DP Review tests Sigma 35 f/1.4 - very positive

http://www.dpreview.co​m …m-f1-4-dg-hsm-lens-review

Makes is best of the class (35l, Nikon, Sony and even sharper than Zeiss).
All super positive and maybe only 2 things to consider: rough bokeh with a busy background and no weather sealing.

Other then that, they say it is the best lens in the category.

So you are still not convinced and haven't purchased one yet? :P

kin2son wrote in post #15396012
So you are still not convinced and haven't purchased one yet? :P

I am never desperate But I am happy for Sigma, they have done a very good job. I hope that their business is going to prosper because of this and it will make the big guys think again.

I'm actually liking the busy bokeh I've seen in samples so far. I guess it depends on the look you're after but it seems to allow nice subject isolation while still keeping the background recognisable and gives the picture a context.

I will definitely like to see future market prices lowered from Canon/Nikon when Sigma keeps pushing out these good products. May help those ridiculous $2000 24-70 and 800$ 35mm f/2 prices. Sort of funny how much sharper the Sigma is than the Zeiss, and the Sigma has AF as well, and it doesn't cost you both your kidneys...

SiaoP wrote in post #15396099
Sort of funny how much sharper the Sigma is than the Zeiss

This I am not sure about....fully. I mean you say how much sharper and I am asking....exactly how much sharper? How to tell in real life?

Ordered mine last night. Was going to hold off until Spring, but with a big trip in two weeks I decided to expedite that decision! But I am selling my 14 and 85 to get it.

In the past i was thinking or planning to get EF 35mm f1.4L, now Sigma produced a competitor lens for it i may think again about the Canon one, Sigma is cheaper and the IQ is not less at all, this FL is not much used in my experience but i see many liking this FL so maybe i have to give more time for it, i can wait until the price can drop a bit more in my local area, now online became expensive for me and i found many gear cheaper in my area to buy, so i may give this lens a go.

I'm really happy that there's some competition in the market! What looks like a fact now that the Sigma actually out-performs the Canon 35mmL is astounding, and does it at a cheaper price is even better.

The question right now is if 300 bucks difference in price is going to lure people from buying the Red ring?

davidc502 wrote in post #15396459
I'm really happy that there's some competition in the market! What looks like a fact now that the Sigma actually out-performs the Canon 35mmL is astounding, and does it at a cheaper price is even better.

The question right now is if 300 bucks difference in price is going to lure people from buying the Red ring?

Exactly, i want my equipment list to grow up more with red rings on lenses.

Tareq wrote in post #15396470
Exactly, i want my equipment list to grow up more with red rings on lenses.

Too bad they aren't more like rabbits! If they were, we would all have an abundance of little red ringed lenses.

The latest Tamron 24-70VC and now the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 are serious challengers to the Luxury Lens line of Canon. Either they need to raise the bar, or reduce the price because otherwise they may see sales slip quite a bit as more great 3rd party lenses come to market.

I hope that majority of photographers do not really care about the red ring, but the best quality for the money they can put on the table. In this case Sigma is the winner as it outperforms the 35L. So assuming people do not have 35 mm lens at all, what will make them get 35L vs Sigma?

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15396528
I hope that majority of photographers do not really care about the red ring, but the best quality for the money they can put on the table. In this case Sigma is the winner as it outperforms the 35L. So assuming people do not have 35 mm lens at all, what will make them get 35L vs Sigma?

The usual excuses for buying the Red Ringed counterpart are ---

1. Build Quality
2. Weather Sealing
3. Bokeh < In this case the L might perform a little better.
4. Legacy < L is proven to be great performers and I.E. less copy variation.


The Sigma having better I.Q. is going to lure people with the I.Q. mentaility. If you're the type of person to consider more aspects than just I.Q., you might stick with the Canon L. Those are just my "feelings" and are not grounded in facts at all.

To me for this type of lens class, the deciding battle is the performance from f/1.4 - f/2. Otherwise why do you need such a fast lens.
From what I saw, Sigma at f/ 1.4 is amazing. It is almost as sharp as Canon 35L at f/2, and it is sharper than my beloved 40 pancake at f/ 2.8. (source: lenstip database, can also be confirmed by Roger lensrental reports).

In practical term, Canon at 1.4 is usable but Sigma at 1.4 is basically beyond reproach and can be used without any reluctance. That's not counting the better color correction in the Sigma wide open.

That's to me a real and practical difference, not just a mentality difference.

vaflower wrote in post #15396695
To me for this type of lens class, the deciding battle is the performance from f/1.4 - f/2. Otherwise why do you need such a fast lens.
From what I saw, Sigma at f/ 1.4 is amazing. It is almost as sharp as Canon 35L at f/2, and it is sharper than my beloved 40 pancake at f/ 2.8. (source: lenstip database, can also be confirmed by Roger lensrental reports).

In practical term, Canon at 1.4 is usable but Sigma at 1.4 is basically beyond reproach and can be used without any reluctance. That's not counting the better color correction in the Sigma wide open.

That's to me a real and practical difference, not just a mentality difference.

Very good point and indeed very practical.