Sigma 35mm F/1.4: My Experience from recent test

[Doug_PS]

I just rented the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 from Lensrental to test in Park City, Utah last weekend (quick ski trip). I was interested in testing the quality of results from this lens at f1.4 (low light/blur/bokeh) with my Canon 5DMKii.

I've posted a few pictures below for those who are interested.

I really like the lens overall. Excellent color and contrast. The auto-focus speed was quick, relatively silent and seemed consistently accurate in my testing. The lens performed very well in low light (see a couple of night street shots below taken with no flash).

On the negative side, I did see the busy/nervous bokeh described in many reviews of this lens (DP Review's review stated: "The rendition of out-of-focus regions is generally quite attractive, although complex backgrounds can end up looking rather 'fussy'." You can really see this in the outdoor photo below with the "spruce tree (?)" in the background. looking at the background blur in this photo almost gives me headache. Plus the lens is "heavy"....although I knew this going in!

One surprise: at apertures at 2.8 and up, my 40MM Pancake lens compared very well against the Sigma. I did many tests to compare the two....and the results are almost indistinguisable in terms of quality.

Although I really liked the lens overall.....I think the weight of this lens and the nervous boheh at 1.4 will steer me away from this lens. I'm looking for an under 70mm solution (ie I already own the 85 1.4, 135 2.0L and 200 2.8L....and the 40mm Pancake) Can't decide to bite the bullet ($$$) and get the 24-70 MKII and be done with it, or go with a combination of primes.....perhaps 24 2.8IS combined with either the 35 2.0IS (or my 40 Pancake). I tested the 24 f/2.8 IS recently (liked it)....may test the 35 2.0 IS next.




Anyway, the test photo's are below: Please keep in mind....I was just trying to get some examples in low light and to test the bokeh at 1.4.....not trying to post "award winning" photos! Also keep in mind, these are just straight out of the camera jpeg's....I accidentally turned off my raw capture when trying to micro-adjust this lens...

 

[Hoogineer]

Nice shots. I particularly like the bench one, which demonstrates nice perspective, depth of field.

Have you ever shot the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (just discontinued)? If so, how does it compare? I've been shooting it since this past December and have enjoyed it immensely for indoor photography. I just posted a (relatively boring) sample shot in another thread. For the $349 I spent on it, I think it was a great value. I only wish I could have waited until last month to nab it for $289!

 

[jackpro]

looks very sharp!

 

[joger]

Doug_PS wrote:

. . . Anyway, the test photo's are below: Please keep in mind....I was just trying to get some examples in low light and to test the bokeh at 1.4.....not trying to post "award winning" photos! Also keep in mind, these are just straight out of the camera jpeg's....I accidentally turned off my raw capture when trying to micro-adjust this lens...

thx for sharing!!!!!




Had a 100% look and it does not look really crisp and sharp to me - maybe I am expecting too much but??




My 135 f/2.0 looks sharper in the center of the frame wide open and seems to have better bokeh.

I am sure a wider angle of view has otter challenges but the face is not very clear and it is in both situations looking a bit soft - too soft relative to my expectations.




When you compare your 135 f/2.0 and your Sigma 35 f/1.4 would you confirm that the 35 mm is less sharp then the 135 wide open? Or is it just the jpeg compression that does the effect?

--
__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 

[schmegg]

joger wrote:

Doug_PS wrote:

. . . Anyway, the test photo's are below: Please keep in mind....I was just trying to get some examples in low light and to test the bokeh at 1.4.....not trying to post "award winning" photos! Also keep in mind, these are just straight out of the camera jpeg's....I accidentally turned off my raw capture when trying to micro-adjust this lens...

thx for sharing!!!!!

Had a 100% look and it does not look really crisp and sharp to me - maybe I am expecting too much but??

My 135 f/2.0 looks sharper in the center of the frame wide open and seems to have better bokeh.

I am sure a wider angle of view has otter challenges but the face is not very clear and it is in both situations looking a bit soft - too soft relative to my expectations.

When you compare your 135 f/2.0 and your Sigma 35 f/1.4 would you confirm that the 35 mm is less sharp then the 135 wide open? Or is it just the jpeg compression that does the effect?

It's about the sharpest 35/1.4 on the market joger!

You can't compare a 35 to a 135 for such things. Completely different design considerations. You should know better seeing as how you claim to be a "lens man"! ;-)

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

In the two pictures of the woman, I think that the focus is VERY slightly off (hard to get it right with such a thin DOF and low-light). It's possibly backfocussing slightly..

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

schmegg wrote:

You can't compare a 35 to a 135 for such things. Completely different design considerations. You should know better seeing as how you claim to be a "lens man"! ;-)

He's not a lens man. He's a hislenses man.

How else can one conclude when you post photos showing that the 70-300 L is a stellar performer at all FL and he persists in badmouthing it?

His universe consists of a Porsche, an outdated camera body, the great God-lens, the other two great God-lenses (a trinity if you like), a couple of minor angel-lenses and a hell into which everything else is cast. Hell is ruled over by Beelzesigma..

The only thing he currently desires is a mount with which he can attach the great God-lens to his Porsche.. :-|

 

[schmegg]

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

schmegg wrote:
You can't compare a 35 to a 135 for such things. Completely different design considerations. You should know better seeing as how you claim to be a "lens man"! ;-)

He's not a lens man. He's a hislenses man.

Ironically, the Sigma 35/1.4 benchmarks noticeably sharper than the 135 according to DxO.

How long do you think it'll be before we see some 300/2.8 shots? Hehe! ;-)

 

[Donald Duck]

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

In the two pictures of the woman, I think that the focus is VERY slightly off (hard to get it right with such a thin DOF and low-light). It's possibly backfocussing slightly..

The light is actually very good, and in one of them, is is extremely strong. A good 35 prime should nail the focus in the center, no F&R; at least my 35L does all the time.

 

[Donald Duck]

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

 

[schmegg]

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

schmegg wrote:
You can't compare a 35 to a 135 for such things. Completely different design considerations. You should know better seeing as how you claim to be a "lens man"! ;-)

He's not a lens man. He's a hislenses man.

How else can one conclude when you post photos showing that the 70-300 L is a stellar performer at all FL and he persists in badmouthing it?

His universe consists of a Porsche, an outdated camera body, the great God-lens, the other two great God-lenses (a trinity if you like), a couple of minor angel-lenses and a hell into which everything else is cast. Hell is ruled over by Beelzesigma..

The only thing he currently desires is a mount with which he can attach the great God-lens to his Porsche.. :-|

His Porsche is old now too - outdated anyway. I'm tipping the Porsche forums were flooded with threads about how the newer ones aren't any better - but perhaps worse in some areas! Hehe. ;-)

 

[schmegg]

Donald Duck wrote:

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

Yep - I suspect so. The second-hand price for the 35L has dropped quite a bit - at least here in Oz. The Siggy is better in pretty much every respect - including price!

 

[Donald Duck]

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

Yep - I suspect so. The second-hand price for the 35L has dropped quite a bit - at least here in Oz. The Siggy is better in pretty much every respect - including price!

I an not quite happy with the bokeh of my 35L - but I have never seen such bad bokeh with it. And, due to the better AF, my f/1.4 shots are sharper. It does not get any better than that.

In fact, the 35L is the best focusing lens I ever tried, and I own five L's, one non L (15mm) and have shot with many more.

 

[schmegg]

Donald Duck wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

Yep - I suspect so. The second-hand price for the 35L has dropped quite a bit - at least here in Oz. The Siggy is better in pretty much every respect - including price!

I an not quite happy with the bokeh of my 35L - but I have never seen such bad bokeh with it. And, due to the better AF, my f/1.4 shots are sharper. It does not get any better than that.

Have a search around the traps - you'll be pushed to find any comparisons that show the Canon with better bokeh when both shoot the same scene.

Regarding focus - the Sigma is still new, but there aren't many problems being reported, most finding it fast, silent and accurate. You can check this too in the reviews that are around.

Don't get me wrong - the 35L is a great lens. No doubt. But it's now looking way too expensive with the arrival of the better and cheaper Sigma.

In fact, the 35L is the best focusing lens I ever tried, and I own five L's, one non L (15mm) and have shot with many more.

But you would also have to concede that it's highly likely that there are 35L/body combinations out there that front or back focus - just like this example might show. ;-)

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

schmegg wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

schmegg wrote:
You can't compare a 35 to a 135 for such things. Completely different design considerations. You should know better seeing as how you claim to be a "lens man"! ;-)

He's not a lens man. He's a hislenses man.

Ironically, the Sigma 35/1.4 benchmarks noticeably sharper than the 135 according to DxO.

How long do you think it'll be before we see some 300/2.8 shots? Hehe! ;-)

Yesterday?

 

[Donald Duck]

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

Yep - I suspect so. The second-hand price for the 35L has dropped quite a bit - at least here in Oz. The Siggy is better in pretty much every respect - including price!

I an not quite happy with the bokeh of my 35L - but I have never seen such bad bokeh with it. And, due to the better AF, my f/1.4 shots are sharper. It does not get any better than that.

Have a search around the traps - you'll be pushed to find any comparisons that show the Canon with better bokeh when both shoot the same scene.

There are some. But ... when you compare cars, do you drive them at the same time, with one foot on the car A gas pedal and another one on the car B one? Long term experience trumps any comparisons. Again, I am very critical of my lenses. Still, I have never seen such a bad bokeh, ever. The Sigma has a class leading performance, indeed. Here is another example, not mine.

BTW, this site had some Sigma shots with horrendous bokeh. They pulled them off quickly. After all, they are here to sell ads. It is sad when you see how they mislead their readers.

Regarding focus - the Sigma is still new, but there aren't many problems being reported, most finding it fast, silent and accurate. You can check this too in the reviews that are around.

Actually, I read a few times about several copies being returned for AF problems. It Amazon rating is 4.1 vs. 4.7 for the Canon. I am not saying that the Sigma actually focuses worse - just that there have been complains already. The typical Sigma AF shift depending on the distance seems to be well and alive.

Don't get me wrong - the 35L is a great lens. No doubt. But it's now looking way too expensive with the arrival of the better and cheaper Sigma.

Which one of them have you used?

In fact, the 35L is the best focusing lens I ever tried, and I own five L's, one non L (15mm) and have shot with many more.

But you would also have to concede that it's highly likely that there are 35L/body combinations out there that front or back focus - just like this example might show. ;-)

It is highly likely that there are fewer of them.

 

[schmegg]

Donald Duck wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

schmegg wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Good observations, thank for sharing. Sigma is playing a dangerous game - trying to score high in the tests at the expense of the "overall look". They may force Canon to tweak the design of their 35LII to appeal to the chart shooters.

Yep - I suspect so. The second-hand price for the 35L has dropped quite a bit - at least here in Oz. The Siggy is better in pretty much every respect - including price!

I an not quite happy with the bokeh of my 35L - but I have never seen such bad bokeh with it. And, due to the better AF, my f/1.4 shots are sharper. It does not get any better than that.

Have a search around the traps - you'll be pushed to find any comparisons that show the Canon with better bokeh when both shoot the same scene.

There are some. But ... when you compare cars, do you drive them at the same time, with one foot on the car A gas pedal and another one on the car B one? Long term experience trumps any comparisons. Again, I am very critical of my lenses. Still, I have never seen such a bad bokeh, ever. The Sigma has a class leading performance, indeed. Here is another example, not mine.

BTW, this site had some Sigma shots with horrendous bokeh. They pulled them off quickly. After all, they are here to sell ads. It is sad when you see how they mislead their readers.

Sadly - that's not a comparison at all. How do you know for sure what the Canon would have delivered?

Regarding focus - the Sigma is still new, but there aren't many problems being reported, most finding it fast, silent and accurate. You can check this too in the reviews that are around.

Actually, I read a few times about several copies being returned for AF problems. It Amazon rating is 4.1 vs. 4.7 for the Canon. I am not saying that the Sigma actually focuses worse - just that there have been complains already. The typical Sigma AF shift depending on the distance seems to be well and alive.

Yeah. There have been complaints about just about every lens ever made. ;-)

I prefer Canon lenses in general for compatibility and AF. But for a 35 I'm not as fussy about absolute speed - the difference is measured in milliseconds. Accuracy is important to me though - and i doubt that the Sigma would be better than the Canon, though it may well be just about as good.

Don't get me wrong - the 35L is a great lens. No doubt. But it's now looking way too expensive with the arrival of the better and cheaper Sigma.

Which one of them have you used?

Both.

I found the Canon perhaps slightly quicker to focus (hard to say) but not noticeably more accurate on a 5D3 - perhaps because the Sigma is sharper wide open - dunno. The IQ was a wash to be perfectly honest. The Sigma was a tad sharper wide open for sure, but they are both nice lenses. As is the Zeiss, which I'd rate best as far as bokeh goes.

I'd say the majority of people would be happy with any of these three. So the Sigma obviously has to be considered as it is, without doubt, the best value for money of the quality 35/1.4 options.

In fact, the 35L is the best focusing lens I ever tried, and I own five L's, one non L (15mm) and have shot with many more.

But you would also have to concede that it's highly likely that there are 35L/body combinations out there that front or back focus - just like this example might show. ;-)

It is highly likely that there are fewer of them.

You are guessing. ;-)

 

[Timbukto]

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

In the two pictures of the woman, I think that the focus is VERY slightly off (hard to get it right with such a thin DOF and low-light). It's possibly backfocussing slightly..

I think it is front focusing based on earrings, scarf, teeth. Not a big deal, my Canon EF primes front focus without MFA dialed in.

 

[Doug_PS]

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

In the two pictures of the woman, I think that the focus is VERY slightly off (hard to get it right with such a thin DOF and low-light). It's possibly backfocussing slightly..

Yes, the focus did seem a bit off to me too when I got back to Atlanta and loaded the pictures on my iMac (Lightroom 4). To be fair to the Sigma: There were a couple of things working against sharpness:

• I'd accidentally flicked off Raw capture when trying to fiddle around with micro-adjust. I've noticed the jpeg's from my 5DMKii are nowhere near as sharp as raw.
• I only had my iPad mini with me on the trip.....so very difficult to precisely micro-adjust this lens....I didn't seem to nail the micro-adjust and the lens needed it (ie it was soft at zero micro adjust).

 

[Doug_PS]

Timbukto wrote:

Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:

In the two pictures of the woman, I think that the focus is VERY slightly off (hard to get it right with such a thin DOF and low-light). It's possibly backfocussing slightly..

I think it is front focusing based on earrings, scarf, teeth. Not a big deal, my Canon EF primes front focus without MFA dialed in.

Yes, the lens was front focusing rather strongly at zero micro-adjust. I tried to "push it backwards" a bit via micro-adjust (I think I settled on +4 adjustment). However, with only my iPad mini to use on the trip....it was next to impossible to nail the micro-adjustment just right. It probably needed to be pushed back a bit more. By comparison, my 135 2.0L needed +11 and it's very sharp at that setting.

I think I can blame the sharpness problems with the Sigma on me....I'm sure the lens would show much sharper if properly micro-adjusted (and shot in Raw).