to me.
> ...



That is misreading what I said...I was not saying the football OOF shapes shouldn't occur... I said they are not a good way to judge the quality of bokeh in general...say furniture in the back or trees. Lensrentals' Roger's gallery pics of the sigma 35mm 1.4 is more telling in his recent blog...and ...oddly he directly addresses the sigma bokeh also in the canon 35mm f2 IS review blog with some graphs to boot. All said, I think sigma may very well be sharp, but the bokeh quality may still be behind 35L.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 20, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



ah gottcha I thought you were blaming the lens for the footballs
did you see the wasp pic in the gallery someone took? that quite frankly is pretty awesome oof blur


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 20, 2012)

Here is the sigma 35mm subpar bokeh discussion and graphs at lensrentals blog...scroll down a bit. 
Yes he discusses it within the review for the new canon 35mm IS.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 20, 2012)

I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too! 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pong0814/5596735626/#

And, unlike the Sigma, the 35L doesn't keep rounded circular highlights when stopped down if that matters for anyone.


----------



## aprotosimaki (Dec 20, 2012)

Sorry if this linked elsewhere:

http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L


----------



## sarangiman (Dec 21, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too!
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/pong0814/5596735626/#
> 
> And, unlike the Sigma, the 35L doesn't keep rounded circular highlights when stopped down if that matters for anyone.



+1

Very, very well said.

I've always complained about Canon's 8-blade apertures... you start seeing octagons in OOF highlights when you stop down even 2/3 of a stop on many of Canon's primes (e.g. the 'venerable' 85/1.2). What I hate even more is that 8-blade aperture lenses produce 8-point sunstars.

Just adding one blade gives you 18-point sunstars. *AND* circular OOF highlights.

Nikon's had 9-blade apertures for a while now.

What took Canon so long?


----------



## candyman (Dec 21, 2012)

REVIEW on Dpreview


http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm


Gold Award


----------



## jeffabbyben (Dec 21, 2012)

I played with both lenses and then kept the Sigma. Price was not a factor. I like the bokeh on the sigma at least as well as the canon (usually better). I also like the sunstars on the sigma much better.


----------



## jondave (Dec 21, 2012)

I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...

Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 21, 2012)

jondave said:


> I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...
> 
> Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.



what about the 50L?


----------



## sdsr (Dec 21, 2012)

jondave said:


> I really can't understand the nitpicking with the bokeh... I haven't met any photog who would choose bokeh over sharpness. Well, I guess if you've paid $1000+ for a 35L then the sigma has to be THAT bad...
> 
> Not me. I'm sold - I'm getting the sigma.



It all depends on the photos you like to take and your aesthetic priorities; there are many situations when what's out of focus in a photo is as important as, or even more important than, what's in focus; and some of us (I doubt I'm alone) care quite a bit about what the out of focus bits look like even when they're relatively unimportant. This has nothing to do with L or price snobbery. The main reason why I bought a Sigma 50-500mm OS instead of the Canon 100-400L is that the former has smoother bokeh than the latter (or at any rate the copy I rented). In my Pentax days I preferred the dirt-cheap, technically shoddy, 100-300mm lens I bought second hand (it was long out of production) to it's sharper, more expensive, better made replacement for the same reason. Besides, in my (rather limited, admittedly) experience, differences in bokeh among lenses are usually more noticeable than differences in sharpness in most uses.


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 21, 2012)

There is a full review on dpreview and also DxO have the following comment:

"This Sigma lens scores higher than any other lens in its focal length, including many that are much more expensive, and is among the highest, for sharpness, of any tested by DxOMark on a Canon body."

Mine is getting delivered today via FedEx - woo hop!

ET


----------



## risc32 (Dec 21, 2012)

i don't think this would qualify as thread jacking, but i've seen a few shots from the 50L that showed very nervous bokeh that was really a mess. so much so that photozone even pointed it out in their review. I'm not saying the 50L is a mess, i'm saying that even lenses known for their great ability can trip up sometimes. Most of the early samples i saw on the net of the sigma looked a bit nervous to me, but in my use, so far anyway i haven't seen a problem. 

BTW- and this probably is thread jacking, most people love leica bokeh, and almost everything i've seen from them is clearly a bokeh disaster, so who knows? perhaps dropping that level of cash on something can cloud your vision. hey, i made a pun, hi five!


----------



## brad-man (Dec 21, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> There is a full review on dpreview and also DxO have the following comment:
> 
> "This Sigma lens scores higher than any other lens in its focal length, including many that are much more expensive, and is among the highest, for sharpness, of any tested by DxOMark on a Canon body."
> 
> ...



I'm jealous! UPS isn't bringing mine till Monday end of day.

Woo hop?


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 22, 2012)

risc32 said:


> i don't think this would qualify as thread jacking, but i've seen a few shots from the 50L that showed very nervous bokeh that was really a mess. so much so that photozone even pointed it out in their review. I'm not saying the 50L is a mess, i'm saying that even lenses known for their great ability can trip up sometimes. Most of the early samples i saw on the net of the sigma looked a bit nervous to me, but in my use, so far anyway i haven't seen a problem.
> 
> BTW- and this probably is thread jacking, most people love leica bokeh, and almost everything i've seen from them is clearly a bokeh disaster, so who knows? perhaps dropping that level of cash on something can cloud your vision. hey, i made a pun, hi five!



Yeah! *high five*
Even Leica glass has comma and nervousness that can make anyone wonder why all the cash for a few pieces of glass.
But as for me, I love nervous background bokeh, I want a crazy vortex of light and colors! But not always, it does get quite distracting.

Photozone is right, the 50L produces crazy bokeh in the corners, and I've come across several examples of that, nervous triangles tearing apart the rest of the smooth OOF background. I've seen tons of great example with the Sig 35, and like anything, you look for trouble and you'll find it, nit pick and try and find what doesn't look good and yeah, any lens will show a flaw/something dissatisfactory to someone.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 22, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Nishi Drew said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall anyone nitpicking a lens so much for it's bokeh when everything else is fab, generally the consideration for the quality of bokeh of a lens, especially at these price points and class of lenses is always there, but this must mean though that Sigma just has no other faults to look at, so everyone wants to point at something it's not the absolute best at. And talk about onion highlights? The 35L can produce those onions too!
> ...



Mmm, yeah, the more I look into these things the more I wonder why I'm with Canon... well, if Sigma made competent cameras along with FF sensors then I'm lookin' at them, I'll practically be all-Sigma after I get that 35mm, just need to see if I'll keep Canon's 50 1.4


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 22, 2012)

It is clear we have the sigma crowd in full PR mode here on this thread now 
35L warts and all produces a pleasing bokeh ... Tough to put your finger on it. Looking at the sigma shots they all have that slightly disquieting bokeh...and nervous is a great word... If that is your thing more power to you. But I will never buy the idea that sharpness is all that counts.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 22, 2012)

I will however leave the door open till more head-to-head bokeh comparisons of the two lenses trickle in from unbiased sources, before I throw my canon 35L over and join the sigma bandwagon. I would wait to see comparisons of real world backgrounds, trees, indoor shots, etc. not set up OOF night lights we have seen in the limited samples. Lens rentals Roger's and the Korean site are the only two galleries with several real life shots and they both suggest sub-par bokeh and that odd color rendition for the sigma lens. It is what it is and you like it or you don't, but those who don't know it when they see it. And i don't like what i see so far. But I will leave the door open till we have more data...unbiased data that is


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 22, 2012)

OK, so I got my copy yesterday and it's getting returned today.

Sharpness? - it's nothing to write home about.
I think the 24mm F/1.4 II is sharper and has better color and contrast.

The biggest problem for me is the lousy AF.
I tried all the different focus point settings and it misses focus roughly 50% of the time.

Maybe I got a duff copy 

ET


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 22, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> OK, so I got my copy yesterday and it's getting returned today.
> 
> Sharpness? - it's nothing to write home about.
> I think the 24mm F/1.4 II is sharper and has better color and contrast.
> ...



In all fairness, before bailing, you should get a second copy at the very least. Then your input will be valuable.


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 22, 2012)

Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...

ET


----------



## meli (Dec 22, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
> Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...
> 
> ET



Always? Somehow i think you either haven't bought many Canon lenses or you've been extremely lucky


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 22, 2012)

Another issue is the over-hyping by the sigma fan club here....contrary to helping sigma's cause this sets the expectations so high for the new lens that no real lens is going to be able to deliver all that and fix the morning coffee... What are you basing this on? All this started with Roger from lensrental suggesting it is sharp and for once he can give sigma the kudos for turning the corner ... But upon reading his further blogs (including a subsection in canon 35 f2 review where he provides some more info on the sigma 35 f1.4 ) he clearly indicates the bokeh is less than stellar with sigma. Interim, with most stores back ordered for this lens all we have is hype..and more hype. 

One could argue that the reason they are now back ordered is because this hype has worked perhaps too well and too many have jumped the cliff with limited evidence on the overall quality... 

Overall quality in addition to sharpness includes bokeh, yes, but, it also includes the all important AF performance in real world situations. Sigma has struggled for generations with AF even when AF was a lot more simpler and let's face it ...seamless AF performance with rather complicated algorithms of the advanced AF systems in 1dx and 5d3 should await further input from more unbiased users. I am open to such a possibility, but I am skeptical without further hard evidence at this time. We will simply have to wait.

So tone it down sigma fanboys... Let more people get their hands on this supposed Cinderella of a sigma lens, and before we whip the step sister Canon 35L as an ugly has-been ...lets get more data. 

When you jump on every new bandwagon because fanboys on forums go rabid... You end up with buyer's remorse. Hard cheese! 

I for one am happy with the old 35L ... it remains in my collection because it is a damn good lens. I may consider version II if it ever comes out but I seem to use this prime seldom... So will have to reassess if ~$1500+ can be justified at that time (so, canon, shall we say... 2017? 2019? ... 2021?)


----------



## sdsr (Dec 23, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
> Canon may be a bunch of shisters for price, but the quality is always top notch...
> 
> ET



The first 70-300L I bought this year was no better than my 70-300 non-L, so I returned it (the second one I bought is marvelous, but failed after 3 weeks; it's now fine again - for now, at least). On Black Friday I bought a (brand new) 70-200 L IS II and was dismayed to see that it produced images that were soft along the right edge, in the bottom right corner (extending well into the image) and along the bottom edge, along with dreadful colour fringing in the same area; I returned it too. So no, not always....


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Another issue is the over-hyping by the sigma fan club here....contrary to helping sigma's cause this sets the expectations so high for the new lens that no real lens is going to be able to deliver all that and fix the morning coffee... What are you basing this on? All this started with Roger from lensrental suggesting it is sharp and for once he can give sigma the kudos for turning the corner ... But upon reading his further blogs (including a subsection in canon 35 f2 review where he provides some more info on the sigma 35 f1.4 ) he clearly indicates the bokeh is less than stellar with sigma. Interim, with most stores back ordered for this lens all we have is hype..and more hype.



Here is CR. I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans. You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
I assume you know how to use google search. Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better. If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine. However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown. Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Here is CR. I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans. You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
> I assume you know how to use google search. Please search Sigma 35mm F/1.4 review, and tell me how many reviews say Sigma/Canon better. If you do believe most of the reviews, that's fine. However, I believe there must a reason most reviews give Sigma the crown. Don't even forget the price between Canon and Sigma is very different.



Actually this does not address issues raised in my post which you are not quoting...as to your reasoning "that lots of people say this is so" doesn't convince me any... rather some "group-think" is obvious and "me-too" blogs and reviews that follow the original lensrental format or even directly reference it...are not exactly "unbaised" nor always competent. 

Lensrental's own blog, it must be said, is rather measured pointing out the bokeh could be a weak spot. I agree there are a couple more out there which I would believe but they are all careful to not over emphasize either the bokeh or the autofocus issues that may well emerge and rather stick to sharpness and the clear price advantage. 

I had no beef about the better sharpness, but my posts (scroll back a few not just the last one) raises at least three seperate issues which none of the "Ra Ra Ra!!! reviews" address...certainly with no careful analysis or openly available data. 

Only exception is lensrental blog which in fact reinforces the concern about the bokeh with graphs to boot! 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon

This kinda blog is more reliable than someone just stringing words together saying "I think this is one awesome lens!"

The bokeh, and the odd "sigma" color pallet apparent in the galleries that me and others have mentioned are issues to consider. 

But perhaps the most important issue that is not clear yet is the autofocus abilities of the Sigma lens (based on Sigma's dismal record with AF to date). Unfortunately you do not quote what I said there:



Ray2021 said:


> Overall quality in addition to sharpness includes bokeh, yes, but, it also includes the all important AF performance in real world situations. Sigma has struggled for generations with AF even when AF was a lot more simpler and let's face it ...seamless AF performance with rather complicated algorithms of the advanced AF systems in 1dx and 5d3 should await further input from more unbiased users. I am open to such a possibility, but I am skeptical without further hard evidence at this time. We will simply have to wait.



So, I am afraid referring to "look at what others say in one-page fanpages" without addressing specific concerns being raised does not provide any clarity. So we will have to wait and see...I hope the sigma hype is true and this induces Canon to up the ante.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 23, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> Hmmmmm... Yes, but isn't it often the intangible qualities that purchasers of overpriced, er.., I mean Premium Equipment, will use to assuage nagging fears that they maybe overpaid?
> 
> "Bokeh" is getting tossed around here in this thread a lot. And don't forget the one you hear the Zeiss-waffe tossing around so much, which is "color." Qualities like bokeh are somewhat subjective compared to the more easily quantified things like "sharpness" or "distortion", etc., so sometimes you may tend to see exactly what you want to see when looking at bokeh or color.
> 
> The thing has 9 rounded aperture blades, not 5 flat paddles like my Nifty Fifty. And even the Fifty's bokeh does not bother me much. I don't even notice it at all unless I am shooting at twinkle lights with it stopped down. If "uninspiring bokeh" is the biggest knock against this thing, but you are not seeing sharp little pentagons or hexagons floating around on your images, maybe it's not something to lose much sleep over if the price is reasonable.



Again, this is focusing on one aspect of what I said after tweaking it slightly to bring in the 35 f2 with 5 blades (not the IS version in Roger's blog or the real comparison of 35 1.4L) and then finishing with a punch line that has no relevance to the original statement... rather a cheap ploy to make a point and is no better than the three card trick... that allusion or comparison was never made in my posts regarding the sigma bokeh.

The primary issue raised that every sigma supporter has skirted or avoids addressing is the dismal rap-sheet with regards to AF that Sigma has over the years accrued, that is longer than my 70-200 2.8L II (with the hood on)!... 

And my point was not to dismiss the sigma off hand, but to point out concerns that have been raised and to "wait and see" how this pans out. This was not a broadside attacking anyone's fealty to Sigma brand name.

If you like it from what you have seen, go get one


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 23, 2012)

The bokeh, and the odd "sigma" color pallet apparent in the galleries that me and others have mentioned are issues to consider. 

[/quote]

You see, if I and others can afford the top quality stuff to begin with, or at least justify paying such a high price just for the 'colors' (which, as important as color fidelity is, sounds utterly ridiculous in paying so much for in this digital age). Then there wouldn't be these competitive brands releasing such products, and frankly, doing good business.
If you've got a 35L already and are upset that people are dissing 'your' lens and don't want to feel left behind then get the Sigma for yourself, while if you're happy with the 35L then KEEP IT! Sigma is here for people like me, who can pay just enough for their new lens and not quite enough for even a used copy of Canon's 14+ year old design.
So what if there's hype, it's there for a reason, let the potential losers be disappointed and run back to Canikon and have them say "sorry, you're right, I'm never getting Sigma" and then there will be winners who produce great shots with the lens regardless. 

And bokeh rendition and how good/bad it is is so subjective, if it's busy, swirly albeit still smooth and not full of CA then that's great for me (sure, busy and smooth don't always go together), but I personally like what the Sigma is producing in terms of bokeh, and after reading some blog posts from real-world pros that ditched their name brand 35mm lenses for the Sigma and report how happy they are with it (with the "yeah the colors don't pop as much, but I don't care" response), I feel fairly confident that I'll personally report back that I'll like the lens once I get it.

As for their history of poor AF, yeah, my 70-200 OS is fast and spot on, never missed, although it needed some AFMAing after I adjusted I never had to touch that, if anything my Canon 5DII that has LOUSY AF might not lock focus. Oh, but we're not talking about camera but lens AF, reason for Sigma to bring out the USB lens dock to fine adjust the lens in the future... don't know how effective that'll be but at least they're not selling-and-forgetting.


----------



## minim2 (Dec 23, 2012)

At least, with this new sigma, no of potential used 35L buyers (or maybe 24L buyers too who are not sure which FL to get or get first) will be lot less. even used 35L is lot costlier than new sigma... which is a good thing for us as a consumer. Even I was thinking to buy one used 35L earlier but decided on sigma.. so far I am happy.


----------



## friedmud (Dec 23, 2012)

sdsr said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > Good point, but I don't tolerate poor quality from any manufacturer.
> ...



Indeed. I had a 17-55 f/2.8 that was WAY soft on the right (but still a great lens!). I also went through two copies of 16-35 f/2.8's that were soft on the left (even on a crop body!) before giving up.

Moral of the story? Check your gear when you buy it! I've switched completely to buying locally so I can test gear and return it easily. Yes, I pay a bit more for the privelege (although not much)... but man is it nice to have a return happen in minutes instead of weeks!


----------



## Ewinter (Dec 23, 2012)

Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2012)

Ewinter said:


> Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D



+ 1000 I hope I bought mine yesterday. Getting it in January when I return from Christmas holidays @ my in-laws


----------



## Ewinter (Dec 23, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Ewinter said:
> 
> 
> > Just got this lens, and I can tell you that on my copy it's razor sharp, and the AF is really good. The lens keeps up well with the AI servo on my 7D
> ...


It hasn't dropped focus yet in any way that wasn't my fault. I'm not used to a DOF this thin


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 23, 2012)

Ewinter said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > Ewinter said:
> ...


----------



## jeffabbyben (Dec 23, 2012)

I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma

http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78


----------



## Ewinter (Dec 23, 2012)

jeffabbyben said:


> I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma
> 
> http://www.firstcurtainphotography.com/p908381766#h4eccca78


Cool, what camera was it?


----------



## risc32 (Dec 24, 2012)

Perhaps i'm one of the sigma fanboys? that's a good one. For me, purchasing the sigma 35 was really going out on a limb. I've wrote things on this site before about my discontent with Sigma. biased? yes, and not in sigma's favor. I pretty much hated sigma. crummy construction, poor AF, questionable IQ, crap for shooting against light, and probably the worst- crap service. Once they had a 70-200 of mine for AF calibration. they had it for something like 2 months. I was actually told that they were waiting on a part that was on a ship coming from japan. when i finally got the lens back, it had a nice nick on it, down to bare metal. They also nicked my 24mm 1.8. they've since released like 7 different versions of their 70-200mm, very comforting. it's nice until you get your hands on a canon 70-200. 
As i've said this sigma lens is different. It's an order of magnitude better than anything i've ever seen from them. feel free to move the goal posts so that the old canon is still the one for you. this reminds me of my minolta days, they are always quick to find some canon/nikon characteristic that they thought was a dealbreaker. 

really, that's enough sigma bashing. call me what you will, i couldn't care less. i'm just here to learn, advise and perhaps get a laugh.


----------



## jeffabbyben (Dec 24, 2012)

Ewinter said:


> jeffabbyben said:
> 
> 
> > I was at an office party last night with my sigma 35 1.4. It was great at finding focus at all cross type focal points. It is razor sharp and I personally love the bokeh. I am not a professional (as you will be able to tell) but if you are interested in seeing the images here is the link. The office party is all the sigma
> ...



Canon 5D mark III


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 24, 2012)

Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.

It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
That honor belongs to the humble Fuji 35mm F/1.4 mounted on one of their X-Trans equipped cameras, which for $600 is really the deal of the century.
Many have tested this combination against a Leica M9 + Summicron 50mm and cannot tell which is which.

For what it's worth, the new 40mm F/2.8 shot alongside the Sigma 35mm @ F/2.8 on a 5D MK3 is almost as sharp.
It has a cooler tone, while the Sigma is more warm, but zooming in to max in Lightroom on a 30" monitor doesn't show the Sigma I have to be that much better.

Anyway, I'm trying a 24-70 II next, to see if I can find that magic I'm looking for.
Maybe I'll just have to buy a Nikon D800E...

ET


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 24, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
> do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
> I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp


Gör det. Sen kan du lägga upp bilderna på en Nikon-site för folk här lär inte vara alltför intresserade.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 24, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
> I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.
> 
> It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
> ...


With all that fantastic equipment, are you not able to capture magic?


----------



## jondave (Dec 24, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
> do you really think the Canon 35/1,4 and the at double price is better? regarding resolution and bokeh?
> I think is the reverse.Sigma has done a exceptional lens. And I will test it as soon there are a nikon sigma out there and together with d800 and 36Mp



Simple - 'cause the fanboys don't want to accept that a $900 Siggy is better than their $1500 Canon. The red 'ring of power' does have that effect on some people...


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 24, 2012)

Hobby Shooter said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > if now 4 different sites has shown that this lens is nothing else that a great / exceptional lens, why do you people question these measurements?
> ...



Jeg er interessert!


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 24, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Well, I couldn't care less who makes the lens, if it gives the results I'm after.
> I was hoping after returning a Zeiss F/2 35mm that the Sigma would be better.
> 
> It is sharper, yes, but not in a jaw-dropping, oh my god way.
> ...



Don't you think it's a bit beside the point to bring it all down to sharpness alone?

This Sigma has been widely appreciated for being "sharp enough" @f/1.4 already, for the aberration control and for the smooth bokeh - all in a well built package and at a reasonable price. 

If it's all about sharpness I would try with a macro lens...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 25, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...


 ;D


----------



## cliffwang (Dec 25, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Here is CR. I believe most people here are Canon fans, not Sigma fans. You see many people post like "No red ring on it", "I buy only Canon", or even "I don't care how the reviews are, it's not Canon".
> ...


I only quoted the part I disagree with you. I won't waste my time to response the part I agree or cannot give a clear answer.
By the way, do you really try to do google search about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4? Not all websites follow lensrental.com. Many websites report the bokeh and autofocus of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 is amazing. You can have your own opinion for the Sigma 35mm F/1.4. However, I am just telling you many(or I should say most) webistes talking about the Sigma 35mm F/1.4 believe this is the new king of the 35mm prime.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 25, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > cliffwang said:
> ...



Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon. 

In fact, at least couple of sites clearly indicate the bokeh is suboptimal including lensrental blog which was gleefully cited to support sigma's ascendancy, but conveniently ignored when it suggested shortcomings. 

My own view upon viewing the gallery of pics on lensrental, the Korean site, and Flickr, is that the the sigma bokeh looks "nervous". It is not pleasing to the eye. I also can't say I like the sigma pallet of colors. Some of these issues have cropped up in comments here repeatedly and reviews as well but we all know supporters ignore anything contrary and selectively cite the possitive aspects. 

Your reply again provides platitudes ... No hard evidence... The only graphs or comparisons exist in the lensrental followup blog on 35 f2.

I wish that sigma has turned the corner...at the very least sigma may have forced canon to move up its own 35mm 1.4 release... But I won't be joining the sigma choir anytime soon without more comparisons from reputable sources... Comparisons, data, graphs... Not words.


----------



## RVB (Dec 25, 2012)

I haven't read this thread,I just jumped to the last page,one point I wanted to mention is that the sigma is not weather sealed,But the new 35mm L will almost certainly be weather sealed.. I have the sigma lens and it's excellent but I would prefer weather sealing.. and for this reason I will sell it when the new L is released.. 

I posted these pictures by mistake in the HDR area.. please ignore that mistake..


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 25, 2012)

About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes. Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.


----------



## RVB (Dec 25, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> About the bokeh: I have seen a nervous rendition only by f/1.4 - which is a fairly common behaviour for fast primes. Stopping down to f/2 of f/2.8 makes it smooth and creamy enough, though I agree not the best out there. But then again, bokeh is probably not the highest priority on a 35mm lens.



Bokeh @1.4


----------



## elflord (Dec 25, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Again, except lensrentals.com, I see no hard data... Just words. my point was not to put down sigma but to raise fair issues... Sorry if I am not so easily obligated to jump on the sigma bandwagon.



lenstip have reviewed it as have dpreview (and thedigitalpicture has their test shots). They include data, is their data "hard" enough for you ? Besides photozone, everyone whose reviews I care for have reviewed it, so I don't really understand why anyone would feel the need to go on a fear mongering exercise about the lack of "serious" reviews. I think Cliff nailed it with the remark about "fanboys". Sigma fanboys ? Who are we trying to kid ?


----------



## jeffabbyben (Dec 25, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



I'm confused about your comment. You say that you will only accept hard numbers and graphs but those have all favored the Sigma. However your complaints are about subjective factors such as bokeh and color rendition (although equally valid more subjective than objective). I suspect someone is worried about the resale value of there Canon 35mm 1.4 now that a third party has an excellent competing product.  Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays


----------



## brad-man (Dec 25, 2012)

If I remember correctly, when the EF70-200 2.8L II came out there were similar arguments. Oh yes, it's very sharp, but I prefer the bokeh from the version I. I don't seem to see those arguments anymore


----------



## EvilTed (Dec 25, 2012)

HobbyShooter,

I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it 

The Fuji's continue to really impress me.
The fact they can give better IQ than the 5D MK3 is the kicker (and no, it's not just me, check Scoopit for X-Pro1 | XE-1 to see how many pros think the Fuji is better than their old 5D MK2 or D700. The IQ of the MK3 is about the same as the MK2 - they just fixed the AF and ergonomics a bit).

I just bought a Contax Carl Zeiss Sonar 90mm F/2.8 from the 80s in mint condition from Japan.
This humble lens mounted to either Fuji produces the magic I'm looking for.

Maybe the analogy is more film versus digital?
Fuji developed their X-Trans sensor to mimic the grain structure of film.
It is said to produce film like images.

I'm waiting for the rumored FF Fuji 

ET


----------



## aprotosimaki (Dec 25, 2012)

For what it is worth I have been in the market for a 35mm and tomorrow I am going to buy the Sigma for my 5d2. I have read enough reviews that I am fully persuaded that the lens is worth it and that spending more money on a Canon 35L would not be the correct decision:

$899 vs $1300+

Maybe I will regret it but I am hoping I won't. Will be up at the store by 8:30 for its 9:00 opening.


----------



## persiannight (Dec 26, 2012)

Sigma 35






Canon 35L





Same exposures, 1/640sec, f/1.4, ISO 100


----------



## kubelik (Dec 26, 2012)

I gotta say, I can see the difference between the Sigma and Canon in terms of bokeh, but I can't honestly say which one I like better. both have a bit of "nervousness" that makes them less than perfect, but then again it's with the worst possible background (trees without leaves!). thanks persiannight for posting this!

I don't know if it's just me but even at this size the Sigma looks quite a bit sharper than the Canon L in the in-focus region. impressive. to me it's a sigma win, given that the bokeh is really a toss-up, but the Sigma is definitely sharper. I wonder what sort of hardware Canon will respond with in january?


----------



## persiannight (Dec 26, 2012)

The Sigma shows more fine detail in it's bokeh, I'm assuming due to it being a sharper lens? Is that possible?


----------



## persiannight (Dec 26, 2012)

I did use the same contrast curve

Larger Sigma 35
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8216/8310332535_2f2ba44257_o.jpg

Larger 35L
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8311382428_26f2036be2_o.jpg


----------



## kubelik (Dec 26, 2012)

I think the difference in perceived contrast is just the nature of each of the lenses. it's expected that they render slightly differently.

persiannight, are you planning on keeping one over the other, given the results of your personal experience?


----------



## persiannight (Dec 26, 2012)

That's what I'm struggling with... I mean, I love the sharpness wide open of the Sigma but I love the smoothness to the Canon's bokeh. I know all the "tests" keep saying the bokeh is better on the Sigma, which I agree with only as far as CA is concerned. I've had images from the Sigma where bokeh areas are jittery and give the illusion of movement. I've never really experienced that on the 35L. 

The Canon overall image, again, to me, is more pleasing because of the smoother bokeh. Ughhh, I don't know. It's not an easy decision.


----------



## jeffabbyben (Dec 27, 2012)

I see the jittery bokeh in both lenses. Definitely don't see the smoothness in the canon lens you are referring to (IMHO). Since you are only a few days away from the announcement of the canon 35mm 1.4 version ii why don't you wait to decide ;D


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Dec 27, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> HobbyShooter,
> 
> I would think so, but I've never been impressed with the images produced by my MK3 with ANY lens.
> I was expecting great things when I switched from Nikon DX to Canon FF and I've not really found it
> ...


Fair enough. I think you and I are playing in deiiferent leagues, rendering different expectations. Im an amateur and I think I get some magic in my images, on the other hand that is what I see. This is one of the things I lile about this forum. The possibility to learn more and move forwary boundaries and develop my skills. Cheers!


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 7, 2013)

Just unboxed my copy this night. It is not a picture to remember, but to my unskilled eyes it looks quite sharp. Camera 5D II and ISO 100, AWB. The first is the original downsized to 150 to get the file small enough, and the other one is a 100 percent crop of the first knife in focus. 

G.


----------

