# Review - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 12, 2013)

Discuss our review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM here.


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 12, 2013)

This lens is simply awesome. It even blows away the Canon 35mm f/1.4 for a fraction of the cost. I'm sure Canon will make a better version soon, but at only $900 for such great results with the Sigma, will there really be any reason to pay Canon's way higher prices?

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!


----------



## kirillica (Apr 12, 2013)

As red ring is not copyrighted (look at Samyang), Sigma should definitely put one on this lens so it sells well


----------



## zwilliamson (Apr 12, 2013)

I can't eloquently put into words how much I love this lens. It performs beautifully on my 5Dmk2 and 7D; it's the kind of lens you just leave on a 5D to bring everywhere. I'm in the middle of shooting a weekend of dance performances right now, for which I rented my other favorite lens the Canon 135 f/2. Both produce just awesome images on my 5Dmk2 at 1600iso f/2.2 1/800 under stage lights. It's good enough I'm probably going to sell my 50 f/1.4 for an 85 f/1.8 because I find I just don't use my 50mm anymore.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 12, 2013)

zwilliamson said:


> I can't eloquently put into words how much I love this lens. It performs beautifully on my 5Dmk2 and 7D; it's the kind of lens you just leave on a 5D to bring everywhere. I'm in the middle of shooting a weekend of dance performances right now, for which I rented my other favorite lens the Canon 135 f/2. Both produce just awesome images on my 5Dmk2 at 1600iso f/2.2 1/800 under stage lights. It's good enough I'm probably going to sell my 50 f/1.4 for an 85 f/1.8 because I find I just don't use my 50mm anymore.



+1


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 12, 2013)

Justin, thanks for a great review. It was a bit reassuring to me, as when this lens was released I really felt like I would get it at some point, but my desire for it had cooled somewhat. I too am a fan of the 35mm focal length, so I may again look at getting this lens.


----------



## thewallbanger (Apr 12, 2013)

The real test: Would any current 35L users consider trading for the Sigma 35?

Thoughts?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

There is no reason to buy any other 35mm 1.4 from either canon or nikon. Why bother? If sigma made a 24mm 1.4 as good as this 35mm, I'll sell my 24L II and pocket the cash.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> There is no reason to buy any other 35mm 1.4 from either canon or nikon. Why bother? If sigma made a 24mm 1.4 as good as this 35mm, I'll sell my 24L II and pocket the cash.



I would *love* to see Sigma take a stab at the Canon 24 1.4 next.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 12, 2013)

.
I've had it for eight days now. Couldn't be happier.

It approaches the Canon 135mm f/2.0L in just about every characteristic (betters it in none as far as I can tell) and it's far more versatile for me.

Only used it so far on the 5D3. Once the early elation wears down, I'll try it on the crop.


----------



## limunan (Apr 12, 2013)

i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4 (leaning sigma). clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8, or at least close and the added versatility makes the 24-70 a better choice? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!

extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L
and edited to add more info: shoot a 5d3

i plan on making the purchase after canon's apr23rd announcement - i know it's a long shot but i've been waiting for a 35mm 1.4ii from canon for a long time - what say you canonrumors? thank you in advance for your help )


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2013)

limunan said:


> i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4 (leaning sigma). clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8, or at least close and the added versatility makes the 24-70 a better choice? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!
> 
> extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L
> and edited to add more info: shoot a 5d3
> ...



According to TDP's testing, the 24-70 II is better than Sigma 35 at f/2.8.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

limunan said:


> i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4. clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!
> 
> extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L
> 
> i plan on making the purchase after canon's apr23rd announcement - i know it's a long shot but i've been waiting for a 35mm 1.4ii from canon for a long time - what say you canonrumors? thank you in advance for your help )



Man, tough comparison. The 24-70 f/2.8 L II is not a light lens at all, it's optically incredible, with the price to match as you know. I could see you selling the 24-105 after getting it though, you won't miss the extra reach with the quality of image coming from the 24-70.

While I didn't do side by side tests, I do have some shots taken at 35mm on the 24-70 and they're pretty much perfect... so can the Sigma out-perform the Canon? No, I can't say that it would. But then, I'm not using the Sigma at 2.8... I'm using it at 1.8 - 2.2

The Sigma also isn't a light lens, though not as hefty as the Canon 24-70. If price isn't an issue I'd say go with the zoom, you'll get a lot of use out of it. But I, personally, find a lot more joy out of using the Sigma... hope that helps.


----------



## jthomson (Apr 12, 2013)

Hope Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4 to the same standard.
Sigma's on a bit of a roll i got a 30mm for my m4/3 camera last year that is really good.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Hope Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4 to the same standard.
> Sigma's on a bit of a roll i got a 30mm for my m4/3 camera last year that is really good.



They updated the 30 1.4 for crop-sensor cameras, and the 50, I think, was their first step in the right direction (it was priced at more than the Canon 1.4), so maybe throw a few more hundred per lens into a bit of a redesign, up the QC and maybe that's all it needs.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Apr 12, 2013)

I prefer this 35mm's bokeh over my canon 35mm's bokeh.


----------



## limunan (Apr 12, 2013)

thank you guys for the responses  this forum is a seriously great resource for us new photogs so on behalf of all of us that lurk (currently like 1.5 guests to 300 logged in), we really appreciate it!


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 12, 2013)

thewallbanger said:


> The real test: Would any current 35L users consider trading for the Sigma 35?
> 
> Thoughts?



I don't know about others, but I'm holding onto the 35L for now. The price difference isn't that much of a factor since I already have the 35L (sunk cost). The Sigma offers more value for those that don't have the 35L, but it does not compel me to change. According to reviews (TDP), the Sigma peforms better toward the center while the 35L does better at the edges/corners. I'll wait to see what the 35L II offers. Right now, the 24-70II beats both the 35L and the Sigma 35. Hopefully, the 35L II will do better than the 24-70II. If not, I'll stay with the 35L.


----------



## Zv (Apr 12, 2013)

I had the Sigma in my amazon cart at one point and almost bought it. Went for a 2nd hand 135L instead. So tempted now after reading the review! 

How many lenses is too many? I used to think 5 was my limit. Somehow I want less lenses. Is that weird?


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

Zv said:


> I had the Sigma in my amazon cart at one point and almost bought it. Went for a 2nd hand 135L instead. So tempted now after reading the review!
> 
> How many lenses is too much? I used to think 5 was my limit. Somehow I want less lenses. Is that weird?



I thought my Pelican 1510 case decided how many lenses I had. If it fit, I own it, if not... shouldn't have it.

I have a Canon 40mm f/2.8 & a Sigma 35 f/1.4 that don't fit, but I'm not getting rid of anything either now


----------



## jhanken (Apr 12, 2013)

> I would *love* to see Sigma take a stab at the Canon 24 1.4 next.



So true! I have the Sigma 50 and 85, getting me the 35 soon. Weird that I am becoming a fan boy.


----------



## Pixel (Apr 12, 2013)

It's pretty fascinating to read the reviews for the Sigma but as for a current owner of a 35 1.4L, it would be a cold day in hell before I ever gave my "go to" L lens. It's worth it's weight in gold as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy you guys like the lens but I'll never trade a Canon FOR a Sigma. Not in this lifetime.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 12, 2013)

Justin: The review was a very good read. I would have loved to see side-by-side comparisions of your shots done with BOTH Sigma and Canon 35/1.4. That would tell the tale for me. BTW, does anyone already have such a comparison they could share? If one already exists, where may I find it?


----------



## dswatson83 (Apr 12, 2013)

JumboShrimp said:


> Justin: The review was a very good read. I would have loved to see side-by-side comparisions of your shots done with BOTH Sigma and Canon 35/1.4. That would tell the tale for me. BTW, does anyone already have such a comparison they could share? If one already exists, where may I find it?


Here is a side by side review with those two lenses: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/87-sigma-35mm-f14-vs-canon-35mm-f14


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2013)

jthomson said:


> Hope Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4 to the same standard.
> Sigma's on a bit of a roll i got a 30mm for my m4/3 camera last year that is really good.



I wish they would update their 50mm too. I had no interest in it until I tried the 35mm, which I liked so much I ordered the 50mm - only to receive a copy (brand new) that seemed to have every flaw I've read about. So I returned it and decided to stick with my Canon 50mm 1.4 for now.

As for Sigma being on a roll, lenstip fairly recently gave a rare (for them) rave review of Sigma's new 180mm macro lens. Has anyone here tried it? (I've only tried their 150mm macro, which I didn't much care for.)


----------



## sdsr (Apr 12, 2013)

JumboShrimp said:


> Justin: The review was a very good read. I would have loved to see side-by-side comparisions of your shots done with BOTH Sigma and Canon 35/1.4. That would tell the tale for me. BTW, does anyone already have such a comparison they could share? If one already exists, where may I find it?



This isn't quite what you're asking for, but The Digital Picture's review includes a bokeh-at-f/4 comparison of this lens vs Canon's three 35mm lenses and the Samyang equivalent.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-35mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 12, 2013)

While I have not thought of the comparison in design to Apple, it made sense. In addition to its great optics it has as is mentioned in the review a great tactile feel.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 12, 2013)

I would buy it... If it has weather sealing...  ! 

An expensive lens need this I think!


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

fox40phil said:


> I would buy it... If it has weather sealing...  !
> 
> An expensive lens need this I think!



The current Canon 35mm f/1.4 L doesn't. Neither does the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L. I agree that weather sealing is preferred, but sometimes we just don't get that choice


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> The current Canon 35mm f/1.4 L doesn't. Neither does the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L. I agree that weather sealing is preferred, but sometimes we just don't get that choice



There's always a choice.


----------



## fox40phil (Apr 12, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> fox40phil said:
> 
> 
> > I would buy it... If it has weather sealing...  !
> ...



Yes I already know this... but the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is older... Sigma has the chance to build a modern best quality 35mm lens :O....!


----------



## risc32 (Apr 12, 2013)

zeiss doesn't offer weather sealing either. i guess they missed the boat.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

risc32 said:


> zeiss doesn't offer weather sealing either. i guess they missed the boat.



Yeah, what a piece of crap!


----------



## brad-man (Apr 12, 2013)

Please, please rework the 85 into the _art_ line. Then they can do a 24...


----------



## Wildfire (Apr 12, 2013)

Justin, just curious about the photo labeled "Trevor Portrait". Was that lit with flash or natural light?


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 12, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> Justin, just curious about the photo labeled "Trevor Portrait". Was that lit with flash or natural light?



Flash: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jvlphoto/8641936552/#


----------



## Shane1.4 (Apr 12, 2013)

Excellent review. I couldn't agree more. Simply incredible lens.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 13, 2013)

Good review, sounds like another viable option. I've stayed on the canon path with regard to lenses except with my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and I really like it a lot... only because of my experience with it, would I be willing to try something like this, but I'd have to try before I buy... ;D


----------



## marooni (Apr 13, 2013)

I tested Canon 35 f1.4 (that I own) and Sigma 35 f1.4 (that I jumped to buy immediately) and Canon lens has a more pleasing bokeh and image. I made the comparison on screen and paper (1000mmx700mm printed images).

Truly, the Sigma looks crisper, but I prefer a general beter looking image.
I made this comparison because I could sell my used Canon 35 f1.4 at the price of a new Sigma 35 f1.4 and I almost made the switch, but then I said to try the Sigma first. 

I decided to keep my Canon lens from two reasons: 

1. Sigma did not demonstrated yet that can make a working horse (I had a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and was extremely unreliable). I can`t afford to have bad working lenses or on repair for weeks in a row. This will be a disaster for me.

2. The images printed looked beter from Canon. The colours and general image are more appealing.

In the last years we are all looking at the numbers, but nobody looks at pictures anymore.

I got the idea that the Sigma is cheap, but I do not want cheap, I want the best Image and reliability. 

And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 13, 2013)

Shane1.4 said:


> Excellent review. I couldn't agree more. Simply incredible lens.



+1


----------



## StepBack (Apr 13, 2013)

Justin from your article "Vignetting is incredibly prevalent on this lens, enough so that you may have to adjust your metering accordingly." What aperture did u use on the last shot in the review of the boy reading? I suppose one could just crop a bit or as u say use post editing to wash away the added imperfection. Funny that proprietary s/w enables people to add vignetting but that's another story. I really loved the shots and the other pro shots I've seen with the 5D3 are incredibly sharp and the color tuned to "what that can't be" level. Wish I could get those results. Checked out your Huff review and the pros who liked your stuff on Flickr, Best of luck with your career and being a "stay at home dad".


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 13, 2013)

StepBack said:


> Justin from your article "Vignetting is incredibly prevalent on this lens, enough so that you may have to adjust your metering accordingly." What aperture did u use on the last shot in the review of the boy reading? I suppose one could just crop a bit or as u say use post editing to wash away the added imperfection. Funny that proprietary s/w enables people to add vignetting but that's another story. I really loved the shots and the other pro shots I've seen with the 5D3 are incredibly sharp and the color tuned to "what that can't be" level. Wish I could get those results. Checked out your Huff review and the pros who liked your stuff on Flickr, Best of luck with your career and being a "stay at home dad".



That image was taken wide-open at 1.4, I was attempting to see what kind of flare could be produced with light going into the lens (I believe I took the hood off too). You can see a bit of green flaring, but not much else beyond that, and the image remains sharp and contrasty.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 13, 2013)

marooni said:


> And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.



Sorry to sound like a therapist, but what I hear you saying is:

1. You prefer the look of images you make with the Canon lens.

2. You've had a bad experience with Sigma and don't trust them.

What I don't understand is your "wink, wink," you know what I'm talking about. Is there something you've said that I'm not hearing?


----------



## Pi (Apr 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> marooni said:
> 
> 
> > And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.
> ...



I do.


----------



## Pi (Apr 13, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> It approaches the Canon 135mm f/2.0L in just about every characteristic (betters it in none as far as I can tell) and it's far more versatile for me.



It could not be farther apart from the 135L. The 135L is a bokeh machine, while the S35 is not, to put it mildly.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 13, 2013)

.
Colors on the left are more vivid. Background on the right is more pleasant to the eye. Is the Sigma on the right?

Thanks.




ankorwatt said:


> OK , I took these few minutes ago, same parameters.
> Now there are differences in the red colors, one camera can not separate red/orange colors as the other, mainly because of the CFA and also the profile.(we can take a color profile discussion later so all understand what a profile does or not with the bokeh, contrast curves, colors etc who plays a major role in what we think us se, or not )
> 
> Now to the background
> ...


----------



## distant.star (Apr 13, 2013)

.
Our experiences have led us to different conclusions. So be it.



Pi said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## infared (Apr 13, 2013)

OK...what I have become a big "fanboy" of is Justin's reviews. They are fantastic, along with the images he includes.
Love the shot of Trevor (and thanks for the lighting info).
I own the lens and it is simply the best 35mm on the market for a Canon 5dIII owner, (the great price is just a bonus).
It is a joy to twist this glass onto the front of my rig. (No winking needed). Who cares if Canon updates their 35L!
(I figure with the $1000 I saved I will pick up a 135L next week when the rebate kicks in!).
Unlike Justin...the only complaint I have is the useless toaster-cozy case? WTF? A big square lunch case for a sleek round lens???? Go figure. That thing went right back in the box as soon as I took the lens out. What would be nice is a custom-fit, sleek neoprene case. Keep it simple. 
I also own the Sigma 50mm and although it is not at the level of this new 35mm I am very happy with that lens, too. (Guess I got a good copy... I covered the unsightly shinny gold ring with pinstriping tape, no...not red, just for fun and to confuse enthusiasts! LOL!).
My only question is: Dare we expect more of this from Sigma????


----------



## Pi (Apr 13, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> OK , I took these few minutes ago, same parameters.
> Now there are differences in the red colors, one camera can not separate red/orange colors as the other, mainly because of the CFA and also the profile.(we can take a color profile discussion later so all understand what a profile does or not with the bokeh, contrast curves, colors etc who plays a major role in what we think us se, or not )
> 
> Now to the background
> ...



This is a closeup, almost a macro, and the image on the right is taken from a slightly closer distance (maybe due to the different lens and the different body). As a result, the background on the right is blurred more, and you can see the different perspective. Also, in closeup shots, the effective FL changes a lot, the f stop changes, etc. 

Testing non-macro lenses in such closeup situations is not such a great way to evaluate a lens. BTW, next time you do that, do not put the other camera in the frame!


----------



## giotto (Apr 14, 2013)

Hi, I want to post a pic and try to use the attachment function - but I have no success. The file is 1,3 mb and a jpeg format. I want to upload it from my HDD. But it failed all the time.
In the browser address I have this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=post2;start=45;board=70

and then I can wait for a lot of time and the screen is only white.

I havn`t found any helpdesk for my problem and I also don`t know how to reach an administrator to help me.
So I choose this way

WHO CAN HELP ME :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## Eli (Apr 14, 2013)

Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 14, 2013)

Eli said:


> Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.



Notice how I don't do that in my reviews


----------



## infared (Apr 14, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> Eli said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.
> ...




THANK GOD!!!!!!


----------



## vscd (Apr 14, 2013)

Sadly, both lenses have no weathersealing. I think it's a shame to shoot with optics worth a grand and they get spoiled in the first rain. I think the producingcosts of some siliconrings can't exceed more than a few bucks. Of course the design would be a little bit more complicated, but this lense is meant to be superior...

It even would push canon a little bit more to produce a Mark II of their own lense, for a fair price.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

vscd said:


> Sadly, both lenses have no weathersealing. I think it's a shame to shoot with optics worth a grand and they get spoiled in the first rain. I think the producingcosts of some siliconrings can't exceed more than a few bucks. Of course the design would be a little bit more complicated, but this lense is meant to be superior...
> 
> It even would push canon a little bit more to produce a Mark II of their own lense, for a fair price.



How often do you shoot in the rain?


----------



## bjd (Apr 14, 2013)

giotto said:


> Hi, I want to post a pic and try to use the attachment function - but I have no success. The file is 1,3 mb and a jpeg format. I want to upload it from my HDD. But it failed all the time.
> In the browser address I have this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=post2;start=45;board=70
> 
> and then I can wait for a lot of time and the screen is only white.
> ...



Hi, one time I had similar problems, seems like some pgms create .jpgs that the CR website cant handle. Try to download a jpg from the site and then post it again. You know that jpg will be OK. If it works then just modify your post. Now, what exactly the problem is with certain jpgs, who knows?

Cheers


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 14, 2013)

Zv said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly, both lenses have no weathersealing. I think it's a shame to shoot with optics worth a grand and they get spoiled in the first rain. I think the producingcosts of some siliconrings can't exceed more than a few bucks. Of course the design would be a little bit more complicated, but this lense is meant to be superior...
> ...



"Spoiled in the first rain"??? Do you really think these lens are THAT delicate? Admittedly, most of my kit is weathersealed, but I have shot with non-weathersealed lens in a lot of crazy weather and have yet to have a lens be "spoiled in the first rain". I think you should always exercise caution and protect your gear as much as possible, but I don't think either the 35L or the Siggy are quite so delicate as that.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



@ Vscd: All you need really is a decent rain cover for your camera bag for unexpected showers. Or are we talking about actually walking about in the rain with your gear cos that seems silly to me even with weathersealed lenses. ???


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> If we are looking at something subjective as Bokeh the contrast curve and many other things plays a major role
> like the profiles we are using , behind is a Husqvarna (Husky) motor saw and the color is orange, here we can see how adobe standard + linear curve represents the orange as red , on the right is a custom profile for my Canon camera created with qp-card+linear curve , the same raw file are used, colors, contrst curves etc plays a major role in what we call bokeh, not only the lens.



How does it compare to the Adobe camera profile?


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > THANK GOD!!!!!!
> ...


The only thing deserving attention here are the letters on the bottle: "TRE" and "47". The Sigma is much worse, as expected. The background is blurred enough not to matter.


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



Because in normal viewing conditions, the CA is not visible. On the other hand, the double lines are, and can dominate the whole picture. 

Look at this:







Do you see CA? I do not (but there is, at 100% zoom). What grabs my attention are the double lines on the back. 

Let us say that I tested the same lens with closeups. Like those here:













Look good, right? Based on those closeups, you would never say that those double lines could be a problem. But they are. And I have many shots on my HD with double lines, and many more without them. 

All those shots are with the 35L on FF.


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> not visible?
> canon 35/1,4 is known for ca and at 1,4 .http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/516-canon35f14ff?start=1
> the sigma is better corrected and also also known for that
> give me 2 exact same exposure from the two lenses.
> ...



If you shoot charts, disable the lens corrections and look for CA, it might be visible. Do you see it in any of the shots I posted? 

The most visible difference above is the contrast and the colors. 

BTW, there is nothing wrong with the CA correction with the Sigma, Canon should do the same with its 35LII. But the Sigma is more corrected lens (not just for CA). This made it sharper but screwed up the bokeh. Canon did exactly the opposite with the 50L and the 85LII. The 50L is _much_ softer than the 35L but it has much better bokeh. The 85LII has stronger PF than the 35L but much better bokeh.

Where is the CA here:


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> send me the original file, the one you show is to small to look at



My point exactly. Do you need the original file to tell how awful this looks?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zackhuggins/8483812543/#sizes/z/in/photostream/


----------



## Pi (Apr 14, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> again you are showing some pictures with out any comparison, I have a different view about the two lenses also dpreview,lens tip and photo zone have tested the sigma and have i different opinion than you have..
> not much more to discuss, or what do you think
> 
> 
> The Sigma has the best results of all 1.4/35 lenses, tested by us so far in the categories of resolution, distortion, chromatic aberration and coma correction. It also fares very well in the case of astigmatism correction and the autofocus accuracy, being one of the cheapest lenses in this class of equipment. I think I don’t have to add anything more…



Nothing about bokeh there.

It is OK if you do not care about it, but you should not dismiss my concerns just because Klauss liked the lens (but not the bokeh). Keep using it in real life, and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Pi (Apr 15, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I have done it now for some weeks now , compare the lens with my 35/1,4 Canon, as I said, we have a different view and I think my pictures shows that 1. the sigma lens has higher resolution 2. there are no difference in bokeh , except that sigma has higher contrast. So I leave you with that we have a different view of the two lenses.



Fair enough. Thanks for posting those comparisons. Even though they are not what I wanted (focus too close), I can still see a confirmation of what I expected.


----------



## infared (Apr 15, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



I do not need to sit around testing lenses...I let professionals do that for me and I read their results. The results lead me to buy the Sigma which is easily $400-$500 less than the Canon and rated superior by all the pro reviewers, not a weekend warrior. Also, to read Justin's review, a review from a VERY COMPETENT real world photographer just puts it over the top for me. My Sigma is an incredible lens. The price is amazing. If Canon comes up with update, the price will approach $2000. So the purchase for me was a no brainer, and I have been out making images with the lens, in the real world and have been nothing but pleased with my decision. Great lens!


----------



## BLFPhoto (Apr 15, 2013)

I own the 35 L. Last night I got to try the Sigma at a wedding I was shooting. Wile there were no direct, same comparison shots, the shots I took are virtually indistinguishable in a real world shooting situation. I have to look at the EXIF to see which shot is from which lens. 

Of greater interest to me would be the makeup and design of the internals. I know the Canon is a workhorse, having shot it for years without issue. Will the Sigma withstand pro level shooting for years, in all conditions? Has someone disassembled one to observe? Are the moving parts quality or not? My frame of reference would be the older Canon 24-70 L which had internals notorious for wear under heavy use. While those are replaceable with service, other lenses are much better constructed. The Sigma certainly feels as good as my Canon. What would we find under the hood, though?


----------



## distant.star (Apr 15, 2013)

.
Thanks, ankorwatt. I don't think I fully understand all you're showing us, but it's interesting, and a good learning experience. I appreciate your professional efforts!

I tend more toward infared's inclinations -- just looking at results I get when I'm pushing the shutter button. Since most folks say it's as good or better than the Canon version, I figure I've saved a lot of money if nothing else.

As for the question of internal components holding up to everyday professional use, I guess we'll have to see. Not an issue for me as I'm not using it that way.


----------



## infared (Apr 15, 2013)

.....yawn.....DS....let's go make some art!!!!!!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 15, 2013)

The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness. 

Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.
> 
> Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?



It's a matter of framing. Sharp corners mean you can frame the scene as you like, compared to center framing + cropping.


----------



## Viggo (Apr 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.
> 
> Can someone post a real picture which has razor thin DOF but requires corner resolution ?



Here's a quick example shot at 1.2 to show the need for corner sharpness. Aimed at his eyes.


----------



## Pi (Apr 16, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Here's a quick example shot at 1.2 to show the need for corner sharpness. Aimed at his eyes.



To satisfy the pixelpeeper's corner requirement, one of the eyes needs to be out of the frame.


----------



## Krob78 (Apr 16, 2013)

Certainly looks like a competent option for many...


----------



## Viggo (Apr 16, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.
> ...



Well, I will wait to agree with that until after I get
The Zeiss 55 ;D


----------



## Pi (Apr 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The results from the Sigma do look good; I've never really been an ultra shallow DOF shooter so perhaps that's why I can't think of any situations when you'd be shooting at f1.4 and require critical corner sharpness.
> ...



You keep using those lenses as macro lenses...


----------



## Pi (Apr 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> yes , what ever , 1,5 m with a 35mm to the target and 1m to the book shell behind the focus plane , macro?
> you seems to have trouble to understand that the sigma can be good as the canon



You have trouble understanding that *both* can be bad, as I and many other people demonstrated already. If you blur the background enough, as you did, you will see no essential difference. I told you that a few days ago.

Try to challenge both lenses. Look at the other thread for examples of bad bokeh. DO NOT FOCUS CLOSE! Use the lens, well, the way you will use it. Instead of a miniature, put a real person there.


----------



## Pi (Apr 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I don't have any problem to understand that the back ground or fore ground can be nervous , but here are the 2 lenses compared at the same distances and there are several distances.


But neither of them reveals anything like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dav8/8574231708/#sizes/c/in/[email protected]/

Your "several distances" are too short. You concluded that both lenses have wonderful bokeh, which is incorrect in many situations. They typically include shooting half-body environmental portraits, not miniature toys; and not always wide open.


----------



## millan (Apr 17, 2013)

Pi said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any problem to understand that the back ground or fore ground can be nervous , but here are the 2 lenses compared at the same distances and there are several distances.
> ...


Pi, ankorwatt says, and pictures prove that, the Sigma has not worse bokeh, than canon has, despite it has less CA and is sharper - optically better. No more, no less. And no one says the bokeh of 35 mm f1.4 lens is as nice as 70-200 f2.8 II or 135 f2 for example. But from 35 mm f1.4 lens bunch it is the best one.


----------



## Pi (Apr 17, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I do not care what others have done or not if they not have compared the 2 lenses side by side, , here you can se the 2 lenses at the side of each other and the same motive
> and stop now telling me that the distance are to short.



This is more like it. Why can't we see the whole frames?


----------



## risc32 (Apr 18, 2013)

oh my.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Apr 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > JVLphoto said:
> ...



no more sensor, now talking about lens? yes, i do know some of sigma lenses are better than canon but i prefer to use canon due to possibility of unknown unexpected/intermittent communication erroneous (proprietary interface specs and designs). however, to match these two particular images together (not the rest of them):

PULL BLACK TO THE LEFT TINY BIT PLEASE... MIGHT NEED TO ADJUST A LITTLE OF HIGHLIGHT... BUMMER

worth to risk? NO


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.



Speaking about corner resolution wide open - not that it really matters - can you find any confirmation of what we see here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=829&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It is a bad case of astigmatism: the Sigma has very poor vertical resolution and very good horizontal one. The Canon is much more uniform but it has lower contrast (which I can confirm - there is some diagonal, comma-like smearing).


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 18, 2013)

Pi said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.
> ...



I'm not seeing TDP result reflected in the pictures posted by ankowatt - again. I say again because I started a thread about inconsistencies between test results from TDP and photozone, citing the 70-300L as an example, but no one was interested. 

ankorwatt's examples show the Sigma to be far better in the extreme corners than the Canon 35L, more so than you would guess from the TDP results. However my guess is that photozone will make the difference very clear. As I stated in an earlier post I wouldn't change my 35L because of soft extreme corners at f1.4 anyway


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



The results may depend on where you focus - in the center, or in the corners. Not that I will ever focus in the corners. TDP focus only in the center.

BTW, the 35L is the best focusing lens I own or even tried; and this includes 20+ lenses. I would think twice before I let it go, when the 35LII materializes. I get consistently good results even with the outer AF points of the 5D2, which we all know are useless.


----------



## Pi (Apr 18, 2013)

I did not ask you for numbers that I can find myself on the web. I asked you if you can confirm what I see on TDP. If you do not want to do the test, fine. I did not say anything to defend either lens. You are too sensitive.

BTW, this numbers do not distinguish between horizontal and vertical resolution. My guess would be field curvature, and with proper focusing, I expect the Sigma to look better that on TDP, and much better than the Canon. Does this sound as a defense of the Canon?


----------



## infared (Apr 18, 2013)

So sad.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 21, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.



I agree so far the sigma 35 has been an outstanding lens for me
also I thinkt he sigma renders colours a little warmer which I like, maybe 200K on the lightroom slider


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 21, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > What I have found is that the bokeh is very similar, the Sigma render the back ground little bit smoother, the Sigma lens has higher sharpness/resolution and good resolution in the corners even at 1,4 where Canon 35mm is very soft.
> ...


Many times I can't tell a good picture from a not so good picture, my eyes are not so good and I am not skilled enough. Having said that I am still very happy with my 35L. I think it delivers great character in the images I capture, maybe the Sigma is better but I still wouldn't make a change as it simply doesn't makes sense. First of all since it's not a priority, I have other priorities gear-wise, secondly as I have said before, the 35L has proven itself over soon 15 years, we still don't know how the Sigma will keep up over years of hard use. But competition ie always good and I hope Sigma keeps launching new exciting lenses to push both Nikon and Canon to improve even further.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 21, 2013)

.
While I can appreciate all the technical stuff, after a while it does grow wearying. Almost like arguing that one fish hook will catch more fish because it has a sharper point and its barb is 2 millimeters longer.

Today I did two events, around 1000 pictures, almost all with the Sigma 35mm. It makes me feel almost giddy with joy. On a 5D3, it's like there's no picture beyond my reach (at least within the focal range limits). I'll bet if I had a Canon 35mm I wouldn't feel much different -- but I do love this extra money I have!


----------



## infared (Apr 21, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> While I can appreciate all the technical stuff, after a while it does grow wearying. Almost like arguing that one fish hook will catch more fish because it has a sharper point and its barb is 2 millimeters longer.
> 
> Today I did two events, around 1000 pictures, almost all with the Sigma 35mm. It makes me feel almost giddy with joy. On a 5D3, it's like there's no picture beyond my reach (at least within the focal range limits). I'll bet if I had a Canon 35mm I wouldn't feel much different -- but I do love this extra money I have!



The fishing hooks sound really exciting after that endless, pointless diatribe of meaningless minutiea! ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...



I almost bought a 35L before the sigma came out, glad i held off I bought a used 135 f2L with the savings


I dont think the 35L is bad at all I just think the sigma is better (personal opinion only)


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 21, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


I think you came out of it better than me then  with two great lenses. From all I understand the Sigma is better than the 35L, that's just how it goes. As I said, the competion will only make things better for us users. Next purchase I hope to be able to get that kind of deal you got.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



+1. Well said. I also believe that tough competition will make Canon better. We are not talking about switching a system for another, but for some a lens. Canon shooters have bought third party lenses all the time (i.e. With the understanding that people give up quality for a lower price), but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > ... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...
> ...


They will probably go bankrupt before the end of the year.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > ... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...
> ...



Another can of worms altogether  I am not knowledgeable enough to pass judgement on that matter, nor do I want to. All I know is that it is more than good enough for me as it is now. I truly do not believe that it is the "inferior" sensor from Canon that is keeping me from being great!


----------



## infared (Apr 21, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



+1 (sarcastically) 8)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 21, 2013)

With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 21, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.



+ 1


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 21, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > ... but what seems to to be hard for many is that it now seems that this particular third party lens is actually better than its original counterpart...
> ...




But you're overlooking that fact that the EOS _system_ delivers.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 21, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



Me or Dilbert?  I agree, the EOS works great, and I have no plans on switching


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 21, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



dilbert. I also find his comments on Canon ahead in offering 'bells & whistles' strange, because Canon really offer _less_ of this - IMHO - of course.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 22, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.


I hope that wasn't directed at me. On previous pages I tried contribute to the discussion. Maybe I should have added 'sarcasm' to my last note.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 22, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



Yes, and massive investment into R&D for companies that don't profit as much as Canon are a way to avoid bankruptcy. I'd be even more scared of owning a Nikon or Sony in this day and age. Sony also doesn't have the best track record for releasing products that are both successful and groundbreaking  Uhh...Betamax anyone?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 23, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > With all due respect to the direction this thread has taken (talk about getting off topic!), Canon is still the leader in both patents filed and overall profit. It is a highly rated corporation that has a legacy of success that continues into the present. Do they frustrate me at times? Sure. Do I agree with every one of their priorities? No. But I love my Canon gear and it continues to provide me with great images that pleases my clients, stock agencies, and even magazines. I highly doubt bankruptcy is in their near future.
> ...



It was more directed at the general tone the thread had taken, which was, in my opinion, getting a bit absurd.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 23, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Agree, just look at their phones and TV sets also, there is rarely anything wrong with their technology, it's just they seem to have a hard time making money from it.


----------



## QBNY (Apr 23, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...


"Ahem"...
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/canon-is-number-1-for-10-straight-years/


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 23, 2013)

QBNY said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Look my other comment. I know I forgot to label it sarcasm, but I thought it was obvious


----------



## marooni (Apr 23, 2013)

distant.star said:


> marooni said:
> 
> 
> > And I am sure that all of you know what I am talking about.
> ...



What everybody knows is that Sigma is a cheap brand and until now their lenses had problems with front/back focus, build quality, quality control, etc. I hope that Art lenses will be different, but this has to be demonstrated. 800 $ for a 35f1.4 with this performance is a great value, but you have to take into consideration the bad reputation of the Sigma brand. 
Do you think they changed the quality control over night?


----------



## marooni (Apr 23, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> marooni said:
> 
> 
> > I tested Canon 35 f1.4 (that I own) and Sigma 35 f1.4 (that I jumped to buy immediately) and Canon lens has a more pleasing bokeh and image. I made the comparison on screen and paper (1000mmx700mm printed images).
> ...



Might be because you did not own a Sigma before. 
I owned "the 50mm" from Sigma and it was so unreliable. The "internet" is screaming of the problems that Sigma lenses has.
If Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Sony charge so much for a high performance lens, how Sigma did it so cheap? Has to be something wrong inside. Something that will crack when the lens will have to hork hard.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 23, 2013)

marooni said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > marooni said:
> ...



The "internet"? Meaning, not actually the Internet, but something posing as it? an intranet that really wants to be the Internet?


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> QBNY said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...



It was obvious to me...Too many blind, humorless Canon fanboys here!!! 8)


----------



## marooni (Apr 24, 2013)

I had a very long conversation with a friend of mine who received (one week ago) as present for his birthday "all mighty" 35mm 1.4 Sigma. 
He is saying that on close subject ( 1m and closer) the lens is amazingly sharp, but if you try to focus on something further than 3m, the the focus is out of control and for him was imposible to micro-adjusted. He likes the lens so bad that he never think to retur it and in the same time is totally frustrated by focusing.



Anyone else had this problem?


----------



## macrodust (Apr 25, 2013)

marooni said:


> I had a very long conversation with a friend of mine who received (one week ago) as present for his birthday "all mighty" 35mm 1.4 Sigma.
> He is saying that on close subject ( 1m and closer) the lens is amazingly sharp, but if you try to focus on something further than 3m, the the focus is out of control and for him was imposible to micro-adjusted. He likes the lens so bad that he never think to retur it and in the same time is totally frustrated by focusing.
> 
> 
> ...




My copy was already very sharp on both close ups and longer distances when I received it, and after AF micro adjustment it got even better, with simultaneous improvement on all focus distances. Your friends copy is faulty and he should return it, which shouldn't be a problem as it's only a week old.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 25, 2013)

with that USB docking thingy from sigma it looks like we can adjust focus at 4 different focusing distances for primes. Sigma posted a video of it in action. looks very clear and powerful to me.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 25, 2013)

risc32 said:


> with that USB docking thingy from sigma it looks like we can adjust focus at 4 different focusing distances for primes. Sigma posted a video of it in action. looks very clear and powerful to me.



Link?


----------



## risc32 (Apr 26, 2013)

Sigma Optimization Pro and USB Dock Demo on Vimeo

can't get the thing to load correctly, but the link just under it seems to work.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 27, 2013)

Received mine today.... Pretty impressed with it. Great flare control. Fast focus.


----------



## Zv (Apr 27, 2013)

Watched the video demo of the USB dock. Very impressive, I wish I could AFMA all my lenses at four different points! How awesome would that be?


----------



## GuyF (Apr 28, 2013)

risc32 said:


> with that USB docking thingy from sigma it looks like we can adjust focus at 4 different focusing distances for primes. Sigma posted a video of it in action. looks very clear and powerful to me.



I'm very pleased with my Sigma 85mm 1.4 and will probably get the new 35mm at some point however I do wonder if Sigma have produced the docking gizmo to get around the fact their quality control appears to be, um, _lacking_ if you read/believe the various posts on the net. Instead of having customers returning new lenses for exchange or service centre tweaking, the customer can do it themselves by correcting for four different focus points via their gizmo.

Sounds like Sigma might be putting the solution to their own problem into the hands of the customer and this may fool some customers into thinking that Sigma are being "customer focussed" (no pun intended). Maybe Sigma should sort out quality issues at source rather than after the purchase has been made?

Just a thought.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 28, 2013)

it could be, but i've gone down the road of sending things to sigma for calibration, and i wouldn't do it again. I'll take this USB dock any day over that. also it looks like they will be able to tweak the firmware with this dock as well as AF, so i think the days of rechipping your lenses are behind us. Besides, i've had to send lenses to Canon for adjustments as well, so while i think sigma's QC might be problematic, canon's isn't perfect either.


----------



## victorwol (Apr 28, 2013)

The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 28, 2013)

victorwol said:


> The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?



That is my concern. It seems like a lot of trial and error, and shooting charts many, many times. Fine if it is the only lens in your kit, but seems like a pretty huge investment of time. And what if, like many of us, you shoot multiple bodies? I like the concept of the finite focus control; I'm less crazy about the time investment. Doing AFMA on a few bodies is already a fair investment of time (I do it manually). 

One plus, however, is that unlike the slow, multi-step task of making each change in the body, the software at least allows for quick adjustments. It would be great if the hub came with a FoCal type software that could automate part of the process.


----------



## GuyF (Apr 28, 2013)

victorwol said:


> The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?



Ask yourself this, "if I have to adjust my new lens up to four times over its range to ensure sharp focus, do I feel I've wasted my money?".


----------



## Zv (Apr 29, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> victorwol said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of adjusting in several places sound very interesting. But with the software not controlling the lens while adjusting, not even being in the camera, how do one know how much need to be adjusted without making 200 tries?? What means -1 or +3 ??? How much distance is that? How you know what number to put in there?
> ...



Having just used Focal for the first time the other day I agree with that. I would love to have four adjustment points on my Canon zoom lenses. At least Sigma users now have that chance! All you need is the data from Focal and you're set!


----------



## Kengur (May 3, 2013)

I tested Sigma and Canon side by side. In the end I chose Canon. First sharpness is not everything, and overall pics from Canon just seem a little bit more pleasing. Second Sigma AF is a bit less responsive, and it misses more in dim light (which is the biggest factor). And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch


----------



## Viggo (May 6, 2013)

I had a chance to finally try the Sigma out and it looked cool, it felt heavy and big for a 35 f1.4. Loved the focusing ring, very good color and contrast. I used LV to focus, since it wasn't afma'd, and I wouldn't trade my 35 L for it because of sharpness, others will. But all of that wasn't really important. I wanted to see if the AF is indeed "same as the 35 L" as I've seen claimed, I have always doubted that, because the 35 L is fantastic. And I was right, the AF of the Sigma feels like the 35 L in slow-motion.. VERY slow... I'm not sure if people who have tested the Sigma vs 35 L have used a 5d, and the 1d X spins the 35 L faster because of the higher battery voltage, but it's not even in the same leauge as the 35 L. 

So I'll take my small light, VERY sharp, superfast AF 35 L a million times over.


----------



## risc32 (May 7, 2013)

Kengur said:


> And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch



While i took the family to a circus yesterday i accidentally gave the sigma a good whack on the aluminum bleachers. It was a pretty forceful blow and i feared some damage. i actually muttered a foul word while in the company of lots of kids. not a scratch. fingers crossed, let's not do that again....


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 7, 2013)

Kengur said:


> First sharpness is not everything



Blasphemy!


----------



## jhanken (May 7, 2013)

> And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch



IMHO, because Sigma has been at the lens game for a while, the proto-Batman analogy is clever but not really appropriate in this case. I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 7, 2013)

jhanken said:


> > And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, because Sigma has been at the lens game for a while, the proto-Batman analogy is clever but not really appropriate in this case. I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.



+ 1


----------



## Kengur (May 7, 2013)

jhanken said:


> I left the 35mm out on my desk for a week, just to stare at it. I believe it is a thing a beauty.



35L is so ugly I take it outside and shoot it


----------



## CanNotYet (May 8, 2013)

Ankorwatt: I might be missing something here, but I get the impression that your comparison pictures are made with a 35L on a Canon body, and the Sigma on a Nikon body. Is that correct? 

If that is the case, then I think your comparison lacks something, color rendition etc might be affected by other things than the lens... 

That said, I would get the Sigma if I would choose between them. I would do that even if it was 90% as good as the Canon, as I am one of the price sensitive ones...

But now if it is 105% of what the 35L is (better sharpness, worse AF etc.), then the choice gets even easier.

I also rarely take pictures at 35mm that requires blistering fast AF, I am usually at 70 at above when that occurs. (although I see the point with kids at home)


----------



## JVLphoto (May 8, 2013)

I dunno guys, I've been using this lens for a few months now and it's hasn't fallen apart at the seams. Still getting cracking good images, I *may* have dropped it, and I still think it's the technical better of the two... just saying.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 9, 2013)

CanNotYet said:


> That said, I would get the Sigma if I would choose between them. I would do that even if it was 90% as good as the Canon, as I am one of the price sensitive ones...



put it this way i got a brand new sigma 35 f1.4 and a 2 year old used canon 135 f2L for what a canon 35L would have cost me
I think the IQ out of the sigma beats the 35L although i have only tested and not owned the 35L
still thats not saying the 35L is not a great lens i almost pulled the trigger and bought one the day sigma anounced the 35!


----------



## garyknrd (Jun 14, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Kengur said:
> 
> 
> > First sharpness is not everything
> ...



LOL


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 8, 2013)

Mine will be here Thursday!


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Jul 24, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> Kengur said:
> 
> 
> > I tested Sigma and Canon side by side. In the end I chose Canon. First sharpness is not everything, and overall pics from Canon just seem a little bit more pleasing. Second Sigma AF is a bit less responsive, and it misses more in dim light (which is the biggest factor). And last (but not least) new Sigma just doesn't feel right. It's like Batman first batch of helmets - looks kewl, black and shiny, but when you smack it, it cracks open. By which I mean the plastic feels cheap to touch
> ...



Why does an opinion on a lens (or of the images that it is capable of producing) need to be scientific? Numbers are not everything. I am currently tackling the issue of which lens to get at the 30 or 35mm focal length. Whilst the Sigma is undeniably sharp, after spending alot of time comparing images from the two I find that I like the character of images produced by the Canon more. Unscientific perhaps, but I am neither a scientist nor a robot.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 24, 2013)

omg this things doesn't come off my camera!…..except to put on the 135L


----------



## distant.star (Jul 24, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> omg this things doesn't come off my camera!…..except to put on the 135L



That's just about where I am. I'll go to the 17-40 if I need it for an UWA, but the 35 goes right back on. My 24-105 is feeling VERY neglected these days.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 24, 2013)

distant.star said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > omg this things doesn't come off my camera!…..except to put on the 135L
> ...



Sold my 24-105 last week to a friend, she is very happy and I don't miss it. I did get a Tamron 24-70 Di VC however and it blows away both the 24-105 and the 1st gen EF 24-70.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4



So you think there is no difference between the images produced by these two lenses, even though most people are reporting the Sigma is sharper than the Canon?


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 25, 2013)

siggy and canon 35's-Very different bokeh and saturation of certain colors, I can tell.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 25, 2013)

The main difference between the two can not be seen in pictures. The AF-speed, where the 35 L is superior.

Although I always loved my 35 L I can clearly see, after using the 2470 II for a while, the color and contrast isn't all that awesome on the 35 anymore. I just sold my 35 L today, and no, I will not replace it with a siggy, I have something else in mind. 8)

Anyone know why the Siggy isn't weather-sealed? A disposable camera for 10 bucks is sealed to ten meters, seems strange a lens with no extending parts can't be sealed to handle some heavy rain without braking the bank.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 25, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4



Around here the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L costs 5,900 NIS, and the Sigma costs 3,600 NIS. so I could save ~40% and get the same image quality? Sweet...

Some will need the weather sealing, but others could use the different to buy another lens, say an EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.


----------



## j0epayne (Aug 26, 2013)

Thanks for a great review. Looking to add this to my arsenal!

http://www.joesphoto.com


----------



## drjlo (Sep 13, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I just sold my 35 L today, and no, I will not replace it with a siggy, I have something else in mind. 8)



Pray tell. Zeiss 35 f/1.4 Distagon perhaps?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 13, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> ankorwatt said:
> 
> 
> > well , let us then make a double blind test and you tell me which pictures comes from Canon 35/1,4
> ...



The siggi and Canon 35 f1.4 are not the same and never will be. They have different renderings and bokeh. Colour and contrast are different too...as is flare control and AF competency. Get a Siggi 35mm on it's own merits, but don't kid your self it's a 35L clone, it's not. There is a beauty in the 35L which only comes out in the pictures it produces. Most skilled photographers who regularly use one fall in love with this lens for that very reason.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Sep 14, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > ankorwatt said:
> ...


I am not very skilled but I still love my 35L. There's something about it.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2014)

9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> 9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.



Honestly i havent used it at all since i got the 50... oh wait i havent taken the 50 off my 5dmk3 since i got it
oh except to attach to the sigma dock for calibration 

its still a stunningly great lens but I'm just loving the 50 so much at the moment. I will get around to using the 35 again though. I did find the 35 a really nice 56mm equivalent on my EOS-M though too


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 30, 2014)

AlanF said:


> 9 months further on, are people still happy with the Sigma 35mm? I am thinking of buying one.



Very happy with it and have experienced no problems with the lens.


----------



## ScottyP (Jun 30, 2014)

My 35 lives on the camera. It is insanely sharp, and the focus nails it every time. I had been waiting for the 50 to come out, but I bought the 35 on sale at Christmas. I am glad I waited. It is a perfect length for general shooting, and I can always crop when I need to zoom.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 14, 2014)

The 35mm A arrived today. It required only +4 AFMA on the 5DIII and -2 on the 70D, by FoCal. The consistency of focus on both is 99.2%, which is better than any of my other lenses. It has a nice balance on the camera, has a an exactly fitting bayonet mount, and feels very well made. The first shots are very sharp. Downloaded the DxO module and it removed the vignetting at f/1.4 nicely. So far so good.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2014)

The Sigma 35 is indeed very sharp. However, I tested it carefully against my old Canon 24-105 L at 35mm, using an iso 12233 chart. The 24-105 is sharper (at f/4 on both)! This is the second time the old workhorse has outshone the new pretenders (last time a Tamron 24-70 VC). 

The Sigma 35 A is reported by Photozone and lenstip as having significantly superior MTFs to the 24-105. Either I have been unlucky with the Sigma and Tamron and getting poor copies or I have been very lucky and have a 24-105 which is an outlier in the right direction.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 18, 2014)

I got mine at launch or nearly so, and i haven't had any issues at all. it performs like it did when new.
that must be one super 24-105mm you have there. i had one and we got along okay for a while, but it was replaced with by the sigma. when i got the sigma i did some rough test shots to compare them, and the 24-105 just had to go.


----------



## vscd (Aug 18, 2014)

The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one 

If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.

Just a link, not a picture (it's not that important, but anyway): http://tf.weimarnetz.de/downloads/35mm_compared.png

pictures (c) by photozone, just taken for comparision


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

vscd said:


> The Sigma is one hell of a lense but get's partly beaten by the Samyang 35mm 1.4, especially in the corners. It's sometimes interesting to see how other good competitors are getting less known if someone hypes the new one
> 
> If you're willing to pay some attention on the pictures and you're not afraid of manual focus (but therefor with a fantastic focus-ring), you can get the samyang for a fraction of the price.
> 
> ...



If you have a great photo, you are not really going to "see." A difference between the Sam Yang and the Sigma. Me..I will take my Sigma and the AF every time. It a way more capable lens for more types of photography.


----------



## redsunmiata (Jun 10, 2015)

Okay

First off, I'm a new member and I don't see any buttons to start a new thread so I'll post my question in this thread.

I recently bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4. It's been great so far but i had a question about sharpness. I've been pixel peeping too much and have become obsessed with making sure my "copy" is good. Reading some negativity on the lens online made me paranoid. I just need a second opinion on whether my images are as sharp as this lens should produce. Focusing up close, the lens seems to be super sharp. When I have a further subject, it loses some detail, but im assuming this is because of resolution and megapixels? Other than sharpness, the lens isn't too great at focusing. When auto focusing at the wall right in the center from pretty close, it would miss over half the time. But it seemed to miss in the same way. Perhaps getting it calibrated at a shop will help? 

Here are the images. They were shot on a 60D

They are all shot at f1.4 except for the last which is 2.8.


















What do you guys think. I feel like other people are getting sharper images from further subjects. Thanks!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 10, 2015)

AlanF said:


> The Sigma 35 is indeed very sharp. However, I tested it carefully against my old Canon 24-105 L at 35mm, using an iso 12233 chart. The 24-105 is sharper (at f/4 on both)! This is the second time the old workhorse has outshone the new pretenders (last time a Tamron 24-70 VC).
> 
> The Sigma 35 A is reported by Photozone and lenstip as having significantly superior MTFs to the 24-105. Either I have been unlucky with the Sigma and Tamron and getting poor copies or I have been very lucky and have a 24-105 which is an outlier in the right direction.



Photozone miss out the sweet spot of the 24-105L; they test at 24 and 40. I too find the 24-105L to be really excellent between about 30 - 35mm, from f4 to under f8. In fact that lens is unfairly maligned often as not. Switch the IS off, put it on a good tripod, ignore 24 mil and it's a fine GP lens, even for landscape.


----------

