# Sigma 35mm f/1.4



## JPlendPhoto (Feb 6, 2014)

Hello again everyone.

After a lot of consideration, I am looking at primes for a number of reasons, and after looking through my photos I see I shoot a lot around 35mm, I like this focal length. I am very tempted by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. 
I was wondering what peoples experiences are of using this lens and what do you use this lens for. For example, does this lens stay on your camera a lot and is it used as a walk around lens?

Thanks


----------



## Dick (Feb 6, 2014)

It stays a lot on my (camera) body. It would be a perfect lens if the AF wasn't so inconsistent. AFMA helps, but doesn't change the fact that the focus works differently depending on lighting and distance to subject. If you take 3 shots of a subject and focus them all separately, you will have 3 differently focused shots... so it's also random AF (different meaning for AF this time).


----------



## Eldar (Feb 6, 2014)

I have been very happy with this lens up until the end of last year, where I discovered that the AF drifted. I had to adjust AFMA 7 steps, compared to the original setting. I have not seen any further drifting though. The lens is very sharp (when in focus), but the bokeh is not its best quality.

When it comes to the focal length, it depends on your personal taste. I often use two bodies, where I have a zoom (70-200/2.8L IS II) or the 85/1.2L II on one and another zoom (24-70/2.8L II) or the 33/1.4 on the other.

For indoor and evenings out I find the 35/1.4 to be very good and if I had to use a prime as a walkaround, it would be a 35 or 50.


----------



## haloGRAPH (Feb 6, 2014)

I like my Sigma 35mm 1.4 a lot and use it on my 6D. It gives me some nice inspiration and does things i can´t achieve with my other gear.

Ok, the AF behaves a little strange from time to time but i had no serious problems with it. 
I also think that in most situations the bokeh is really nice for such a wide lens. Only sometimes the bokeh struggles with complex high contrast backgrounds. From Pictures on the web i doubt that the Canon does any better but i never had the chance to use it.

The sharpness is just awesome and comparable with my 135 2.0L and 100 2.8 Macro L

Build quality is nice to but i don´t like the lens cap. Once it just fell of in my bag


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 6, 2014)

I bought it 2 days ago, and i love it. The AF is reasonably good: i used every single focus point of my 6D, and the pictures were in good focus. Sharpness and contrast are excellent even at the largest aperture. Vignetting is heavy, but it gives some shots a certain look that i like, and it can be easily corrected with post processing. I know 2 days of usage are very few, but i would recommend this lens. The only real alternative to the Sigma is the Canon 35/2 IS: slightly less sharp, slower aperture, but the AF should be as good as any other Canon lens, it is stabilized, and quite a bit cheaper than the Sigma. I see no point in getting the Canon 35/1.4, its cost is almost double the cost of the Sigma.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 6, 2014)

It comes down to how many lenses you already own. I tend to use a 35mm prime primarily indoors and as a single walk-around lens at night because I have other lenses that cover the same focal length with similar IQ outdoor when there is more light (where a smaller max aperture does not matter as much).

In your case, you'll use it a lot more because it will have better IQ than the 17-40, and you don't have a mid-range zoom. Unless you really need the 17-40 for the 17mm focal length, you could replace it with 24 and 35mm primes. The 24 2.8 IS/S35/50 1.8 would take less space than the 17-40/S35/50 and you'll be trading focal length and more lens changes for IQ.


----------



## giltaminphotography (Feb 6, 2014)

I got to say, this is one of the sharpest and my most used lens. Out of my 24Lv2, 85Lv2 and sigma 35 I find myself using this lens the most not only because its my favorite focal length also because it produces a little magic. The af has been pretty good, I only have trouble with af when I shoot a subject with the sun behind it. It's common to have that problem but I have that problem with my sigma the most. Here's a couple samples a baby portrait I did.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 6, 2014)

Went through two copies and returned both. IQ is unmatched at the focal length currently (when the AF hits). AF on my 5D3 was inconsistent through various lighting, distances and apertures between 1.4-2. If you find one that marries well with your particular copy of your body, then I say go for it as it is a bargain for what it is capable of optically.

RE the focal length, I would also say that it is my personal favorite for walking around as it gives more flexibility than the 24 or the 50 (too wide and too tight respectively for general purpose). 

That being said, my conclusion was to return both copies, sell the 35L and pick up a 35/2 IS which has served me quite well as a walk around.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 6, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Went through two copies and returned both. IQ is unmatched at the focal length currently (when the AF hits). AF on my 5D3 was inconsistent through various lighting, distances and apertures between 1.4-2. If you find one that marries well with your particular copy of your body, then I say go for it as it is a bargain for what it is capable of optically.
> 
> RE the focal length, I would also say that it is my personal favorite for walking around as it gives more flexibility than the 24 or the 50 (too wide and too tight respectively for general purpose).
> 
> That being said, my conclusion was to return both copies, sell the 35L and pick up a 35/2 IS which has served me quite well as a walk around.



Ditto , mine is sold, +3 afma and it hits when it hits, but way to inconsistent. I will give the 50 art a go, perhaps even buy the docking and whatever I can, but it's the very last chance ever Sigma will get.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Feb 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Ditto , mine is sold, +3 afma and it hits when it hits, but way to inconsistent. I will give the 50 art a go, perhaps even buy the docking and whatever I can, but it's the very last chance ever Sigma will get.



I share your feelings regarding the 50. I will definitely be taking a hard look at it. Depending on what novoflex does with their adapter for the A7R, I may yet pick up both Sigmas again since the AFMA would no longer be an issue (either that or if they release both in native mount).


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 6, 2014)

I have had mine for about 4 months and I love it. A good lens and I have not had any issues with the AF.


----------



## sunnyVan (Feb 6, 2014)

Love it too much that I don't think I could comment objectively. I have 2470ii but I still carry the 35art with me all the time. I have no issues with AF. But I still like to use MF sometimes.


----------



## filo64 (Feb 6, 2014)

I love the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for indoor low light work. I frequently use it wide open on both my 5Diii and my 6D and the AF works fine for me. If focus misses, I attribute it to handling or subject motion, not the lens. As a take everywhere lens I would consider the Canon 40mm pancake. It is very sharp, I like the bokeh, and the diminutive size makes it very portable on my 6D and inconspicuous, too.

I also shoot the 40mm pancake for studio work where I have to shoot into the light. Of my lenses only the 100mm L IS Macro can compete for flare resistance and contrast when shot into the light, e.g. high key portraiture in front of a pure white and actively lit background.


----------



## Albi86 (Feb 6, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Hello again everyone.
> 
> After a lot of consideration, I am looking at primes for a number of reasons, and after looking through my photos I see I shoot a lot around 35mm, I like this focal length. I am very tempted by the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens.
> I was wondering what peoples experiences are of using this lens and what do you use this lens for. For example, does this lens stay on your camera a lot and is it used as a walk around lens?
> ...



Great lens. I found the AF sometimes inconsistent at medium distances; no problem < 10m or at infinity. 

It has one problem: it makes most of your other lenses look like crap.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Feb 12, 2014)

Thank you all.
So the Sigma 35mm 1.4 seems to be a very popular lens, its just the focus is not alwasy perfect. It seems like a better option image quality wise that the canon from what i have read, also the price! 

Ok can somone explain to me what this AFMA everyone is talking about? I see it mentioned a lot!


----------



## Viggo (Feb 12, 2014)

JPlendPhoto said:


> Thank you all.
> So the Sigma 35mm 1.4 seems to be a very popular lens, its just the focus is not alwasy perfect. It seems like a better option image quality wise that the canon from what i have read, also the price!
> 
> Ok can somone explain to me what this AFMA everyone is talking about? I see it mentioned a lot!



It's Auto Focus Micro Adjustment. It means every camera and lens are produced inside of certain tolerances regarding precision. But if you lens and body are focusing at the same end if that tolerance, it causes the focus to be in front or behind the point you focus on, a small mismatch. Newer camera bodies have the ability to adjust for this, to force the lens to focus where the camera body locks. This results in you getting sharp focus at the exact same spot the camera tells you when it shows focus is locked.


----------

