Ken Rockwell Review of Sigma 35 - Is it accurate?

I was just reading the review on his website and saw that he didn't have anything good to say about the build, quality, and stability of the lens. He does say that it's super sharp, sharper than both Canon and Nikon's 35mm professional lenses. I just wanted to check with the people who own Sigma and who has owned 35L at some point in time and see if they think the review is accurate.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/sigma/35mm-f14.htm

Honestly, the guy is a bitter tool! Since he switched camps to Canon, he's been badmouthing anything non-canon.

KR is for entertainment value only. Don't go to him for legitimate information.

Setting aside KR's reputation on our forum, I wonder if there's a grain of truth there. QC does not seem to be Sigma's strong suit based on everything I have read here. Is there any data on long term realiability of Sigma lenses vs. Canon or Nikon?

Scrumhalf wrote in post #16018075
Setting aside KR's reputation on our forum, I wonder if there's a grain of truth there. QC does not seem to be Sigma's strong suit based on everything I have read here. Is there any data on long term realiability of Sigma lenses vs. Canon or Nikon?

My experience with Sigma 30 (3 copies), 50 (2 copies), and 85 (3 copies) has been terrible in terms of focus, but not so bad (in that they didn't fail or break) in terms of build quality. But even the most expensive Sigma I used (85) does not even come close to the cheapest Canon L lens I own (35L) in terms of build quality and focus. Now, I have never used the Sigma 35, so I cannot comment on it's quality, which is why I posted the review here.

As a former owner of the Sigma, I can absolutely say that KR's assessment is rubbish. The fit and finish on that lens is superb, as is the mechanical functionality. His little "review" makes me wonder if he is even talking about the same lens.

Scrumhalf, that would be interesting information for sure.

Anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't have any of those lenses, but based on all the reviews of all those people around the net, this is complete BS. He hates Sigma. Those quotes are the reason that lots of photographers don't like Ken Rockwell.

Although I had issues with my two copies of the Sigma 35, the build quality is MUCH better than that of the Canon 35L... By a large margin.

Also, IQ is quite a bit better.

I haven't owned either one...

But don't canon lenses in general focus and track better than sigma's? The USM always seemed more accurate in terms of final focus precision than sigma's HSM.

And if that's the case, isn't it what actually counts? 35L is sharp already. With "real subjects" the lens with a better AF system will determine which image is sharper.

And in terms of resale value, canon updates their L lenses every 20 years and doubles the price when they do it.

While I owned sigma 70-200 HSM for 3 years, sigma managed to release two or three "new" reiterations of the same lens. One version added a digital coating. One version just stated "mark II"...

In the end, the lens I got for 1200 bucks I could only sell for 500 or so.

On the other hand, the canon 70-200 f/4 I got new for 650 I sold for 550 after using it for two years.

I don't have issues with build quality with sigma in general.

mannetti21 wrote in post #16018105
Anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

agreed. I've seen him give stellar reviews to lenses that weren't all that and a bag of chips but I've also seen him give horrible reviews to lenses that most other reviewers are singing it's praises. I remember back when he was a full on Nikon guy he was essentially a mouthpiece for them now the same appears true with Canon and their gear. When I first started into the hobby I actually thought ken did good reviews and there are some of his reviews that are spot on (40mm pancake for example) but most of his site is BS and being a mouthpiece for adorama so he can get a kicback.

I really like my 35L. Haven't shot with Sigma so I can't comment. What I can say is my Leica M 35 Summilux FLE is sharper at the corners than the 35L is in the center and has much more pleasing bokeh. But it had better be and have.

First, I can't help but remark that it is amazing how many Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens threads keep popping up in this forum! It really says a lot about how well it's received and the level of interest in it.

Regarding Ken's reviews: I'm sorry to say that I do not regard Ken as a knowledgeable, careful, or thoughtful reviewer. Too much shooting-from-the-hip opinionated hyperbole in his reviews to take him or his reviews seriously imo.

Sigma's build (at least external, no one has stripped the lenses and compared internals yet) is at least as good as, if not better than the 35L.

I was just reading the reviews for this lens and seems like the same Sigma focusing issues with 5d Mark III that were happening with other lenses happen with this one as well. I can say that I had the same problem with 50 and 85mm Sigmas. It would focus in X distance after micro adjusting it, then you take 2-3 steps back or forward, and it needs micro adjustment in the same direction even more. And what was worse was the problem was extremely inconsistent across distances and across different copies of this lens. I wonder if the owners of this lens experience this (or do they actually properly test their lens)?

http://www.amazon.com …deID=&tag=#wasT​hisHelpful