Sigma 340101 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Lens for Canon, Black

Product Information

This is a well-built lens. It is solid, with a mostly metal exterior, metal mount and plastic switches that feel substantial and sturdy. It actually feels sturdier than the Nikon version, which has a lot of plastic. The lens isn’t weather-sealed, however, so don’t go shooting it in a rainstorm with no protection. Above: Now for bokeh blobs and in my video I run through the entire aperture range of the Sigma 35 1.4 from f1.4 to f16, taken from close to its minimum focusing distance of 30cm. Here you can see the new lens puts to rest the bokeh demons of its predecessor, now delivering attractive and well-behaved bokeh blobs with minimal outlining and barely no textures within. Sure there’s inevitable rugby balls in the corners at the maximum aperture, but close it even by one stop and they mostly become circular while the 11-bladed diaphragm maintains a nice mostly rounded shape at f2.8 and f4. The geometric shape becomes more obvious at smaller apertures but overall I’m very happy with these results. Determining a lens’ bokeh quality is somewhat challenging because bokeh is both a subjective measure (the Helios 44-2 “swirly” bokeh is either wonderful or terrible depending on your perspective) and it is also notoriously difficult to demonstrate in a controlled test. Since its introduction there has been some debate about the bokeh quality from the Sigma. I myself have referred to it as being somewhat “clinical”, and feel that the lens tipped the scales more towards sharpness than overall drawing. The reality is that while the lens is perhaps not exceptional in this regard, it is in no way objectionable either. I’ve been using the lens side by side with the Canon 35L II over the past five weeks, and while I instinctively prefer the “look” of the images from the 35L II, the reality is that the differences are subtle at most.

This isn’t something that I particularly look for in a lens for a 35mm camera as my main bodies only have 22 mega pixels, but I know a lot of people do. This lens is pretty darn sharp. I add a lot of grain to my images in post to try and remove some of this as it’s a little bit too much for me and for the commercial work I do. Most of my clients want my work to look as film like as possible, rather than as digital and sharp as possible. The lens resolves a great amount of detail and when I have used it on the Canon 5DS R system it has coped well with the larger resolution. From f/2.8 onward this lens is very sharp. After f/8 it starts to fall apart a little, to my untrained eyes.Did Sigma beat Canon on this lens? When you factor in the cost, the look, the optics and the images (that's all that matters in the end), then yes, absolutely. There is nothing that the Canon offers that would make me want the Sigma any less, especially the extra bit of cash left over after you buy it. On top of this impressive array of features and elegant exterior, the body of the 35mm F1.4 DG DN | Art offers an exceptional level of durability that helps it withstand long-term professional use as well as individual operating parts that give a good fit to the hand. The dust and splash resistant structure* provides sealing on buttons and along joins between constituent parts, and there is a rubber gasket around the mount. There is also a water and oil repellent coating applied to the front element ensures that photographers can rely on it in any conditions. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART lens is as sharp as I could ever need it to be. Yes, I could split hairs about softness in the corners at f/1.4 (which it has) and softness across the frame at f/11 (which it also has). But in all practical terms, this lens is phenomenally sharp. Sigma is arguably one of the more recognizable of the third party lens manufacturers. It is known for providing inexpensive alternatives to many of Canon's own zoom lens offerings, or filling niche gaps left in Canon's lineup. This applied to their limited selection of prime lenses as well; I briefly owned their 30mm f/1.4 EX DC and was happy with it on a consumer level, though the optics didn't hold up to some of the more pressing work I did and a move to full-frame (it's a “DC” lens, denoting it's for Digital Camera's only, and specifically crop sensors) meant I wouldn't be able to use it anyway. They released a 50mm f/1.4 EX DG that retailed for MORE than the Canon equivalent; their stance was that it performed better optically and had better build, both of which may very well be true. But pervasive issues of quality control, of batch variance where you never know for sure if the lens you get will be anywhere close to being as good as it can be, or as it is advertised, and a stigma (pun?) attached to owning something “inferior” than a first party “L” lens kept many consumers away. Today, I’ll give you my review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art lens after shooting with it for about six months. We’ll talk specifications and real-world performance, and I’ll tell you if the lens has made me into a Sigma convert or solidified my place as a Nikon snob. (Spoiler alert…I’m a believer.) My history with 3rd party lenses

Above: One last close-up test with each lens focused as close as it would allow when set to manual and with the apertures wide-open. Here’s the Sigma 35 1.4 from about 30cm away where it’s reproducing 162mm across the frame. It’s fairly sharp in the middle but becomes quite soft at the edges where I needed to stop it down to f4 to f5.6 for a good result at the extremes. When focused in the center of the frame, the Sigma 35mm F1.4 delivers great detail and even the corners are only very slightly softer wide open. There's a slight haze to the image, or loss of contrast, wide open, but stopping down just slightly to F2.8 is sufficient to get a beautifully sharp image across the whole frame. Peak sharpness is reached by F4. Function available on supported cameras only. Available corrections may vary depending on the camera model. A specific issue I had with Sigma's 30mm lens was that the optics were not well suited to getting hit by direct light. Shooting into a light-source was the optical equivalent of a demolished building: nothing worthwhile was left over. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 has none of these flaws; it handles light-flare well, retaining much of the image's fidelity. The visible optical flare may not be as dramatic or pretty as you've seen in some of Canon's primes, but it's still there for those who like to add that creative flair (pun!).Again you stripped the exif data from the sample but if you were really at 1/30 that is way too slow. I mean way, way too slow. I would "guess" 1/1000 would be more where you should be. Give or take a stop or two. You need to select an aperture and ISO that lets you maintain that SS. Smaller the better, IE. f8+. When the Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art was announced in late 2018, it sat in-between Sigma’s 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art and 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, both hugely popular with image-makers of all levels. You can read why we rate the latter as a great used lens here. New and used prices Above: Stop it down even a little though and you’ll gain sharpness and contrast with the lens peaking around f4 to f5.6. Above: Ok now for a comparison at the maximum apertures of each lens, all shot from the same distance, starting with the more affordable Sigma 35 f2 on the right where there’s a dramatic difference in the size of the bokeh blobs. Looking closely, the blobs on the f2 version on the right are also a little more textured than the 1.4 on the left. I should say the Sigma 35 f2 is actually quite good in its class, but it’s up against some of the best here. If you’re like me and you value sharpness and more depth-of-field than you do bokeh, shoot it at around f/2.8 for portraits. You’ll love it. Build quality

A 35mm f/1.4 prime lens is a go-to favorite for wedding photographers, street photographers and photojournalists alike. Empowered by its very wide aperture, it's a great story-telling lens that is able to be utilized with great effect in a wide range of situations.

The only significant bad news on the focusing front will be of relevance to videographers, rather than still shooters. Unfortunately, the 35mm F1.4 DG DN exhibits quite heavy focus breathing, which gives the impression that you're zooming in and out as the focus distance is adjusted. The good news for video shooters, at least so long as you can live with the focus breathing issue, is that AF is very quiet. The Canon produces surprisingly strong chromatic aberration (magenta fringing), even at apertures as small as f/8 Last but not least, c) It's silly to compare a small Rangefinder Lens Design with an ordinary one, which is also 1000s of USD/EUR more expensive. If i'd spent rather ~2k for just a 35/1.4, it'll being Zeiss for sure, not Leica.