Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review

A longer lens on FF is enlarging the subject, which is unfair against the smaller formats.

Dec 25, 2012permalink

Isnt it very simple? Compare all the cameras by using the same FLs, or if not possible, change the distance. Then subjects will have the same size on the sensor. No more discussions about speed blablabla.

Dec 25, 2012permalink

Redbeeerd

Great review!!! And now: will they make it for the e-mount?

Dec 24, 2012permalink

photog4u

Great review! Thanks!

Dear Santa:

I would like an RX1 Review for Christmas from DPReview please.

Thank you!

Dec 24, 2012*permalink

Scorpius1

And just to really get the party going Canon will release the 35L mk2 in the new year... which will be fully weather sealed.. although way pricier than the sigma..

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Vibrio

which is only useful if your camera is fully weather sealed or if you actually want to photograph in the rain. weathersealing is not a deal breaker for most people.

the cost of a mk2 35 L will be off putting. will probably be double the cost of the sigma with canons current price structure

Dec 25, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

Dpreview why do you post jpgs for samples for reviews of lenses?!

It's bad enough for camera reviews but for lens reviews too?!

And how about standardizing some shots that will help the reader see for him or herself the edge to edge performance of the lens at different apertures and focal lengths for zooms?

In other words, make the reviews much more useful to your readers instead of trying to impress people with technical charts and diagrams!!!

Dec 23, 2012permalink

pixel_peeper

Unsharpened jpegs (as per Lenstip) are OK for lens test samples, but the over-sharpened ones here are horrible and useless.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Pat Cullinan Jr

Yes, there is oversharpening.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Its very simple. Choose a standard high building. Take a tripod and shoot down the streets. to check corner/edges turn the camera into position that the same subject can be seen in all parts of the shots. center, corner, edges. Zentrum, Ecke, Bildränder. Then upload HR-images or parts of them. Always take with you the best camera/lens as a standard beside the combo to be tested. And maybe we can once also see an analogue comparision. no need to compare against Highest Res. B+W films. Kodak Exktar or whatever would do. But dont scan in inferior scanners. maybe newest plustek opticfilm 120(6x12).

Dec 25, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

"Unsharpened jpegs (as per Lenstip) are OK for lens test samples, but the over-sharpened ones here are horrible and useless."

That's ridiculous since jpgs, sharpened or not, are not showing the best detail that can be produced by a camera/lens combination. This is common sense.

Dec 25, 2012permalink

Barney Britton

The images presented here are straight from the camera. No post-capture adjustments are applied.

Dec 26, 2012permalink

pixel_peeper

Hi Barney,
Sorry to be rude about those sample pictures, but if that's the Canon 5DIII standard sharpening setting, it's far too aggressive, and producing sharpening halos strong enough to make a mess of the detail. One or two sharpening levels down would give a better picture for testing a lens, I think. Another alternative is to use no sharpening at all and allow us to do it to taste, as (only) Lenstip does. This has the big disadvantage of assuming that we understand why the pictures are blurry, have software to sharpen jpegs, and can be bothered to use it. I wish you had used a D800E for the samples!

Dec 26, 2012permalink

pixel_peeper

After shooting my mouth off I read the "Image Quality Tests" section of DPR's 5DIII review, which indicated that its out-of-camera jpegs were poor (either mushy or over-sharpened), that good results can be obtained with Adobe Camera Raw, and suggesting appropriate sharpening settings. Having worked all that out, I think it would be better for DPR to process the image samples that way for for lens tests using the 5DIII.
The final output is a jpeg, Basalite, but processed better than the 5DIII is able to do by itself. The problem is not the jpeg format, but the jpegs that come out of the 5DIII.

Dec 26, 2012permalink

slncezgsi

To my eyes the bokeh is OK (matter of taste anyhow) and the rest of the performance is very good indeed. I can only applaud Sigma for this lens.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

john10001

This seems to look like a pretty good lens IMHO. On Lens Tip website like Dp Review they also show it as a pretty good lens in terms of resolution not only in the centre but also at the edges compared with its competitors.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

tommy leong

any mention about the AF speed using the same camera across the various lens?

WOULDN'T that be important too ?

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Generally it's as fast/faster than it's counterparts, I tested the lens on a 5DII and it focused quick and accurately.
Also noted though, is that the lens (might) have a significantly shorter focus throw, so it's not necessarily fast, but doesn't have much distance to travel to attain focus ?

Dec 23, 2012permalink

InTheMist

I have similar experiences as Nishi on a D800.
Note: While the close-focus performance is truly astounding, I'm not yet sold at infinity yet.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Got one in my hands now on a 5DII, I've only got indoor use, but when there's good light for the poor AF (of the camera, not lens) to lock it's quick. I may need to micro adjust slightly, but didn't do any tests to see if that's necessary. The close focus is indeed wonderful, and MF feels great

Dec 25, 2012permalink

xtoph

It is really great that dpr is working on presenting lens comparisons. But while the optical performance potential is obviously central, in practical application it is more likely things like autofocus performance and precision which are likely to have a greater direct impact on results. So, will dpr attempt to provide some evaluation of these factors? Autofocus speed and consistency are difficult to test objectively, but there has to be something you can tell us. And objective information such as the number of discrete focus points a lens can stop at is exactly the sort of rare data that dpr may have the clout to twist out of the various brands. (eg, the greater precision afforded by the superior number of focus distances available on the ef 50/1.2 compared with the ef 50/1.4 is a major factor in real-world performance variation between these lenses, which never shows up in sharpness-obsesses lens reviews which are specifically designed to eliminate focus performance from the test.)

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Luke1

Just my two cents, but if I could choose between a tack sharp lens with slow AF and a somewhat sharp lens with state-of-the-art instant AF I would always choose the former. I don't shoot people very often so speed issues are almost totally irrelevant, and consistency issues (if time is not a factor) should not exist excepting the case of a defective lens.

Dec 26, 2012permalink

xtoph

there's a subjective side and an objective one to your decision, luke1.

subjectively, i would always choose a fast af lens over a slow af lens given the choice--i probably shoot different things than you, and it's logical that people might have different preferences.

but there's a deeper issue you don't seem to appreciate in your comment. first, consistency is in fact a major real-world issue. just try to af, defocus, and af again the same lens a dozen times and see how close the results are. second (and not unrelated), af lenses are programed with a set number of stop distances. it will focus at 2.5 meters, then the next stop might be 2.6, etc. different lenses have different numbers of possible focus distances, producing different rates of precision in focus. eg, a lens with 1000 focus distances will generally outperform one with 500.

you can take the sharpest lens made, but if you aren't standing at the one of the exact preset focus distances, it won't be sharp.

Dec 30, 2012permalink

Joris1632

Seems to be an excellent lens, pity it tilts horizons and makes all buildings lean to the right .................... ;-)

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Nerval

There might be irregularities, as with many lenses but which sample makes you say that?

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Lanski

He's joking! Some of the sample shots are a bit wonky that's all.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Joris1632

Thanks Lanski! I know DPR want to provide balance but I wish the samples had concentrated more on the reason we need f1.4 - . it's not to shoot architecture at 125th f8.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

JJSo

Just wait until you see the funny faces when using for portraits... :)

I just love that lens, it became my new "old" standard I used to deal with in analogue days. I wouldn't have bought a 35/1.4 from Nikon but now I want to sell the 50/1.4.

And weather-sealed or not might as well be a question of warranty. Some confuse "weather-sealed" with walking into the rain and snorkel along. After all, we do have some kind of weather every day. Slight snow-fall was no problem and I use this lens in the same conditions I also use the D800 or D7000, so to me that's weather-sealed enough.
The detail with the lens caps is something Nikon should learn a lot from. The rear cap tightens softer, doesn't fall off and is easier to removed than Nikon's. Great job, Sigma.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Nerval

Silly me, I was watching the samples over again and looking for an actual defect... But yeah, now that you mention it, shooting buildings might not be first use for a 1.4 lens...

Dec 29, 2012permalink

Tony Parenti

I have both lenses at my disposal. The Canon 35L clearly renders a smoother bokeh when doing full body portrait shots. No questions asked. The Sigma's bokeh is "nervous" in behavior. From what I've read this is one of the pitfalls of making a lens sharper. Scale both down to web resolution and the 35L is more pleasing. IMHO.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

10lOl01

Any chance an additional section can be added to the review commenting on the color and contrast performance of the lens?

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

http://www.dchome.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1161962&extra=&page=1

Totally hopeless bokeh test.

For me it's a deal-breaker: bad bokeh means unusable portraits.

Closing down the aperture can get rid of hard edged rings but also double-line 'nissen' bokeh which make for poor/disturbing bokeh as in the two pics (I would call this bokeh 'poor' and unusable). Typically I shoot f1.4 lenses at f2 for bokeh reasons. But in addition, you are more likely to get rings where the focus is at a distance and the blur moderate, as with these pics, while at close portrait distances the rings may not be so hard; which is the type of photos I am most interested in.

On top of that: a closed down aperture can be useful (one doesn;t always want obliteration-bokeh) but the bokeh can deteriorate.

So effectively we need a range of apertures and distance to know what the bokeh situation is.

Bokeh is so neglected that I have to do a lot of research to work out whether a lens is any good. It's a pain.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

EarthQuake

Compare the sigma's bokeh to other common 35/1.4 lens, in any situation where the sigma's bokeh looks bad, it would look bad with the 35L, Nikon 35/1.4, CZ etc. None of these fast wides provide amazing bokeh and busy backgrounds will make them all look bad. You have to compare the sigma subjectively to other lenses, IE: taking photos of the same thing, same camera, same settings. You can find bad bokeh examples of any 35/1.4 if thats what you're looking for. The Sigma may be very slightly worse than other 35/1.4's, but unusable is a huge overstatement.

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

Amin Sabet

The Sigma has more attractive bokeh than the Nikon and Canon to my eye. Looks better than the Summilux M ASPH FLE to me as well. Here are a couple comparisons to the Canon and Nikon lenses:

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

Not sure why DPR had "Slightly fussy rendition of out-of-focus backgrounds under some conditions" as a con. That statement apples to all lenses!

Dec 22, 2012permalink

I don't think the Sigma is "unusable" because of bokeh either. That's a huge overstatement. All fast wides (Canon, Nikon, Samyang) with aspherical elements have issues with some nervousness wide open. The Sigma is not the only fast 35 with this issue. Stopped down to f2 or f2.8 this goes away on most of these. Haven't yet tried the Sigma.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8083/8257023437_42fb691a29_o.jpg

Here is a comparison that actually means something:

Just because all wide primes have bokeh problems does not mean that they are equally bad.

Dec 23, 2012*permalink

motobloat

Mr. Duck, if you can tell the difference between the two images you posted, I'm sure the rest of the class would love to know what exactly you think you are seeing.

The second link Amin posted has plenty of detailed blur comparisons that show that there is little if any difference between the two lenses: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

If you removed the titles on those images, there's no way anyone would be able to tell which lens is which. If you just want to bash Sigma, fine, bash away, but no one is taking you seriously...

Dec 23, 2012permalink

wetsleet

"For me it's a deal-breaker: bad bokeh means unusable portraits."

For me, a 35mm lens would not be my first choice for portraiture.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

starwolfy

I agree with you !
I too think the same with my Voigtlander 15mm F4.5
The bokeh is too harsh for portrait with this wide lens so I think I will give it up.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2341350/pt3c9295?inalbum=sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-preview-samples

Nothing harsh about the Sigma bokeh in this portrait from the samples. This mini-thread is an example of extreme pixel-peeping run amok.

Dec 23, 2012*permalink

Mr. motobloat, if you cannot tell the difference, you need a P&S. I see that the tune has changed; from "the Sigma has better bokeh" to""the Sigma is worse but you cannot tell the difference". Well, I can.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

Folks, I'm not saying that the Sigma's bokeh is unusable but rather that the dpreview bokeh test doesn't tell us anything useful. Closed down to f1.6 or f2 or change of focus distance and those hard rings and double lines may well disappear, which is typical of most good-bokeh lenses any way. My best bokeh lenses have terrible bokeh wide-open. The only exceptions I know to this rule are the Sony 35/1.8, the X-Pro1 fuji 35/1.4 and the Canon 35/1.4.

It seems I haven't been clear enough. I am not criticising the sigma's bokeh: I am criticising the dpreview bokeh test.

Dec 23, 2012*permalink

Wetsleet:"For me, a 35mm lens would not be my first choice for portraiture."

hmmm, yet 35mm on APS-C is 55mm equiv, a first choice perspective for portraiture. Are you thinking of head and shoulder portraits? Then of course 35mm is no use for that.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

"Nothing harsh about the Sigma bokeh in this portrait from the samples. This mini-thread is an example of extreme pixel-peeping run amok."

No it isn't. Smooth bokeh is an important feature for pro portraits, and that bokeh is of the type that disturbs the vision at normal viewing distances. A closer look (your 'pixel peeping') reveals the reasons, hard rigns and double-lining. Nevertheless, the examples are of no use since both such artifacts could disappear one stop down.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

wetsleet

@itsastickup
Well, APS-C also would not be my first choice for portraiture ;)

The 'bokeh' criticisms of this lens seem to centre on out of focus specular highlights - bright points of light - which are rendered as little circles. Would you anticipate such a background for portraits? I guess it depends whether you do studio portraits, or more candid stuff where you can't so easily cotrol the background.

Dec 23, 2012permalink

"The 'bokeh' criticisms of this lens seem to centre on out of focus specular highlights - bright points of light - which are rendered as little circles."

This is incorrect.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Eric Hensel

The Sigma has far less CA in the tree-comparison Duck posted, and looks sharper, as well. I see no real difference in the Bokeh in this example...the Sigma is superior in this shot

Dec 24, 2012permalink

wetsleet

@ Donald Duck
I was referring to this, from the review:
"The distant background in the first example doesn't look very pretty when viewed close-up, with point highlights on the fountain showing up as bright rings, and the tree branches a jumble of green and magenta."

and:

"In the second sample the story is more complicated; on the whole the lens has drawn the out-of-focus areas quite attractively. But again point highlights to the lower right are reproduced as hard-edged bright rings, and the sign upper left shows plenty of CA."

To me that says that, in the main, the issue is with out of focus bright highlights which are rendered as rings.

I haven't tested the lens myself, but I am assuming that what DPR reports is, in fact, correct.

Dec 24, 2012*permalink

DPR are incorrect. Most criticism (of users) comes from double lines and other harsh rendered bokeh when the blur is not strong enough. The OOF highlights can hint what you can get, if they are not too big but this is not really a reason for complaints.

DPR had a few shots showing this clearly but they removed them a few weeks ago. Do not blame them - they are here to sell ads, not to help you.

Dec 25, 2012*permalink

light_bulb

Sigma has managed to do some serious overhaul with their lenses.
I am using the Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS and am very happy. No reason to go for a 5k $ Nikkor.

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

armaco

ordered .....

Dec 22, 2012permalink

tom sugnet

Nikkor 28 f/1.8 AF-S has better bokeh, and is cheaper.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

And is 7mm shorter...
different FL, and 28 usually fits in a different niche

Dec 22, 2012permalink

IrishhAndy

And focus shift.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

@IrishAndy
I have the 28 1.8G there is no focus shift, just a very sharp lens with great color/contrast typical of N crystal coated lenses. Have you used it or are you simply parroting some forum chatter about focus shift nonsense?

Dec 22, 2012permalink

InTheMist

I've been shooting this lens for a few weeks. It really is exceptionally good.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Just a Photographer

All of my previous Sigma lenses have sucked so far.
Optically it might be good, but the built quality always lacks.

I'd rather pay somewhat more for a non rattling but quality good built lens. My Sigma 150 mm VR Macro makes a clunky noise during the focussing process. My 105mm has problems with the aperture blades sometimes getting stuck.

No more Sigma for me.

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

jorg14

I had a Sigma 10-20 for about 10 years that was my main lens and worked great. Very solid and smooth. Just to throw in another experience.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

jorg14

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

Brilliant testimony, you might want to consider actually reading up on this new lens though. Spewing out hate for something based on experience like that makes so little sense, and paying somewhat more for quality is exactly what's going on here, Sigma is asking for a premium price and they've delivered in build quality and IQ

Dec 22, 2012permalink

adegroot

you just don't get the point: Sigma upped their quality in every way, and every lens is individually tested before it leaves the factory

Dec 22, 2012permalink

mumintroll

This Sigma DP2 is just stunning. I'm gonna buy one, just waiting for delivery.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Thomas Kachadurian

I would have agreed with you until last year when I got a 50mm f1.4

In the past I've had terrible Sigma experiences, but it looks like they are making a real effort. My Sigma 50mm f1.4 is easily as good or better than even Canon L lenses. (I've had red rings fall right off.) Based on the 50mm I plan to get this new 35.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Just a Photographer

For those who might think it is a hate for Sigma i have, they are wrong! Its not that the picture quality of the Sigma is bad or anything. The pictures that come out are actually quite fine.

However its the total Sigma experience that will make me hold back on another Sigma purchase. In the end I have never had any 'good feeling' over the Sigma's lenses I have owned.

The IQ of this lens seems to be fine too, but if its rattling and makes bunky noises like the 150mm Macro it makes you feel like it might break on you during any photography session you do with it.

That said, i have not used this new 35 f1.4 or never hold it in my hands yet.

Dec 23, 2012*permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Sigma quality, both optically and mechanically has always been all over the map. But there isn't any reason why, if they really want to, they can't produce an excellent product. Still, when I read the Luminous Landscape review of the Merrill camera and it had dust on the sensor, I shook my head and thought "that's Sigma".

Dec 24, 2012permalink

Had the same thing-blades stuck at f16- with an old zeiss macro 60/2.8. but it was used. can easily be repaired.

Dec 25, 2012*permalink

Rocco Tanica

I'm sure that it's a great lens but I don't understand how can dpreview say that this Sigma outperform Nikon equivalent if they don' t even test it!?!

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Andrew Westlake

The test data for the Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samyang and Zeiss 35mm F1.4s is available - simply click on one of the 'compare' links in the widget.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Jacqdem

Sigma 35 seems to be a great lens. Yet I'll wait for Nikkor 35 2.0 (or 1.8) VR...

Dec 22, 2012permalink

jivers

Looks great and reasonable value given its construction. What's next Sigma? A 24 and an 85 would be nice.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

nicolaiecostel

The 85 has been available for some time now. In fact, I have it for a year or so. Judgingby how good it is, if I could afford the 35 right now, it would be on preorder. Also, sigma has a 24 1.8, you could get it until the 1.4 appears.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Raist3d

I for one I am happy to see Sigma climb out of their previous reputation of so so lenses. The lens of the DP2M, this lens, another lens some rental place who used to say Sigma was not as good as others, that has turned around lately over the years. It's all good.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

matreshka

I am a happy owner of Sigma 35 1.4 and I really enjoy the sharpness and low CA of this lens when it is wide open (I can compare only to Canon's 50 1.4 and 35 2).
I do not have Canon 35 1.4 but what I saw from multiple comparing tests that Sigma's bokeh was at least as good as Canon's. Yep, it is some sort of "nervous" but it is a wide angle lens (as it peers) and it cannot be copared to smooth blurring of telephoto lens.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14.htm

I've understood that the Canon 35/1.4 has exceptionally smooth bokeh, as well as being sharp all-over wide open.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Infared

The lens is a no-brainer. Sigma...keep the new leaf turning and bring more Artists to the artists!!!

Dec 22, 2012permalink

For all the quacking about bokeh, I notice that very few of the samples can really muster much of an OOF background despite shooting wide open and being close to the subject.
Those preoccupied by that issue should look to longer lenses.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Actually, most of the portraits show well blurred background, so you are wrong. The question is about its quality, not quantity. DPR removed the bad bokeh examples a few weeks ago. Any time I mention this, my comment gets deleted by them.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

The quality of OOF is fine but as to be so slight as to question the obsession with it as one needs to be about three feet from the subject. My point being that if one is obsessed with the fashion of shallow DOF as so many seem to be this lens delivers small quantities of it. Quality has not been questioned. So you have interpreted my statement incorrectly.
I am convinced that this lens is superb and intend to acquire one bt shallow DOF is not why I am getting it.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Spectro

I don't care about the score, since it is the most affordable one (of the spec), I will buy it someday. You get what you pay for. I tested the sigma 85mm 1.4 vs nikkor and sigma is softer (if i was being picky), but I got the sigma because of the price.

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

semorg

Nikon D800e should be the de facto body for testing lenses from this point on. Not sure why DPreview is waisting their time shooting with the canon.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Rad Encarnacion

Barney's response further down the comments: "We haven't yet got our hands on a Nikon-mount sample of this lens."

Dec 22, 2012permalink

DavidsfotosDotCom

PS: the ef f2 iS is 1/2 the weight!

Dec 21, 2012permalink

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon#more-11231

But it's not half the price...

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Arn

and it's half as bright and significantly less sharp (see lensrentals test for comparison). I'm a fan of the original Canon 35/2, but it's easy to admit that Sigma has surpassed Canon (and actually every other brand too) and has made the best 35mm lens available.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

DavidsfotosDotCom

Why is DXO rating at 30 in one place & 31 in another?
Why is DXO not rating the ef 35mm f2 iS yet?
Canon's ef 35mm f2 iS has better MTF than its 35mm f1.4L!
We need this info to compare.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Tim Devine

The jury is out I guess until they get it reviewed, but early reports seem to indicate Sigma will still win in the resolution department.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Jaelkay

I'm sure Sigma cherry-pick the lenses they send to DP Review and other reviewers.

The Sigma 35 f1.4 I have is nowhere nearly as good as my Nikon 35 f1.4. The borders on the Sigma are very soft when compared with the Nikon.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Then I would exchange it for one that bests your Nikon.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Absolutic

really? do they cherry pick 50 or 100 lenses that they send to lensrentals.com who does its own testing and says exactly same thing?

Dec 22, 2012permalink

matreshka

Following "cherry-pick" theory, I should be a very important person in the world of photo gear as my copy of Sigma 35 1.4 is astonishing sharp virtually without CA wide open :))

Dec 22, 2012permalink

motobloat

Lol, I love these conspiracy theories.

Seriously though, look up the recent lensrentals test that has five copies tested. They are all the the same. And Roger Cicala is a self-confessed Sigma non-fan. In fact, read everything on his blog. It's that good.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Jens_G

Oh, so YOU own the Nikon and therefore the Sigma can't be nearly as good?

Please, tell us more...

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Jaelkay

I own both, silly person.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

sgtbueno

Nikon 35mm is the worst of all of the 35mm lenses

Dec 22, 2012permalink

adegroot

you are wrong on the cherry picking

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Arn

And of course it's *only* Sigma lenses that are cherry picked and not Canon and Nikon lenses... Rigt? :D sheesh... What is it with this kindergarten obsession of "my brand is the best and your brand sucks" that so often goes on with camera gear? It definitely has nothing to do with photography. Anyway, Lensrentals tested their Sigma 35mm to be sharper than the sharpest Canon 35/1.4 they ever tested (and I believe they have tested quite a few of those Canon 35/1.4), how's that for cherry picking?

Dec 22, 2012permalink

AbrasiveReducer

I'm not sure how things are done these days but not long ago, a publication doing a test would request, or sometimes buy a lens. If the test went well, fine. If the lens was really bad, the distributor would be contacted, asking if this poor performance was typical. I'll let you finish the story.

Dec 24, 2012permalink

ulfie

DxOMark test results/specs are great yet the actual image quality even for the "originals" are really no better than say the Panasonic 20 f1.7's which costs about 1/3 and is only a tad slower f-stopwise and a tad tighter FOVwise.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

The Panasonic is MUCH slower. About 40/3.4 on FF.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Duck: Speed is speed. You are confusing comparative DOF with the actual speed.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

You are confusing ISO, say 1600, with one format with ISO 1600 with another.

Dec 22, 2012*permalink

Roger Nordin

Who said anything about ISO?
Who said anything about DOF?
Shutter *speed* is the same. That's what counts for me, when shooting handheld in low light. And millions of other shooters as well... Maybe not for you, in your particular application. But difference in DOF actually may work the other way, enabling you to actually shoot at better shutter speeds while still maintaining enough DOF for the shot. Let try to add some perspective here, ok?
Maybe your particular application requires this particular focal length. But that aspect aside, those looking for ultrathin DOF should be looking at longer telephoto lens.
And those looking for a different effect on ISO should be looking for another camera. :-)

Dec 22, 2012permalink

And who said anything about speed? Lenses do not have speed.

Until you understand that ISO 400 on 4/3 is equivalent to roughly speaking ISO 1600 on FF, you are going to remain confused.

A 20/1.7 lens has much smaller physical aperture than a 35/1.4 lens, as simple as that. The ratio is about 2.17 stops. This includes DOF, and total light captured. The total light determines the shot noise with the SAME speed.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

wkay

WHy is sharpness so much higher on 5D2 than 7D? Sensor limitations? If so then this is little more than apples-oranges comparison. Lens tests need to be on a standardized sensor or preferably sensor independent, such as a projection target, or heaven forbid, film.

Dec 21, 2012*permalink

oysso

very easy: when using a full frame sensor, then the image has to be enlarged less to make same output image. So the conclusion is: buy a full frame camera. It is only when you always have to crop your image, that crop camera can be equal or better than full frame.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

wkay

then the test is only a measure of the sensor and not the lens itself? makes the results totally biased.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

brendon1000

The full sized images are available for download for your reference if required.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

ageha

The shots in the gallery don't do justice the test results at all. Something is wrong... ;)

Dec 21, 2012*permalink

Don't know which gallery you're looking at. The images are tack sharp, well exposed, interesting scenics from London. What more do you want from test images?

Dec 21, 2012permalink

HSway

35mm very sharp at 1.4 lens will be famous. I looked at bokeh shots and comparisons and that is the only area that is relatively weaker. Who is very particular about the rich background bokeh won’t be totally thrilled. OTOH, the ultimate bokeh cream is not everyone’s top priority with every FL and can be seen slightly overrated, like for me. I reckon the whole package and the very useful sharp f1.4 in this type of lens will make people easily forgiving in this regard and making them see this minor. As a side note and a MF one, I am very happy with my Samyang.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

unotisto

How nice. Now there's hardly anything to complain about on DPR, now that nobody can say they don't review anything/review only superzooms.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Count me in as one who whined about the superzoom reviews....
I'm happy to see the review on this Sigma....looks good and will be on my list to buy.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Erik Johansen

For that price it should got a 100% score.......

Dec 21, 2012permalink

It's cheap compared to Canikon. Geez...some of you people are never happy.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

tkbslc

I think you guys actually agree with each other, but please feel free to continue arguing.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Ahhh. I must admit I interpreted Erik's post the same way as Clint did. Looked to me that Erik is saying that "such an expensive lens should have been good enough to get a 100% score". But from your comment it seems Erik meant to say that "considering the high performance this lens is achieving at such a low price, dpreview should have given it a 100%".

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Great minds think alike:)

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Scorpius1

Fools seldom differ...

Sorry I just resist it... ;-)

Dec 24, 2012permalink

gsum

I'm a bit surprised to see so much CA in the real world examples in such an expensive lens, particularly at this focal length. Also, DPReview, why the excessive sharpening?

A D800e would have given this lens a better real world test as there would be no anti-alias smearing.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Barney Britton

We haven't yet got our hands on a Nikon-mount sample of this lens.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

CA is common with all ultra-fast lenses including much more expensive lenses like Cnaon 85mm 1.2L. Remember ultra-fast lenses push the optics to the limit and do suffer from such compromises. Sigma actually does better than many other fast lenses.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

gsum

Yes, sorry, the D800 has made me into a terrible pixel-peeper. I'll get over it eventually.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

l_d_allan

Also looking forward to D800e results

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Roberto Mettifogo

Is the AF ring electronic (continuos rotation) or mechanical with hard stops ?

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Andrew Westlake

It's like any other ring-type USM lens. Mechanically coupled (not electronic), but with a clutch mechanism that means it won't rotate during AF. At the end of the focus travel there are semi-hard stops; the ring will continue to rotate without damaging the lens, but with increased resistance.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

I struggle with the bokeh. I am not a pixel peeper. I'd rather my optics were pleasing. for the price it might be a win. but do you reall want to shoot this at f 1.4 given the OOF. its not a deal if the max app isnt very usable.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/reviewsamples/photos/2341350/pt3c9295?inalbum=sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-preview-samples

What's wrong with the bokeh? Looks pretty great to me.

And sharpness wide open is already over 40 lpmm (see Lenstip review) which means it's more than usable, it's great at max aperture.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

The max aperture seems eminently usable as it is sharper than the competition and the user is just as likely to miss focus wide open.

Dec 22, 2012permalink

No one said it wasn't sharp I said the bokeh looked annoying read the criticism before you respond to it

Dec 22, 2012permalink

Delos

I wish Sigma would make this (and other) lens with an aperture ring so I could use this with my mirrorless camera when not on my Nikon.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Ivan Lietaert

"a top notch fast 35mm autofocus prime without breaking the bank"
Priced £900, the author obviously must be making a fortune writing for DPreview! This lens is priced at a working man's monthly income. I wouldn't call that cheap! Please think twice before you write this kind of thing!

Dec 21, 2012permalink

its $900. in britain it is £788.99 witch is about $1300. that is alot and actually about what you pay for first party glass here. This is what pro optics cost though. 900 dollar is very reasonable for it and i suspect 1300 in britain is a good deal to. this is the cos of living in a society with big vat and other taxes. you get free healthcare but expensive camera lenses. there is no free lunch

Dec 21, 2012*permalink

Quality photography gear is expensive and you have to look at the price in that context. Compared to the Canon/Nikon/Sony versions at $1500-1600 and the Zeiss at $1800, the Sigma at $900 is surely a much more affordable option.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Nobody said photography is cheap. If you make $900/month maybe a cheaper hobby is in line...or lower expectations for what gear you want.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

acidic

@Kodachrome200
There is no free lunch anywhere but at least you have 1 pound fish.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Ivan Lietaert

Why doesn't dpreview mention the price in euro? Isn't continental Europe a big enough market?
I have found a retailer selling this lens for € 949,00
Where I live, in Belgium, I would use the expression 'without breaking the bank' for a selling price of, hm, let's say € 100. These lenses do exist, the 'nifty fifty' being one example.
I have no problem with expensive glass. I understand that some people, especially pros, are prepared to invest in glass in that price range. My issue lies with the choice of words of the reviewer, who clearly has lost connection with the real world out there and normal standards of living.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Ivan Lietaert

Anyhow, I have noticed that dpreview has changed the article a bit, and re-worded it. I guess this proves my criticism was rigth.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

I am sure there are plenty of people who won't or can't spend even € 100 on just a lens or a few hundred pounds on a DSLR. The point is that this comment is in the context of people who are advanced enough into their photography hobby to be looking beyond the $400 35mm f2 lenses. For many of them the jump from a $400 35mm f2 to a $1600 35mm 1.4 is not viable. However the sigma at $900 becomes much more in the realm of affordability. Anyways we are nitpicking here.

Dec 21, 2012permalink

Sure, I am glad you are happy now :)

Dec 21, 2012permalink

@acidic 1pound fish?

Dec 21, 2012permalink

u007

Get it for £535 from Hong Kong. Absolute bargain!

Dec 22, 2012permalink

(unknown member)

A-haaa: a good Sigma! Cheers! :)

Dec 21, 2012permalink