35 f/1.4 ART-isn't the bokeh "disturbing"?

Nathan wrote in post #16786204
Not claiming it's strictly a focal length thing... however, it doesn't sound like he's comparing the Sigma to other 35s... he's comparing it to his other lenses.

Agree - compared to most 35mm lenses, it's pretty good, so the comparisons really should be kept apples:apples

I think it look 'nervous'.

Nathan wrote in post #16786204
Not claiming it's strictly a focal length thing... however, it doesn't sound like he's comparing the Sigma to other 35s... he's comparing it to his other lenses.

Perhaps you're right. If he is truly comparing the bokeh from his 35mm to the bokeh of his 24-105mm or 70-200mm then I've given his post too much credit. Hopefully he'll end the mystery and let us know what specific lenses are being referenced for comparison.

The first one actually hurts my eyes. There is something about it that makes it feel like I am trying to focus on a 3D image without the 3D glasses.

I've noticed a lot of the same with my Sigma 35, which I love.

But as much praise as this lens gets, its often overlooked how comparatively busy/nervous/unpleasan​t the bokeh on this lens is.

As mentioned earlier, it all comes down to lens design. The Sigma 35 was designed to excel in terms of resolution/sharpness..​..at the expense of the quality of out of focus background areas, relative to something like the 50L and (many of Canon's L primes) which allow for more uncorrected spherical aberration and more pleasing bokeh.

mystik610 wrote in post #16786470
I've noticed a lot of the same with my Sigma 35, which I love.

But as much praise as this lens gets, its often overlooked how comparatively busy/nervous/unpleasan​t the bokeh on this lens is.

As mentioned earlier, it all comes down to lens design. The Sigma 35 was designed to excel in terms of resolution/sharpness..​..at the expense of the quality of out of focus background areas, relative to something like the 50L and (many of Canon's L primes) which allow for more uncorrected spherical aberration and more pleasing bokeh.

50L is a different story - I don't know that it's specifically the reason, but once you get in to those shorter lengths (that require retrofocus, generally ~35mm and under), it gets considerably harder to find lenses with pleasing bokeh. Hell, the bokeh of the nifty fifty is better wide open (so you don't get the pentagons) than any Canon, Nikkor or Zeiss 35mm that I've used. Look at the bokeh 35L, 24L, etc and I think that you'll find that the Siggy isn't so bad.

Nathan wrote in post #16785916
...People don't generally buy 35mm for its bokeh characteristics. There is some separation of the subject from the background, but 35mm lenses are not known to give people the sense of creamy bokehliciosness.

Maybe, but the background does have a lot to do with it. This shot was taken at 35mm, f2.8 with a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens. The background here is smoother, IMHO, and less distracting than in the images the OP provides. I suspect the background objects and the lighting are responsible for the difference.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mrGZ​fr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/mrJU​TM

mwsilver wrote in post #16786649
Maybe, but the background does have a lot to do with it.

Obviously, but when you have lenses with better bokeh, the bg has less and less to do with it, that's kind of the theme of the discussion...

As far as your pic, yeah - you got fewer high contrast edges and the bg is much, much further away; I would expect the results to be better, all things considered.

OP you chose a disturbing and distracting background, of course the end result is disturbing.

WhyFi wrote in post #16786256
Agree - compared to most 35mm lenses, it's pretty good, so the comparisons really should be kept apples:apples

Exactly.

I am sure you guys have watched this? http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=edJStBgM6GQ

The Sigma 35 produces the best and smoothest bokeh out of its main competitors.

So what if Zeiss is slightly better? It's a MF only lens....

Highlighted for truth. Not to mention the camera is a lot closer to the subject too.

Do you prefer the 35L bokeh?

kenwood33 wrote in post #16786821
Do you prefer the 35L bokeh?

The 35L has the worst bokeh compared to Sigma 35 and Nikkor 35 1.4G.

I think the real question here is "why are you doing headshots with a 35mm?"

A 35mm/1.4 lens has only 35mm/1.4= 25mm entrance pupil.
This makes blur circle diameter smaller than it is possible with a lens with bigger ebtrabce pupil like a 200mm/2 with 100mm entrance pupil.
Child images are often ok with closer distances, as shown here, but for adults most times longer distances (>1.5m) needed - and there the blur circles are smaller.
Smaller blur circles are more "distracting" than bigger ones.

With the Sigma 35/1.4 Art it seems you get neutral or even slightly soft background bokeh at these distances, this helps to make it a bit less "distracting".
But this lens is still relative neutral, it has no apodizing element to smooth front and background bokeh, nor it has strong undercorrected shperical aberration to get smooth background bokeh.

Sometimes "distracting" blur helps to get very good images

mgk2 wrote in post #16786776
I am sure you guys have watched this? http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=edJStBgM6GQ

Exactly.

Blind test, the Sigma was chosen by majority to have most pleasing (or least horrendous) bokeh.