New Items

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Arrives. Announces New World Order.

Published November 21, 2012

OK, I’m beginning to think maybe the Mayans were right. It appears the world is going to transition into something different in 2012. The photography world at least.

About 5 years ago, I wrote a blog post explaining that quality control problems and horrid repair service meant we would probably stop carrying Sigma products entirely. I spent the next several months manning the ramparts and pouring hot oil on the Sigma Fanboys who assaulted the Lensrentals Walls.

Since then, the most amazing thing happened. They got better. The repair center sprouted an efficient and intuitive web page, real people started answering the phones and knew where your stuff was, repair times went from months to weeks, to often days. Quality control seemed to improve, too, except for the large telephoto zooms. Recently they announced ( making announcements – what a concept, Nikon) quality control improvements, redesign of some problematic lenses (OK, they didn’t use the word problematic lens, that’s me. They just said redesign), and are going to offer the gearheads among us unprecedented ability to fine tune their lenses to our cameras.

So today, we received our first 35mm f/1.4 Sigma lens. The first in their new revamped lineup.  (No, you can’t rent it yet. It’s going to have to undergo extensive testing at my house over the long weekend. Maybe next week.) I was eager to see it, hoping it was going to be another step forward and hoping to find some signs of what will be adjustable in these new lenses.

As always, this isn’t a review, it’s my quick first impression after putting the lens through our normal intake tests. I’m not a lens reviewer. Also, as always, my summary comes first, for those of you who have trouble reading more than 150 words without a picture.

This lens kicks butt, takes names, and basically posterizes the manufacturers who make the cameras this lens will fit on. 

For those of you who spend too much time post processing, I’m using ‘posterize’ as demonstrated below, not the 8-bit jpg way.

 

copyright Getty Images / Sports Illustrated

 

The Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Left to right: Canon, Sigma, and Nikon 35mm f/1.4 lenses. Copyright Lensrentals.com by Hostess Joey

 

 

OK, you can get out your crayons and color me Fanboy, but this lens is built solidly. It really feels more like a Zeiss 35mm than a Canon or Nikon. Sigma says there’s a lot of metal in there, and at 1.4 pounds I believe them. On the other hand, that makes it several ounces heavier than either the Canon or Nikon, but about the same amount lighter than the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4.

It feels solid, too. The manual focusing ring is smooth and accurate, although I found it a bit stiff. Not problem stiff, but certainly not move-it-with-a-fingertip. Autofocus speed was reasonably quick, about on a par with the Canon 35mm. More importantly to me, AF accuracy was good, too, even when we darkened the room down to the point where many Sigma lenses start hunting.

Of course, we went over to the Imatest bench next. As most of you know, I hate testing one copy of a lens. The only thing I hate more than that is testing no copies. So I did the one we have today, knowing that there will be another dozen next week and planning just to keep this data to add to that. But like chicken salad on a hot summer day, this data won’t keep.

Of course, I’m going to compare this copy to the average numbers we get for the Canon 35mm f/1.4. I’ll mention that this may be the absolute sharpest of the zillion or so of these lenses Sigma turns out. I’ll get data for another dozen copies next week and we’ll see how it varies. So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is the best copy Sigma will ever make. So to make things fair, I’m going to compare it to both the average for all Canon 35mm f/1.4 lenses we have, but also to the very best out of the 100 copies I’ve tested.

 

MTFSigma 35mm f/1.4Canon 35 f/1.4 avgCanon 35mm f/1.4 best
Peak MTF 50775650700
Avg MTF 50665555600
Worst Corner MTF 50445325370

 

As you can see, this copy of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 was a bit better in the center and clearly better in the corners than the best copy of the Canon 35mm f/1.4 I’ve ever tested. For the Nikonians amongst us, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 tested on a D3x resolves almost identically to the Canon.

Stopped down to f/2.0 and f/2.8 respectively, the Sigma responds with 900/770/560 and 1000/870/770 mtf50 values (center/average/corner). The Canon ‘best copy’ returned 840/740/520 and 1000/840/740 numbers. It’s probably worth mentioning the Sigma has slightly less distortion at 1%, too.

The Circuit Board

We didn’t do a disassembly today but we did have to take a quick look at the main circuit board, since this will apparently be the first ‘totally programmable’ lens using the upcoming Sigma Optimization Software.

The PCB board in this lens is quite different from anything we’ve seen from Sigma before: cleaner with more chips and few other electronic components. Much different.

Also looking like it will be nice is the 9-bladed aperture ring.

I’ve had about zero chance to actually shoot with it (neither would you if Tyler was standing around screaming about another 50 lenses that need to be tested so they can go on sale for Black Friday) but I’ll fix that this weekend. In the meantime, here’s a shot of the lovely and talented Lensrentals spokesmodel Kenny, at f/1.4, with a bit of 100% crop in the corner. I believe this lens is going to be fun. And at $899 well worth the price of admission.

As to finding anything signifying the new programmability of theses lenses, I didn’t. But if some of the more electronically educated among you want to look up some chip codes, I’ve got a full size image of the PCB you can look at.

Roger Cicala

Lensrentals.com

November 2012

Addendum: A few real world pictures added, along with the note that 1) the lens is not weather sealed and 2) AF was as fast and accurate as the Canon L primes I usually shoot with. I didn’t do side-by-side comparisons, but it was certainly not noticeably different.

Roger Cicala, 2012

 

Roger Cicala, 2012

 

Roger Cicala, 2012

 

Roger Cicala, 2012

 

Roger Cicala, 2012

 

The weakness of the lens (every lens has some) does begin to show up in some of these photos: the backround bokeh is not nearly as smooth and buttery as the Nikon or Canon 35 lenses. That’s how it is with lenses – the designer trades off one aspect for another. With this lens we have awesome sharpness at an excellent price, and perhaps at the expense of background blur.

For some photographers the background blur will be a deal breaker. For others the price and sharpness will far outweigh that issue. Nice to have choices, isn’t it?

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in New Items
  • Jorge

    Well, it is true that a macro look shows that the new 35 Sigma’s bokeh is better, but seeing the full photo looks a little bit rough. As a Nikonian I would like to see a side by side comparison with the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G.

  • dkov70

    Is it really optically any better for FF Nikon compared to Nikon 28mm f/1.8 G AF-S? Anyway, it`s heavier, larger and costlier…Is it worth it?

  • With the sharpness being better than the Nikon and Canon lenses, at least at 1.4 and 2.0, I expect that this lens will really please a lot of landscape shooters (and of course gearheads). As a portrait photographer and food photographer, I’m inclined to lean towards having the best bokeh that I can afford in my lenses, though 35mm isn’t an ideal focal length for shooting food. I’d be really interested to see a bokeh comparison of this lens versus the Canon and Nikon (and Sony) 35mm 1.4 primes with a person acting as the subject and some trees about 20 feet behind him or her. In fact, side by side bokeh comparisons are something that I think the internet could use more of in general. Perhaps I should start a blog. And sink all my profits into renting lenses for the purpose of these tests 😉

  • Joe

    NEPO: great comparasoin, could you do just bokeh comparasion i diferent scenes between canon, sigma and contax? thanks a lot

  • Carl

    Amin, thanks for the links!

    Ok so Nepo seems to disagree with Roger’s initial findings regarding the bokeh smoothness. Will be interesting to see who else tests the lens, as well as to hear Roger’s further thoughts. To me, just looking at Roger’s test shots, I can see some roughness. And of course bokeh “smoothness” is probably not always directly related to longitudinal (or “axial”) CA. It sure would be nice if there was a quick way to get rid of the colored fringing in the bokeh, though. The only fast lens I have right now is a 50mm f/1.4, and it exhibits some. It’s just so sharp though, I am still extremely happy with it.

    NancyP, do you do any astrophotography piggy-backed on a telescope, or do you just use a tripod for relatively short exposure “still” shots…or do you just do longer exposure “star trail” photography? I would think you wouldn’t need or want a “fast” lens to do star trail photography…and usually you want a much wider angle than 35mm for that as well.

    One of my Milky Way shots got published in the March 2012 issue of Outdoor Photographer. I would have rather used a faster lens (like this Sigma) on a full frame camera, of course. But the shot was taken over 2 years ago.

    More and more people are doing great astro photography of all types, so it’s kind of difficult to get your work to stand out. Kind of like what’s going on with photography in general.

  • Amin

    “I also compared Sigma to Canon.In my opinion,Sigma35?s bokeh looks better than that of Canon.
    http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

    Thanks for the link. I agree with you – your controlled side-by-side testing shows nicer bokeh for the Sigma. The Sigma also looks sharper with less axial CA and less light falloff.

  • NancyP

    Thank you Roger for your review, and thanks in advance for any info you have when you get and test more of these lenses.

    Thank you Nepo for your additional info on this lens.

  • NancyP

    How is this lens’ coma? I am considering either the bargain Samyang/Rokinon/Bower 35mm f/1.4 manual focus lens or this new Sigma autofocus 35mm f/1.4 lens for astrophotography with my Canon. Autofocus is not necessary or possible for astrophotography, but coma (and to a lesser degree, chromatic aberration) can be a real problem in this type of photography. The bonus for autofocus is to be able to use this as a fast standard lens on Canon crop camera.

  • I also compared Sigma to Canon.In my opinion,Sigma35’s bokeh looks better than that of Canon.
    http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Canon-35mm-f14-L

  • Tom

    Just curious why no one on the entire “World Wide Web” except you has been able to post a review? I’ve never seen such a mysterious major product release.

  • Amin

    Carl, Sigma says the lens was designed to minimize axial CA: http://sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_35_14/index.html

    From the looks of these samples, I’d say they have succeeded:

    http://magazine.kakaku.com/mag/camera/id=996/

    http://lcap.tistory.com/archive/20121117

    http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/15/first-batch-of-sigma-35mm-f1-4-sample-photos-released-shows-impressive-iq/

    I’m no Sigma fanboy, but this looks like a winner in every way. In fact, this lens has me thinking about adding a 35mm format DSLR to my rotation again after going without one for the past couple years.

  • GirlFromPoland

    Thank’s for first review about Sigma Lens 35 / f/ 1.4

  • Carl

    What I’d like to know is, how does the “bokeh fringing” or longitudinal CA, compare with the other lenses? Will be interesting if you test for that. I could see some of the rough bokeh in the pictures even before reading the part where you mention it. That said, there’s something to be said for sharpness, too.

    Incidentally, has anyone figured out a quick way to “fix” bokeh fringing, with whatever editing software you prefer?

    As great as the 85L was when I rented it, I still recall some bokeh fringing, even with it (at least below f/2). My 135L has near zero lateral and longitudinal CA wide open, is extremely sharp to the corners (at least on my crop camera), and has smoother, more buttery bokeh than any lens I have tried, or seen images online (including the awesome 200 f/2L, which excelled in other areas). It’s a shame the wider focal length, fast lenses can’t be produced to achieve a similar result. I guess that’s physics for ya.

    The only fast Sigma lens I have tried, is the 30mm f/1.4 crop/only lens. Would be nice if they ever decide to update it. It had all sorts of apparent waviness to the field curvature at longer focus distances (or at least it seemed like it). Also had some rough bokeh, but at times could look smooth.

    The thing I liked about it most though, was the color. It probably epitomized the “warm” color that so many criticize Sigma for. I loved it, and still don’t see a downside to it. The entire color spectrum is still there, it just looked better, with less “false blue” hues…in my opinion. Sure you can tweak color all you like in the computer, but it helps if it’s there to begin with…then tweak that…haha.

  • Amin

    Bokeh doesn’t look so harsh to me. Hard to tell without side by side bokeh comparisons with other known lenses.

  • Joachim

    Meh.. not convinced. My Pentax 35/2.4 was extremely cheap, and it delivers better than most 35mm’s. In terms of sharpness, low CA and color rendition, there hardly is any better. One can surely get more exotic bokeh with a faster lens 10 times the prize, but I think it seems a bit silly. The point is, I don’t see the point in raving about that hard over this lens; it seems good, you get what you pay for if your not a complete fool etc.

  • ppz

    Nepo: impressive result, as it seem that sigma has better contrast wide open than the contax(using that lens myself and loving the bokeh and rendering of it) Bokeh seem to be the only downside of the sigma.

  • Some Guy

    I have this lens and to me the bokeh is pretty good. I’d prefer sharpness over “buttery” bokeh though. The Sigma 50 1.4 has the “buttery” bokeh but lacks sharpness (try it on a D800).

    Bokeh isn’t my primary concern with a wide lens like this though. Portrait lenses like the 85L are where I want smooth bokeh. With 35mm I want sharpness and some subject isolation. That’s what the Sigma gives me.

    Of course YMMV.

  • Reading this free blog is expensive.

    Thanks for the quick evaluation. I’m ready to dump my 24-70 for this.

  • jcr159

    LOL, Roger, I see you have a White Elephant! (I was a Cutco sales rep, and that’s what we called the white set with the steak knives…)

    : )

  • Bosse

    Have you tested the new Canon 35/2 IS USM ? Would be interresting to see how it compares to the new Sigma 🙂

  • In my test,Sigma 35mm f1.4 is wider than the other 35mm f1.4s.Thus Sigma 35 may have a disadvantage in bokeh amount.
    http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mmmf14-vs-Contax-35mm-f14

  • Ray

    Good to hear that canon might have some competition. I am just anxious to see how much CA comes out of this lens because my 35L is horrible.

  • I’m actually in the market for a 35mm large aperture for my Nikons and I was not overly impressed with their offering. This will do nicely I think. Thanks for the quick review.

    The 35 is not the only good lens Sigma now makes. Their 85mm 1.4 is also excellent. I had one for quite some time and it consistently impresses me with its performance.

    Best regards,

    Bogdan

  • dnguyen

    I’ll keep my buttery 35L

  • Looks amazing! I have one pre-ordered for our Sony a99 so hopefully it will ship soon! It looks like it will be far better than the Sony 35 1.4g… Thanks for your thoughts!

  • K D Sandmann

    Thanks again for all the articles !

  • Roger Cicala

    It’s full frame, Jim

  • Question……I am so in the market for a 35mm for this coming wedding season. Will this lens work on a full frame camera? Or more designed for the APS sensor?

  • Shigeki

    @touristguy87:

    What you got to understand is that these are just tools. Maybe for you this tool, for this cost seems limited and expensive, but I would go ahead and say many wouldn’t. Portrait and wedding photographers with a 35mm and a 50mm could get you through almost 80% of their day, but sports photographers would rather have a 70-200mm or a 300mm.

    I think we can all agree that a third party manufacturers producing quality products is a good this for all photographers and videographers no matter what your specialty is. I am hoping this lens pans out to be a great alternative to the Canon 35L, and from initial previews, it seems to be doing just that.

  • Roger, thanks for that. A couple distant streetlight shots would be informative too–coma looks very different for stars than it does for (apparently) larger light sources.

Follow on Feedly