Previous news story    Next news story

Roger Cicala cock-a-hoop* over Sigma's 35mm F1.4 DG HSM

By Richard Butler on Nov 21, 2012 at 21:33 GMT
Buy on GearShopFrom $899.00

Lensrentals' Roger Cicala hasn't always been a fan of Sigma's lenses but the company's latest 35mm F1.4 DG HSM seems to have got him pretty excited. He's written a very positive first impressions blog post, considering the build and test data from the first sample he's received. As usual, he's very careful to stress the limitations of what he's reporting - specifically that these are early impressions, based on a single lens that he's had little chance to actually take photos with. However, he's also someone with immense experience with lenses, and is in the unusual position of having had the opportunity to strip the lens down, so we found his insight interesting.

We're expecting a Sigma 35mm F1.4 in the very near future and will be publishing sample images and a review as soon as we can.

*'Cock-a-hoop' is a British saying that the Oxford English Dictionary defines as: 'extremely and obviously pleased, especially about an achievement.'

503
I own it
211
I want it
21
I had it
Discuss in the forums

Comments

Total comments: 92
Cagey75
By Cagey75 (Dec 12, 2012)

The Nikon 28mm 1.8G doesn't fare all that great in reviews in general. This sigma will be much sharper, better built and also it's 1.4 ... obviously.

0 upvotes
KevlarKevin
By KevlarKevin (Dec 3, 2012)

i hope sigma would release new 24-70 2.8 in future with their new global vision concept design & quality. and sigma has done something really brilliant.

0 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (Nov 25, 2012)

Looks pretty interesting for Canon users. For Nikon users, why not the 28mm f/1.8G instead?

1 upvote
Leichhardt
By Leichhardt (Nov 27, 2012)

7 millimetres

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
3 upvotes
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Nov 27, 2012)

I would also recommend 28/1.8G, just get it and if you still think you need 35/1.4 get it, too at a lower price later (there will be no other 35/1.4 until we see 35/1.4L2 maybe next year).

28/1.8G is also recommended for Canon users, with a D800 of course.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Poss
By Poss (Nov 24, 2012)

Looks mighty tasty... it will go well with my 85mm f/1.4 Sigma (another cracking lens)

1 upvote
praktinafan
By praktinafan (Nov 23, 2012)

I will buy it, had the chance to play and shoot with the lens today. Impressive results.

2 upvotes
jadot
By jadot (Nov 23, 2012)

Well, i love the styling of this lens. It would be good to know if this is an indication of where Sigma are headed in this regard - I'd like to see a new 85mm 1.4 (with IS/VR or whatever Sigma call it). I'd buy it.

1 upvote
Leichhardt
By Leichhardt (Nov 23, 2012)

Available to rent today!
some samples-
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2012/first-look-sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-hands-on/

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Gary Dean Mercer Clark
By Gary Dean Mercer Clark (Nov 23, 2012)

Sigma is serious about improving its quality control and producing the worlds highest quality lenses. The lens on the DP2M is the sharpest lens I
I've ever used---it is amazing. The new 35mm f1.4 lens is the end result of Sigmas intense effort to produce lenses that truly showcase what the foveon sensor can resolve in addition to providing lenses worthy of the 24 and up megapixel cameras. Today and tommorow's super sensors need the best glass and Sigma is raising the bar for the rest of the industry. I want this lens.

2 upvotes
nicolaiecostel
By nicolaiecostel (Nov 22, 2012)

Well, it''s not really going to be as good as the nikkor, nor as good as the canon. i tested them both and they are really good. I also tested the 85 1.4 AFs nikon and it's stunning, a bit better than my sigma 85 1.4. The canons are also very good, with some CA wide open though. This sigma will be nicely sharp at 1.4, with minimal CA and spherical aberration, decent color rendition. The nikkor will render color better, will have better contrast wide open, will have less CA and you will probably never have to worry about calibration on it. At twice the price. The choice is really up to the user, and since I cannot afford or justify the nikkor, and my 35 f/2 is limiting me somewhat, this 35 sigma seems like a logical choice.

0 upvotes
kuri
By kuri (Nov 23, 2012)

you mean you tested the sigma 35 1.4 yourself against the canon and nikons?

0 upvotes
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 23, 2012)

>The nikkor will render color better, will have better contrast wide open, will have less CA

What?

2 upvotes
Sean65
By Sean65 (Nov 23, 2012)

It's posts like yours that make this forum such a weird place. People with strong emphatically delivered opinions based on no knowledge or experience. How on earth would you know that the lens would not be as good as a Canon or Nikon. If you can't get what you want from the 35mm f2 you're unlikely to get much more from the 1.4 sigma. Unless of course if you intend taking every shot at 1.4 (which generally isn't the point of wide lenses).

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
12 upvotes
technotic
By technotic (Nov 23, 2012)

I agree with you @Sean65 except for your last point. If you buy a fast lens then you generally bought it to use it wide open surely. You don't buy the 50 F1.2 to use it at F2 most if the time - that would be a complete waste.

2 upvotes
wakaba
By wakaba (Nov 24, 2012)

technotic:

a 1.2 lense stopped down 2 is extremely sharp out to the corner.
A 1.2 has a lot more headroom than a 2.8...Bigger is always better.

1 upvote
57even
By 57even (Nov 22, 2012)

Long overdue (by which I mean it's about time third parties filled in the yawning gap in the market for premium lenses at more competitive prices).

This is exactly the kind of lens I am looking for, be interested to see what else comes up in this range.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
rhlpetrus
By rhlpetrus (Nov 22, 2012)

I have had one Sigma, the 17-50mm f/2.8 OS Nikon version. It's very good overall, some CA though. The only problem is the AF finetuning that requried the limits of the D7k, while my 5 Nikkors required zero. Sigmas also tend to show wide sample variation, let's wait to see wht he finds when he tests other copies.

0 upvotes
Pentax_Prime
By Pentax_Prime (Nov 22, 2012)

Is this jolly old England? Cock-a-hoop? Cmon ...

2 upvotes
Leichhardt
By Leichhardt (Nov 23, 2012)

I'm guessing you are in America.

7 upvotes
Osiris30
By Osiris30 (Nov 23, 2012)

Nothing wrong with some trans order culture folks... it's what makes the world fun and worth seeing

2 upvotes
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (Nov 23, 2012)

Their is the basketball photo in the article..... and don't forget this site was originally English.

0 upvotes
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Nov 22, 2012)

Where does all the first party fanboyism come from? Is it a natural social trend or are there people out there pushing that reasoning? I know its existed before the internet.

0 upvotes
audijam
By audijam (Nov 22, 2012)

again...today's sigma isn't the same we used to know comes in a green nylon bag with much lower price tag : )

HOWEVER....please stick to an uniform design for the lens~ they all seem from different mothers and different fathers now lol

my next sigma is going to be 180 f2.8 macro actually

0 upvotes
photoholiko
By photoholiko (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm not in the market for this lens but I'm glad to hear the positive comments about Sigma, I have four Sigma lenses and haven't had any issues with any of them.

Comment edited 37 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
five5pho
By five5pho (Nov 22, 2012)

can't wait for the 24mm 1.4 version....
already have the 35 canon :)

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Nov 22, 2012)

"Cock-a-hoop" means something of pleasure, I totally get it!

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

and you get 3 years warranty instead of 1 year.

thought i wish they would give as long warranty as tamron (5 years).

you have to wonder why nikon and canon don´t trust their lenses as much as tamron...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Nov 22, 2012)

Now I wonder if the kudos are a hint of what to expect with the 17-70mm?

0 upvotes
HarrieD7000
By HarrieD7000 (Nov 22, 2012)

Ashmills, thanks for your addition. Im still learning. But if I was in the market for a 35 mm lens, I sure would consider this one to buy. I'm impressed by what I can read here and the price Sigma wants for this full frame lens.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
JonB1975
By JonB1975 (Nov 22, 2012)

I'll be getting one soon then....

And here I was thinking I'd never buy another Sigma lens! The only one I don't worry about the focusing on is my fisheye...

I love my 28mm f1.8 too - but it has sticky aperture blades...

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 22, 2012)

Pffff, if this lens was for a mirroless system it would it in my pocket.

Note: this is a passive-aggressive humorous response to some of the comments that have been repeatedly made in most, if not all, mirrorless system lenses announcements on this site.

It is not meant to be taken as an offence, and I apologise beforehand if someone finds this inappropriate. If so, just ignore it.

2 upvotes
Nukunukoo
By Nukunukoo (Nov 22, 2012)

I find that inappropriate, insulting, and extremely and irrationally offensive!

4 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 22, 2012)

I don't think anyone could have said it with more hyperbole than you. Well done.

1 upvote
audijam
By audijam (Nov 22, 2012)

as usual, your comment is a reflection of lack of knowledge in photography.

0 upvotes
thewhitehawk
By thewhitehawk (Nov 22, 2012)

The double standards of the DPreview community are amazing.

It's perfectly fine for anyone to go to a mirrorless lens announcement and criticise it for its price and how it will perform on a camera with a smaller sensor when compared to an "equivalent" lens on a larger sensor, but if someone comments on the portability, or lack of, of a lens made for a larger-sensor camera, even in a joking manner, it is "inappropriate, insulting, and extremely and irrationally offensive!".

Well, lesson learned, I'll stay clear and far from these fanatics.

3 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Nov 22, 2012)

You'd better do indeed. And they didn't even start with their "equivalent aperture" crazy BS theories...

1 upvote
DuxX
By DuxX (Nov 22, 2012)

Mr. Cicala, sharpness and weight are not the only criteria for the evaluation of a lens. What about bokeh rendition? As far as I can see this Sigma isn't even close to Nikkor or Canon equivalents.

But without doubt. This is one great lens from Sigma and very good offer.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
VideoSam
By VideoSam (Nov 22, 2012)

Sharpness and weight may not be the only criteria for evaluating lenses, though they are definitely more objective than the more subjective nature of bokeh rendition. Generally good to test things that can be quantified first before making subjective evaluations.

11 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

well you should stop photographing then if you don´t see it.... the bokeh is absolutely fine. and why not... it´s a 9 blade design.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Donald Duck
By Donald Duck (Nov 23, 2012)

The number of blades does not affect the bokeh wide open, and is not a primary factor of its quality even when stopped down. It has more to do with the lens design and optimization. The lenses with the best bokeh are the ones which are not the sharpest. The sigma seems to go in exactly the opposite direction.

5 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 22, 2012)

It seems like that it's possible to make good lenses for a reasonable price. Are you listening Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica!!!!?. I hope someone will do the same with cameras too, especially with the FF ones.

2 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Nov 22, 2012)

It has been possible to build good lenses for reasonable money for very, very long time now. Reason why "big 4" wont lower their prices is spelled stupidity of their customers. There are so many morons out there that blindly pay whatever Canon, Nikon, Zeiss wants. They don't ask why it cost 3 times more, morons just give their money away. Big four knows that hence their prices.
Leica people are beyond help, I personally think that most of them should be institutionalised.

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

well maybe money is no concern for us leica users... you are poor as it seems so that is maybe the problem.

may wife has a 3000 euro handbag.... so why should i skimp on my lenses or cameras?

that sure does not mean i pay more then i have too.... im looking for a bargain too,

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Red G8R
By Red G8R (Nov 22, 2012)

It's no different from other men's toys.The more expensive, the more exclusive and that's what they want. Nothing wrong with that.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
3 upvotes
oselimg
By oselimg (Nov 22, 2012)

Let's get things in perspective though. Canon and Nikon used to produce good lenses for a reasonable price too and some of their lenses are still in that category. It's just recently they've gone in to craze of charging 3X more for lenses with upgrades eg;inclusion of IS or newer versions of the same spec lenses. For example with the announcement of the new 24mm and 28mm with IS are 3X more expensive than the older but as good models. What is totally unacceptable and arrogant is that they stopped producing the non IS versions. It looks like pure greed. Unless they have a valid explanation.

0 upvotes
carlosdelbianco
By carlosdelbianco (Nov 25, 2012)

I believe Zeiss has good deals, at least on ZM lenses... Nikon primes too.

1 upvote
HarrieD7000
By HarrieD7000 (Nov 22, 2012)

Undergrounddigga, Just put your 17 mm f 1.8 on a full frame camera and compair the result. It still will be a 17 mm, with only f 3 or less, and a small image circle. Equivalent, only says you get the same composition, not the same picture. But I think you would not see the diference?

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Nov 22, 2012)

Harrie you are partially wrong- assuming the mirror wasn't in the way the image will indeed be same framing as a 17mm on a full frame, with severe vignetting (not a given with all lenses) and a 1.8 not f3 aperture. You cant take the equivalent thing and turn it around.

The framing in a 4/3 camera will be equivalent to 34mm on full frame, and the aperture and there for exposure will be 1.8, but the apparent depth of field will be f3 or so as you say and the noise in that image (due to less area of light captured) will be that much more, assuming same pixel pitch.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
jim stirling
By jim stirling (Nov 22, 2012)

@ ashmills , did you think about what you wrote " severe vignetting "not a given with all lenses" the 17mm F1.8 is designed for a sensor almost a quarter the size of FF.

The aperture for exposure is all but irrelevant if comparing across formats or we would be using the Panasonic FZ200 with its f2.8 600mm equivalent, F2.8 is F2.8 right lol . And the DOF equivalent of F1.8 on FF is of course F3.6 .

0 upvotes
AshMills
By AshMills (Nov 22, 2012)

Yes I did consider what I wrote, and a 300mm 4/3 for instance would very likely cover the whole FF sensor- (again, ignoring the short flange depth)

Sorry but you cant say aperture is irrelvant! The aperture being a constant actually gives 4/3 an advantage in decent light, if you dont always want the shallowest DoF or least noise.

Obviously the issue is ignoring the actual focal length- the panasonic you mentiion has a 108mm lens at full reach, so yes the shot appears like a 600mm only because the chip crops to that size. But it does crop, and if the lens is decent and the chip works well you can have 600mm reach, 12mp of pixels, and 2.8 exposure. Which plenty of people might like quite a lot,

Not many of those people would appreciate the DoF of a Full Frame 600mm 2.8 - I know Id find that tricky...

1 upvote
gl2k
By gl2k (Nov 22, 2012)

This guy is one of the very few I take for serious. Why ? Because he doesn't test a carefully hand selected copy but takes a whole bunch of lenses and then looks what's going on. He also gets constant feedback by his customers and the companies service center over a large number of devices.

Thank you depreview for sharing his opinion at your website.

9 upvotes
Steve Balcombe
By Steve Balcombe (Nov 22, 2012)

Equally importantly, if people don't like the test results for a particular lens because it doesn't fit their agenda, they can't exclaim "bad copy" and dismiss them.

3 upvotes
jim stirling
By jim stirling (Nov 22, 2012)

@ gl2k totally agree , the fact that he mentions testing 100 Canon 35mm lenses says it all

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Nov 28, 2012)

numbers speak for themselves.
the average, best, worst, and distribution are all important.
of course the test of a single copy is better than no test.

0 upvotes
undergrounddigga
By undergrounddigga (Nov 22, 2012)

$899
and how many people were crying over the $499 Oly is charging for its M.Zuiko 17mm (34mm equivalent) f1.8?

not saying this doesn't worth it, only saying that crybabies are pathetic. The single problem is that the Oly M Zuiko 17mm f1.8 wasn't released for APS-C, FF or NEX. Nobody would be complaining if they would have, especially at $499!! :)

as for Sigma, keep up the good work. great to see good products released by them.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (Nov 22, 2012)

Right, the 17mm F/1.8 with a 9.4mm aperture covering a 225mm^2 sensor area compared to a 35mm F/1.4 with a 25mm aperture covering a 860mm^2 sensor area. By that logic, the Lumix LX7 is the bargain of the year, featuring a F/1.4-2.7 zoom *and* a camera for only 449$! Or maybe you're missing the fact that the smaller the sensor, the cheaper the lens, ceteris paribus.

Comment edited 32 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
brunobarolo
By brunobarolo (Nov 22, 2012)

Nobody would complain if Olympus made a 34mm f1.8 FX lens for $499. But they haven't.

That lens is 34mm equivalent, but it's not f1.8 equivalent, it's f3.6 equivalent. And it seems to be quite good, but not great. That's why people complained.

FWIW, there must be at least 10 times the amount of glass inside that 35mm f1.4 Sigma, as compared to the Oly 17mm f1.8. So $899 actually seems to be a very good price in comparison.

Now I'm just waiting that Sigma starts making lenses like this one for my OMD :)

4 upvotes
guvenilter
By guvenilter (Nov 22, 2012)

One thing is, the f/3.6 equivalence is in terms of depth of field only, not the brightness. The f-stop is defined as the ratio of focal length to aperture, and it doesn't change when the sensor size changes. What DOES change is angle of view due to the sensor size (and lens-flange distance to be accurate), the depth of field, based on the focal length. The amount of light that is passed through by the lens is not a function of the sensor size, but the aperture size.

Under the same lighting conditions, a full frame camera set at A with a 35 f/1.8 lens at ISO 200 and f 1.8 will show the same, or very close, shutter speed as a m43 camera set at A, at ISO 200 and a 17 f/1.8 lens at f 1.8, using their internal metering systems. Light meters do not have any sensor size variables, just aperture, ISO and shutter speeds.

Maybe we all need another f/64 movement to get this misconception out of the system...

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

undergrunddogga = no clue at all

0 upvotes
brunobarolo
By brunobarolo (Nov 22, 2012)

The point with equivalence is that you can use ISO values 4 times higher with FX, as compared to 4/3, and still get the same image quality.

Using same generation sensors, a m4/3 image with a 17mm lens, exposed at f4, 1/100sec, at ISO 400 will give you very similar results to an FX image with a 34mm lens, exposed at f8, 1/100sec, at ISO 1600.

Similar not only regarding DOF, but also regarding noise and other parameters.

2 upvotes
Photomonkey
By Photomonkey (Nov 22, 2012)

The comments usually devolve to a whine festival about price and relative aperture if they aren't complaining about samples that look like their own photography.

1 upvote
Dave Oddie
By Dave Oddie (Nov 23, 2012)

@brunobarolo writes:

"The point with equivalence is that you can use ISO values 4 times higher with FX, as compared to 4/3, and still get the same image quality.

Using same generation sensors, a m4/3 image with a 17mm lens, exposed at f4, 1/100sec, at ISO 400 will give you very similar results to an FX image with a 34mm lens, exposed at f8, 1/100sec, at ISO 1600.

Similar not only regarding DOF, but also regarding noise and other parameters."

All you are saying here is smaller sensors are noisier than larger ones. We all know that is generally true but it has nothing to do with lenses and so saying a fast M4/3 lens is equivalent to a much slower lens on FF is not helpful.

Both will allow you to set the same shutter/aperture combo for a given ISO and that is all that matters in a practical sense. You like the FF output better due to less noise? OK but that is a function of the sensors not the lens.

4 upvotes
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Nov 22, 2012)

Looks good. Once upon a time I sold all my Sigma lenses because...well, you know why. Hope the results will be replicated on a larger scale and many of the "copies" will be at the same level. And now, tadaaaa: let's bet - Canon will introduce a new 35 mm ("the sharpest ever made"...) f/1.4 at... 2500 USD/EUR (optimistic scenario). Cheers! :)

6 upvotes
Nishi Drew
By Nishi Drew (Nov 22, 2012)

Well gosh, do lenses need to be any sharper? Sure they could be better at F/1.4 but come on, it's so shallow it feels sharp anyways (and one really shouldn't be shooting absoluetely everything at 1.4). There's more to a lens with different qualities than just sharpness too, and of course Canon will improve on all aspects if/when a #2 comes out, but same sepculation, it'll be expensive.

0 upvotes
Illumina
By Illumina (Nov 22, 2012)

I want one :D

1 upvote
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Nov 22, 2012)

The shots I've seen look it's got great resolution and quality of bokeh. However, I'm concerned about the LoCA. Can't wait to get my paws on one and find out what's what!

1 upvote
Pat Cullinan Jr
By Pat Cullinan Jr (Nov 22, 2012)

A treatment of LoCA (Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration) as well as LaCA (Lateral Chromatic Aberration) can be seen at http://photographylife.com/what-is-chromatic-aberration

0 upvotes
micahmedia
By micahmedia (Jan 15, 2013)

Huh? I know what both are. I'm just concerned about the performance of this new lens in both of those areas.

0 upvotes
Kevylloyd
By Kevylloyd (Nov 22, 2012)

Contrast, flare and vignetting amongst other aspects still to be considered, but I doubt they are "bad", and the price is certainly good.

0 upvotes
Red G8R
By Red G8R (Nov 22, 2012)

First non Nikon lens for me.

2 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Nov 22, 2012)

Well it's either your second lens or you are easily parted from your money :)

3 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

learn to read ryan....

2 upvotes
Retzius
By Retzius (Nov 22, 2012)

cock-a-hoop?

1 upvote
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Nov 22, 2012)

If only someone would provide an explanation.

4 upvotes
Ron Poelman
By Ron Poelman (Nov 22, 2012)

By Henry M. Hertz (56 min ago)
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cock-a-hoop.html

Zactly,
what's it say about early adopter's remorse ?

0 upvotes
justinwonnacott
By justinwonnacott (Nov 22, 2012)

filthy good!

0 upvotes
brunobarolo
By brunobarolo (Nov 21, 2012)

These impressions make me look forward to the new 120-300 zoom. Maybe Sigma are really delivering now.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Nov 22, 2012)

Sigma's been delivering for awhile now. I have a 105 2.8 EX macro from maybe 10 years ago vintage and it's a superb lens with a rock solid all metal barrel. I think third party lenses get stigmatized unfairly.

This new 35 1.4 looks impressive for sure.

2 upvotes
Kirigoi
By Kirigoi (Nov 22, 2012)

Sigmatised?

8 upvotes
motobloat
By motobloat (Nov 21, 2012)

There are also some good samples just published today:

http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2012/first-look-sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-hands-on/

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 21, 2012)

i would pre-order..... but the price is 999 euro here.

so i buy one when i fly over to canada next month.

1 upvote
solarsky
By solarsky (Nov 21, 2012)

And how much is 999€ going to be in Canada - next month?

1 upvote
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

it is close to what you pay in the USA... so around 710-750 euro.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
atamola
By atamola (Nov 22, 2012)

If it goes for about$700 in the US then the Samyang in my bag has its days numbered.

0 upvotes
Henry M. Hertz
By Henry M. Hertz (Nov 22, 2012)

it is closer to 900 dollar in the USA 0,77 euro = 1 dollar

0 upvotes
LKJ
By LKJ (Nov 21, 2012)

I wish you hadn't explained "cock-a-hoop", it would have made the comments section a lot more interesting.

7 upvotes
abortabort
By abortabort (Nov 22, 2012)

Nobody seems to read the full article before commenting on DPR (or any news and reviews site for that matter) anyway!

2 upvotes
kaxi85
By kaxi85 (Nov 21, 2012)

after this "preview" and some pics from a japanese site - pre-ordered :D

1 upvote
Lift Off
By Lift Off (Nov 21, 2012)

Once again, Sigma ftw!

2 upvotes
InTheMist
By InTheMist (Nov 21, 2012)

I'm not one to say this usually, but...go Sigma. I've preordered.

4 upvotes
Gothmoth
By Gothmoth (Nov 21, 2012)

better then canons or nikons 35mm..... well done sigma.

10 upvotes
Total comments: 92