I noticed this... Between yours, Fro's and Gordon Laing's hands-on vids, I was thinking this was a swing and a miss from Sigma. Now having seen Many and Dustin's, I'm scratching my head. 🤷♂️
That's really strange to me. I went and looked at the MTF charts, and it does seem like my copy was on the high side of the MTF and looks like yours was on the low side.
Watched several of your videos and subscribed. Really great information in linear progression. Easy to follow along and minus the excessive UA-cam flare and distractions.
I'm really itching for a 3rd party COMPACT made for mirrorless autofocusing 50mm f1.4 lens, and have it be only slightly larger than vintage optics. I think I'd prefer Tamron as their plastic seems to be really rugged and high quality and decently light weight.
I’m always interested in the star tests. Thanks for doing those. I wonder, as I’m sure many do, when Sigma is going to issue versions of these new DN mirrorless lenses for Nikon Z and Canon RF lens mounts. Why only Sony FE and Panasonic L?
hi Alan, it seems like Canon and Nikon have been far less welcoming to third parties thus far on their mirrorless platforms. Sony has taken the tack of being more open source, and Sigma is actually in an alliance with a Panasonic and Leica for L mount.
i saw the Gerald Undone review and looking at his pictures there is a significant lack of sharpness and even a lot of chromatic aberration i cant believe my eyes
He checked in with me on that, and I'm a little surprised. Sigma told me that the IQ was actually better than the 35mm F1.2, which is what I saw. I'm wondering if the copy he got had been damaged in transit and that the optics weren't quite centered.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i saw also a review from Gordon Laing and he notice that side by side the sharpness is better on the sony 35mm 1.4.That surprised me too.I own the sigma 85mm dg dn and wow that is sharp!!!i love it!!!Im very curious now what is going on with the 35mm
A bad lens can't look good, but a good lens can be damaged. Roger always tests ten units if he can, and there was one instance when he found a set of Sigmas which were all performing unusually poorly compared with other experience. He contacted Sigma, and they pulled up the individual lens profiles from the serial numbers, and found that the performance did not correspond. The lenses had been damaged or interfered with between Japan and the US. Sigma is a small family company undermining the profits of large investors in a diminishing market. It is commonplace to use disinformation online now, and for large investors/stakeholders to harm the reputation of rivals. Sony and Canon need not be directly involved as there are massive investment and political groups which do this en masse, however, they have both fallen afoul of the law or codes of conduct several times. Sony has used fake film reviewers as well as hacked customers computers, and this is one reason why I re-scale information I hear about Sony products, as well as prioritise other companies. Even without direct industrial espionage, there is social engineering of groups and individuals. Look at Omar Gonzalez's videos about being courted by Sony and perhaps manipulated by Ortiz.
I watched the Gerald Undone review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. His shtick seems to be APO macro lenses that have a flat field capability and are optimized for one-to-one reproduction. Note that such lenses don't do as well at infinity focus and don't always have the smoothest bokeh. Maybe Gerald doesn't realize that the Sigma 35mm lens is a general-purpose optic for still photography and is intended for group shots and some architectural work. (Incidentally, all of the real estate shooters I know use wide-angle zoom lenses, which Gerald would consider to be Coke bottles with his testing methods.) If Gerald loves close focusing so much, he might try the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 65mm f/2. If we ignore focus breathing, the Sony G Master is a little better than the Sigma, but for $500 more. If one needs a little better close focusing capability and doesn't mind spending more money, then get the G Master. However, there are portrait photographers who would consider both the Sigma and Sony to be too clinical. Needless to say that I didn't subscribe to Gerald Undone's channel.
I have an A-mount Sigma 35/1.4 that I have been using with an LAEA5 converter an my A7R4. I have always been pleased with the sharpness but AF performance is not up to snuff and of course I can't use it for video due to lack of video AF. It looks like this might be a good alternative to the 35/1.4 GM.
I actually never tested the Sony-Zeiss lens, as it released long before I started testing Sony. That lens has mixed reviews as it seems like there was a lot of sample variation. The Sigma is a strong choice at a good value, though.
great review. I also got the lens and I love the Quality! There are so many bad reviews out about this lens. I think for that price it´s the best choice! Keep up with your good reviews, also on your blog!
Thanks for the great review as always Dustin , thanks especially for looking at the astrophotography performance aspect. Is this Sigma lens a worthy competitor to the Sony GM in this regard? Star shape looks good across the frame, but wonder if the LoCA would present an issue. I assume it is LaCA that is more relevant to Astrophotography?
Interesting, because I felt Gerald's review was pretty negative overall... He suggested that the image quality seems to fall apart at MFD and that the lens has a hideous amount of loca. Could that be down to sample variation do you think?
He checked in with me on that, and I'm a little surprised. Sigma told me that the IQ was actually better than the 35mm F1.2, which is what I saw. I'm wondering if the copy he got had been damaged in transit and that the optics weren't quite centered.
I watched the Gerald Undone review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. His shtick seems to be APO macro lenses that have a flat field capability and are optimized for one-to-one reproduction. Note that such lenses don't do as well at infinity focus and don't always have the smoothest bokeh. Maybe Gerald doesn't realize that the Sigma 35mm lens is a general-purpose optic for still photography and is intended for group shots and some architectural work. (Incidentally, all of the real estate shooters I know use wide-angle zoom lenses, which Gerald would consider to be Coke bottles with his testing methods.) If Gerald loves close focusing so much, he might try the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 65mm f/2. If we ignore focus breathing, the Sony G Master is a little better than the Sigma, but for $500 more. If one needs a little better close focusing capability and doesn't mind spending more money, then get the G Master. However, there are portrait photographers who would consider both the Sigma and Sony to be too clinical. Needless to say that I didn't subscribe to Gerald Undone's channel.
Diffraction is camera, not lens, specific. The higher resolution camera you have, the earlier diffraction starts. My 61MP a7RV will start to show diffraction between F5.6 and F8.
Back in the very early days of E mount.. There is this 35 F1.4 ZA Zeiss.. Everyone is saying.. it's too big.. it's too heavy for a 35. Now fast forward to 2021.. This Sigma is not smaller or not lighter.. But cheaper tho. And people forgot about the 2 points mention..
@@DustinAbbottTWI Right. The old 35ZA has sample variation. I'm just saying when that lens was announce.. everyone was saying how big and heavy it was for a 35.. but many years later.. now this Sigma.. in term of size and weight.. doesnt change much but people actually dont "hate" it as much as before. So I'm quite amazed.
Hello Dustin. I've read and viewed yours this (and other sigma 35 f/2) many times. I'm undecided whether to buy the 35 f/1.4 dg dn art or the 35 f/2 dg dn only for photos (no video). I would use it especially when traveling but also a lens to always carry with you you say: 35 f/2 excellent when stopped down (but it seems to have a little nicer bokeh) 35 1.4 art: Strikes a good balance of size relative to performance; larger and havier I don't have the opportunity to try them myself my heart tells me: "go with f/1.4 art... it only weighs 300 grams more.." my mind tells me: go with the 35 f/2 because the difference in what it offers isn't huge and perhaps it has better blur performance what do you say? I know it's difficult, is the difference that huge?
Both lenses are sharp. If your priority is travel, the F2 lens is a tempting option. There's not really a wrong choice there - just whichever one actually suits your needs.
I have the Sony GM 35mm 1.4, but it is the focal length that I use the most and I plan to get another 35MM, would you recommend this one from Sigma? what would you do ? Thanks
Hi Dustin. Thank you very much for the review. I do not have easy access to cameras and lenses to be able to try them before buying them and I rely a lot on the opinions of reviewers like you (in particular I have a lot of trust in you and you are the one I follow the most and I pay more attention because in myself I have the conviction that you are not influenced by anything or anyone in your reviews, or otherwise, that for me you are sincere and honest, and also you seem simple and humble (as one has to be), and finally I you like you !!, seriously). In large part thanks to your review of the tamron 35 1.4 sp (and without being able to test it beforehand) I got a copy of it (already also having the sigma 35 art 2012), I'm talking about canon ef mounts, because you put it as quite better, but, honestly, after having both I have to say (feeling it a bit) that I do not agree on everything with you in some aspects (we are all wrong, maybe I am wrong too), for example you put as quite better the tamron in all aspects, and I believe that the 2 are 35 mm lenses but they are so different, and the photos are so different, that you can have both ... I could tell you that the tamron has a little more sharpness in 1.4 and that the bokeh is softer if and the sigma maybe a little more nervous (although this nervous or not if you like it more or less goes about tastes too), but only in 1.4, in other apertures the sigma is perhaps the same or sharper , and for me the finish and the rendering, rendering is finer and more elegant e (more classy) in sigma, and a big difference that I have noticed and a lot is also in color, tamron is remarkably warm in colors, I like sigma art much more, sigma art has a neutral color fabulous, more elegant and fine colors, more neutral for me and more pure. To tell you the truth, if I had to choose only between one of them, despite the fact that the tamron is better in 1.4 (although for me only in sharpness, bokeh and separation of the subject, not in color or rendering), I would stay with the sigma (also the sigma is somewhat smaller and less heavy), but, really, it is difficult to choose and even if they are the same focal length you can have or maintain both without any problem because (always in my opinion), they are super very very different. ..... but the sigma 35 art 2012 is that they did very well in sigma because it was the letter of presentation of sigma in the art saga, and I think it is the masterpiece of sigma, there will be no other like him. It also works for landscapes because if you set it to f11, for example, it is also a spectacular thing, clean skies, pure color, exquisite sharpness, class, glamor, etc. Well, excuse the long paragraph, please I have some questions for you: does this new mirrorless lens really have the class, glamor and quality of the original 35 art? I just can't test it because I don't have a mirrorless camera and I find it very difficult and expensive to rent for me ... how do they compare? Is the new for you much superior to the old? Just because of the supposed sharpness? What about the color, rendering, etc? And another question, how does the 40 art (which many consider the successor of the 35 art 2012) compare with the 35 art 2012 and with this new 35 dg dn? I have not yet been able to try the 40 art, although it pulls me back that it is so big and heavy but if it is still even better than this new one I would love try to get him and perhaps make the sacrifice of trying to carry it on my back. I trust you and your opinion a lot. Thank you very much dear Dustin !!!
@@DustinAbbottTWI The other day I went crazy and wrote a paragraph too long! Excuse me and thank you very much for your patience and for your answer, in addition to informing me excellently, you give me a lesson on how to explain a lot in a few words! As @Oh hi said 6 months ago, you are my favorite reviewer too! Thank you again!
For astro looks better than the old 35mm 1.4 ART lens, which was just terrible even at f4 on my Nikon. I sold it and I got Tamron 35mm 1.4 instead - I don't think I ever had any lens which is that good even wide open.
I don't think this new DGDN 35mm Art can challenge the Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP lens. Tamron's best lens ever. This lens is not even smaller or lighter by much
I'm quite satisfied with the Sony 35mm 1.8. Very small and light and reasonably priced compared with the alternative behemoths. Give me the the vast size and weight advantage over the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 any day.
The 1.2 DN is an amazing lens, though it is significantly larger and heavier than the F1.4 lens. How much does size matter to you? Optically and mechanically the lenses are quite similar, though obviously F1.2 gives you more creative options.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I found a 1.2 for a little over $1k and went with that. Size isn’t a huge deal to me because for my uses this will be primarily a wide interview lens and some occasional b roll!
Did you experience any minimum distance sharpness issue. Gerald was very vocal about it. That's the only thing that's stopping me from buying this lens. I would certainly be using the minimum distance a lot, in baby photography especially. Please do take a moment to respond. Will really appreciate it.
Gerald did really key in on that, but I didn't see as much negative about it. Yes, the Sony 35GM is better in both magnification and close up performance, but the Sigma is not terrible in either spot.
Possibly, though it was only a four second exposure, so it might have been moving a little fast for a plane. Planes also typically give off an intermittent light that looks more like morse code in a long exposure. As for your question, yes, I think the new lens is superior in basically every way. Optically, better build (weather sealed), more features, and much better autofocus.
Thanks for this review. I think there may be a real issue with either testing, expectations, or possibly some shipping issues getting from the manufacturing facilities to the Americas. I really want this lens to accompany my excellent 85 f1.4 DG DN, but the reviews seem mostly mixed. The only thing I am seeing as consistent is fringing as shown in your cat photo, which is no worse than some rather good Zeiss lenses I have used in the past. I am wondering also if the success of the GM 35mm design is muddying the waters considering how well corrected it is as to make very good lenses seem "bad". Something else that I found is interesting is how the focus breathing has been complained about quite a bit, but in your AF tracking section, the breathing is not nearly as bad as I would have expected from some of the reviews I saw. Thanks again!
It's unfortunate, but a lot of UA-cam reviewers tend to jump on bandwagons and focus on the same things. I don't even have enough time to watch UA-cam videos for the most part, so I just report what I personally see.
@DustinAbbottTWI Based on your advice and reviews, I purchased the Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4 and Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4. Those two lenses are superior to my Nikon Nikkor and Zeiss manual focusing lenses (which were made in Germany) in every regard possible. Those two Sigma lenses are so well-corrected that they render a landscape scene sharper than what my unaided eyes can see. So, I agree with you about some UA-camrs focusing on minutia. Moreover, many of these same UA-camrs do not use an extensive regimen of test charts and real-world subject matter the way you do. All too often, they rely on a few quick tests or no tests at all and then voice their opinion solely on personal impressions and anecdotal experience. In your reviews, you try to be both fair and balanced, something I really appreciate. Clearly, the Sigma Art primes are pro-grade glass at a more affordable price.
Great review, as always. What makes the buying decision difficult now is the bad performance in terms of chromatic aberration in other reviews...I thought this would be a perfect 35mm for hobby photographers, but these differences make me think twice.
Excellent review, as always My only disappointment with all those new lens releases, is that E mount still lacks long tele options. For 35mm, I can count at least 8 native E lenses (!); few from Sony and also 3rd parties For 400mm, we still only got two options (Sony G and Sigma). 600mm - only one option. And yes, I m excluding the 10K lenses and the recent Tammy I don't get why there is no emphasis at all in producing more options in those longer FLs..is there no demand for it? Nature? Sports? I honestly expected at least a Sigma option at 600mm, but after two years, there is no indication that they even considering make one. As a result, one has to pay 2K for adding that FL to their arsenal
That's a very fair point, and I think you've put your finger on the last remaining vulnerability on Sony. I would also add that it seems like - thus far- that getting maximum burst rate on the sports bodies requires putting Sony glass on them.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I had totally forgotten that! Your last point is probably the reason why 3rd parties have yet to release something at this FL (who would buy a 600mm lens with capped burst rate?) Not that one can complain even about those capped fps (wouldn't even dream those few years back!) But that could well be it. So unless Sony decides to lift this restriction, nothing will probably change in the foreseeable future. Which also makes me wonder is that 200-600 G still selling well? If a native E Sigma 150-600 was to be released, it would probably be one of their 'Contemporary' range, which means 'value for money' (my bet would be around 1.2K). In such scenario, the Sony would still remain the class leading option at this FL in terms of IQ and (quite likely) AF performance. Even though your review here on that 35mm proves that Sigma can indeed match Sony in that respect (AF) As I haven't been around for too long - did Sigma ever released an Art series ultra-tele lens? (on any mount)
Having just watched one of your reviews dating 5 yrs back - and to answer my own question - that could probably be a Sigma 150-600 **Sport** I wonder what the differences are between Sport and Contemporary (other than the build quality and motor of course). Is it same glass? Similar IQ? Because if a Sport ultra tele was to be released, it would be much closer to the performance of the Sony G (and price tag!)..Just assumptions at this point of course!
@@DustinAbbottTWI Although macro is still my passion (and actually the reason for me to be involved with photography!), I have realised that I will too be adding a tele lens to my kit. Following a recent trip to Costa Rica, I ve realised that birding can be an exciting area indeed. It was then that I wished to have that longer reach, as the 90mm of my Sony G where too short for this purpose. After purchasing the A7R3 last Christmas (on a very good cashback deal), I ve decided to keep my a6300. Perhaps when I manage to buy a tele lens, it will stay permanently on my a6300, as I ve decided that the FF body serves me better for macro. If I manage to find a decent deal for the 200-600 G, perhaps I ll go for it. Right now its priced at 1900EUR where I live, and that hurts, since I m not a PRO and not making money out of it. Just a hobby, but one I spend many pleasant hours with! Despite the much lower fps on my humble a6300 (compared to an a9/a1), I still think it will be a decent combo for birding
Hey Dustin, what are your thoughts on this Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs the Samyang 35mm f1.8? I'm not sure how I should value the better optical quality and larger aperture of the Sigma, versus the portability and price of the Samyang. I have a difficult time deciding which one to go for, and as a casual photographer, I feel it is not worth getting both. Which one would you go for and why?
I think that really depends on your tolerance for lens size. The Samyang is tempting because it is so compact while still delivering great results. The Sigma is a little sharper, but at the price of considerably more size and weight.
I own the old Sigma 35 1.4 and it was a great lens, been looking forward to this newer version but been hearing a lot of mediocre review regarding about it which is weird and it sways people to prompt for the GM version instead.
This lens is so sharp it almost hurts my eye! However I noticed some inconsistancy between reviewers, Sigma are known for some quality control issues, please not again. I really like sigma's price to performance ratio but the quality inconsistancy always stops me from buying from them.
Hmmm, I'm not really sure that any of the reviews indicated the lens wasn't sharp; some found more CA or that it wasn't as sharp as the GM lens (that's not true in my copies of the two lenses).
Great review! But I feel like you got a magic sample. Yours seems to perform much better than mine did. 🤷♂️
I noticed this... Between yours, Fro's and Gordon Laing's hands-on vids, I was thinking this was a swing and a miss from Sigma. Now having seen Many and Dustin's, I'm scratching my head. 🤷♂️
Could you Guys collaborate and find out about production variance for us Potential buyers. Thanks
Yep I am confused as well, can this be attributed to copy to copy variances? I am trying to wrap my head around it..
That's really strange to me. I went and looked at the MTF charts, and it does seem like my copy was on the high side of the MTF and looks like yours was on the low side.
I'll check out your review today and give you feedback there.
As usual, honest and detailed review from best photo gear reviewer. Thank you Dustin!
My pleasure!
Watched several of your videos and subscribed. Really great information in linear progression. Easy to follow along and minus the excessive UA-cam flare and distractions.
Glad it was helpful!
Looking forward of 35GM lens and their comparison，Very fantastic review as usual！Thanks
I've just started the 35GM review. I'll do a few optical comparisons from my chart, though the Sigma has been returned already.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Have been waiting for your GM review, as I think many others have!
I'm really itching for a 3rd party COMPACT made for mirrorless autofocusing 50mm f1.4 lens, and have it be only slightly larger than vintage optics. I think I'd prefer Tamron as their plastic seems to be really rugged and high quality and decently light weight.
There's definitely room for that. Viltrox has a compact 50mm F1.8 coming soon, though I know that F1.8 is not F1.4.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Viltrox seems like they've come a long way since they started. Thinking i might try out one of their lenses sometime soon.
Another great review Dustin , keep them coming 👌
Thank you.
I’m always interested in the star tests. Thanks for doing those. I wonder, as I’m sure many do, when Sigma is going to issue versions of these new DN mirrorless lenses for Nikon Z and Canon RF lens mounts. Why only Sony FE and Panasonic L?
hi Alan, it seems like Canon and Nikon have been far less welcoming to third parties thus far on their mirrorless platforms. Sony has taken the tack of being more open source, and Sigma is actually in an alliance with a Panasonic and Leica for L mount.
i saw the Gerald Undone review and looking at his pictures there is a significant lack of sharpness and even a lot of chromatic aberration i cant believe my eyes
He checked in with me on that, and I'm a little surprised. Sigma told me that the IQ was actually better than the 35mm F1.2, which is what I saw. I'm wondering if the copy he got had been damaged in transit and that the optics weren't quite centered.
@@DustinAbbottTWI i saw also a review from Gordon Laing and he notice that side by side the sharpness is better on the sony 35mm 1.4.That surprised me too.I own the sigma 85mm dg dn and wow that is sharp!!!i love it!!!Im very curious now what is going on with the 35mm
A bad lens can't look good, but a good lens can be damaged.
Roger always tests ten units if he can, and there was one instance when he found a set of Sigmas which were all performing unusually poorly compared with other experience. He contacted Sigma, and they pulled up the individual lens profiles from the serial numbers, and found that the performance did not correspond. The lenses had been damaged or interfered with between Japan and the US.
Sigma is a small family company undermining the profits of large investors in a diminishing market. It is commonplace to use disinformation online now, and for large investors/stakeholders to harm the reputation of rivals.
Sony and Canon need not be directly involved as there are massive investment and political groups which do this en masse, however, they have both fallen afoul of the law or codes of conduct several times. Sony has used fake film reviewers as well as hacked customers computers, and this is one reason why I re-scale information I hear about Sony products, as well as prioritise other companies.
Even without direct industrial espionage, there is social engineering of groups and individuals. Look at Omar Gonzalez's videos about being courted by Sony and perhaps manipulated by Ortiz.
I watched the Gerald Undone review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. His shtick seems to be APO macro lenses that have a flat field capability and are optimized for one-to-one reproduction. Note that such lenses don't do as well at infinity focus and don't always have the smoothest bokeh. Maybe Gerald doesn't realize that the Sigma 35mm lens is a general-purpose optic for still photography and is intended for group shots and some architectural work. (Incidentally, all of the real estate shooters I know use wide-angle zoom lenses, which Gerald would consider to be Coke bottles with his testing methods.) If Gerald loves close focusing so much, he might try the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 65mm f/2. If we ignore focus breathing, the Sony G Master is a little better than the Sigma, but for $500 more. If one needs a little better close focusing capability and doesn't mind spending more money, then get the G Master. However, there are portrait photographers who would consider both the Sigma and Sony to be too clinical. Needless to say that I didn't subscribe to Gerald Undone's channel.
I have an A-mount Sigma 35/1.4 that I have been using with an LAEA5 converter an my A7R4. I have always been pleased with the sharpness but AF performance is not up to snuff and of course I can't use it for video due to lack of video AF. It looks like this might be a good alternative to the 35/1.4 GM.
Definitely.
Great video, very helpful! Do you have any thoughts about this lens vs the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f1.4, disregarding the price difference?
I actually never tested the Sony-Zeiss lens, as it released long before I started testing Sony. That lens has mixed reviews as it seems like there was a lot of sample variation. The Sigma is a strong choice at a good value, though.
Thanks for doing another great review. I never buy anything without seeing if you've done a review.
No pressure, right?
great review. I also got the lens and I love the Quality! There are so many bad reviews out about this lens. I think for that price it´s the best choice! Keep up with your good reviews, also on your blog!
I'm glad that my review was helpful.
What a fantastic review! Thanks Dustin.
My pleasure!
Thanks for a great review, was considering adding this to my 55mm Zeiss and 85mm sigma... sounds like i might have to !
My pleasure
Thanks for the great review as always Dustin , thanks especially for looking at the astrophotography performance aspect. Is this Sigma lens a worthy competitor to the Sony GM in this regard? Star shape looks good across the frame, but wonder if the LoCA would present an issue. I assume it is LaCA that is more relevant to Astrophotography?
I think it would work pretty well for astro.
Interesting, because I felt Gerald's review was pretty negative overall... He suggested that the image quality seems to fall apart at MFD and that the lens has a hideous amount of loca. Could that be down to sample variation do you think?
He checked in with me on that, and I'm a little surprised. Sigma told me that the IQ was actually better than the 35mm F1.2, which is what I saw. I'm wondering if the copy he got had been damaged in transit and that the optics weren't quite centered.
I watched the Gerald Undone review of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens. His shtick seems to be APO macro lenses that have a flat field capability and are optimized for one-to-one reproduction. Note that such lenses don't do as well at infinity focus and don't always have the smoothest bokeh. Maybe Gerald doesn't realize that the Sigma 35mm lens is a general-purpose optic for still photography and is intended for group shots and some architectural work. (Incidentally, all of the real estate shooters I know use wide-angle zoom lenses, which Gerald would consider to be Coke bottles with his testing methods.) If Gerald loves close focusing so much, he might try the Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 65mm f/2. If we ignore focus breathing, the Sony G Master is a little better than the Sigma, but for $500 more. If one needs a little better close focusing capability and doesn't mind spending more money, then get the G Master. However, there are portrait photographers who would consider both the Sigma and Sony to be too clinical. Needless to say that I didn't subscribe to Gerald Undone's channel.
Thanks for the great review.
How does it compare in terms of sharpness and auto focus to the previous Sigma 35 1.4 ?
It is sharper, and the autofocus is much, much better.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thanks !
I already have a Sigma 35mm F1.2 lens. Would it be recommended to upgrade to the new version of Sigma 35mm F1.4?
Only if the size of the F1.2 throws you. Both lenses are similar in build and features.
Dustin love the reviews! What lens was this review filmed on? It had a certain look to it I really liked.
I used the Sony A1 and Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 RXD
Good morning Dustin, What about diffraction? at which f/ starts?
Diffraction is camera, not lens, specific. The higher resolution camera you have, the earlier diffraction starts. My 61MP a7RV will start to show diffraction between F5.6 and F8.
Great review, as usual! I am still waiting for the ART series lenses for RF mount though.
I'm hearing that from a lot of people.
Back in the very early days of E mount.. There is this 35 F1.4 ZA Zeiss.. Everyone is saying.. it's too big.. it's too heavy for a 35. Now fast forward to 2021.. This Sigma is not smaller or not lighter.. But cheaper tho. And people forgot about the 2 points mention..
No, it isn't smaller or light, but the 35mm F1.4 ZA has a massive amount of sample variation and less reliable autofocus.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Right. The old 35ZA has sample variation. I'm just saying when that lens was announce.. everyone was saying how big and heavy it was for a 35.. but many years later.. now this Sigma.. in term of size and weight.. doesnt change much but people actually dont "hate" it as much as before. So I'm quite amazed.
I just got this 3 days ago and it's amazing!
It is. Enjoy!
Great review! Thanks Dustin!
My pleasure!
Hello Dustin. I've read and viewed yours this (and other sigma 35 f/2) many times. I'm undecided whether to buy the 35 f/1.4 dg dn art or the 35 f/2 dg dn only for photos (no video).
I would use it especially when traveling but also a lens to always carry with you
you say: 35 f/2 excellent when stopped down (but it seems to have a little nicer bokeh)
35 1.4 art: Strikes a good balance of size relative to performance; larger and havier
I don't have the opportunity to try them myself
my heart tells me: "go with f/1.4 art... it only weighs 300 grams more.."
my mind tells me: go with the 35 f/2 because the difference in what it offers isn't huge and perhaps it has better blur performance
what do you say? I know it's difficult, is the difference that huge?
Both lenses are sharp. If your priority is travel, the F2 lens is a tempting option. There's not really a wrong choice there - just whichever one actually suits your needs.
I have the Sony GM 35mm 1.4, but it is the focal length that I use the most and I plan to get another 35MM, would you recommend this one from Sigma? what would you do ? Thanks
I'm confused. Would you use the second 35mm on a second body? The GM is the best option, so I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish.
@@DustinAbbottTWI if it is for a second body
Hi Dustin. Thank you very much for the review. I do not have easy access to cameras and lenses to be able to try them before buying them and I rely a lot on the opinions of reviewers like you (in particular I have a lot of trust in you and you are the one I follow the most and I pay more attention because in myself I have the conviction that you are not influenced by anything or anyone in your reviews, or otherwise, that for me you are sincere and honest, and also you seem simple and humble (as one has to be), and finally I you like you !!, seriously). In large part thanks to your review of the tamron 35 1.4 sp (and without being able to test it beforehand) I got a copy of it (already also having the sigma 35 art 2012), I'm talking about canon ef mounts, because you put it as quite better, but, honestly, after having both I have to say (feeling it a bit) that I do not agree on everything with you in some aspects (we are all wrong, maybe I am wrong too), for example you put as quite better the tamron in all aspects, and I believe that the 2 are 35 mm lenses but they are so different, and the photos are so different, that you can have both ... I could tell you that the tamron has a little more sharpness in 1.4 and that the bokeh is softer if and the sigma maybe a little more nervous (although this nervous or not if you like it more or less goes about tastes too), but only in 1.4, in other apertures the sigma is perhaps the same or sharper , and for me the finish and the rendering, rendering is finer and more elegant e (more classy) in sigma, and a big difference that I have noticed and a lot is also in color, tamron is remarkably warm in colors, I like sigma art much more, sigma art has a neutral color fabulous, more elegant and fine colors, more neutral for me and more pure. To tell you the truth, if I had to choose only between one of them, despite the fact that the tamron is better in 1.4 (although for me only in sharpness, bokeh and separation of the subject, not in color or rendering), I would stay with the sigma (also the sigma is somewhat smaller and less heavy), but, really, it is difficult to choose and even if they are the same focal length you can have or maintain both without any problem because (always in my opinion), they are super very very different. ..... but the sigma 35 art 2012 is that they did very well in sigma because it was the letter of presentation of sigma in the art saga, and I think it is the masterpiece of sigma, there will be no other like him. It also works for landscapes because if you set it to f11, for example, it is also a spectacular thing, clean skies, pure color, exquisite sharpness, class, glamor, etc. Well, excuse the long paragraph, please I have some questions for you: does this new mirrorless lens really have the class, glamor and quality of the original 35 art? I just can't test it because I don't have a mirrorless camera and I find it very difficult and expensive to rent for me ... how do they compare? Is the new for you much superior to the old? Just because of the supposed sharpness? What about the color, rendering, etc? And another question, how does the 40 art (which many consider the successor of the 35 art 2012) compare with the 35 art 2012 and with this new 35 dg dn? I have not yet been able to try the 40 art, although it pulls me back that it is so big and heavy but if it is still even better than this new one I would love try to get him and perhaps make the sacrifice of trying to carry it on my back. I trust you and your opinion a lot. Thank you very much dear Dustin !!!
The 40mm F1.4 ART is probably the best of the three optically, but yes, this new Sigma DN is a superior lens to the original 2012 lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI The other day I went crazy and wrote a paragraph too long! Excuse me and thank you very much for your patience and for your answer, in addition to informing me excellently, you give me a lesson on how to explain a lot in a few words! As @Oh hi said 6 months ago, you are my favorite reviewer too! Thank you again!
For astro looks better than the old 35mm 1.4 ART lens, which was just terrible even at f4 on my Nikon. I sold it and I got Tamron 35mm 1.4 instead - I don't think I ever had any lens which is that good even wide open.
I don't think this new DGDN 35mm Art can challenge the Tamron 35mm f1.4 SP lens. Tamron's best lens ever. This lens is not even smaller or lighter by much
The Tamron is an amazingly good lens, though not designed for Sony, obviously
You are simply great as always. Thank you
Thanks again!
Can you throw it on a apsc camera and review it please.
Afraid not. The lens was a loaner and I don't own an APS-C camera.
Probably don't need a high-end 35mm, but this and the m-mount APO-Lanthar are the two contendors if so
Fair enough.
Hello dustin, i shoot jpeg, can the camera corrections fix these in camera for me?
Yes it can and will
I'm quite satisfied with the Sony 35mm 1.8. Very small and light and reasonably priced compared with the alternative behemoths. Give me the the vast size and weight advantage over the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 any day.
Fair enough. I liked the Sony 35mm F1.8, too.
Next up on my "Want List".
Great video
Be lucky stay safe.
Thanks, you too!
Will you be reviewing the Sony 50mm GM?
Yes, I am working on the 35mm and 14mm GM reviews right now, hopefully to be soon followed by the 50GM
So would you rather buy the Sony Zeiss 35mm 1.4 or the Sigma 35mm 1.4 DG DN?
I would personally go for the Sigma. Great image quality and almost half the price.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you Dustin
Any thoughts on this versus the 1.2 DN? You can get that lens for a couple hundred more (used) on eBay right now. I’m primarily video.
The 1.2 DN is an amazing lens, though it is significantly larger and heavier than the F1.4 lens. How much does size matter to you? Optically and mechanically the lenses are quite similar, though obviously F1.2 gives you more creative options.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you! I found a 1.2 for a little over $1k and went with that. Size isn’t a huge deal to me because for my uses this will be primarily a wide interview lens and some occasional b roll!
Did you experience any minimum distance sharpness issue. Gerald was very vocal about it. That's the only thing that's stopping me from buying this lens. I would certainly be using the minimum distance a lot, in baby photography especially. Please do take a moment to respond. Will really appreciate it.
Gerald did really key in on that, but I didn't see as much negative about it. Yes, the Sony 35GM is better in both magnification and close up performance, but the Sigma is not terrible in either spot.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Alright thanks for the reply Dustin.
Your Asteroid is most probably an airplane :) how does it compare to the older sigma 35mm 1.4 Art? Is it "enough to replace it" in your opinion?
Possibly, though it was only a four second exposure, so it might have been moving a little fast for a plane. Planes also typically give off an intermittent light that looks more like morse code in a long exposure. As for your question, yes, I think the new lens is superior in basically every way. Optically, better build (weather sealed), more features, and much better autofocus.
Thanks for this review. I think there may be a real issue with either testing, expectations, or possibly some shipping issues getting from the manufacturing facilities to the Americas. I really want this lens to accompany my excellent 85 f1.4 DG DN, but the reviews seem mostly mixed. The only thing I am seeing as consistent is fringing as shown in your cat photo, which is no worse than some rather good Zeiss lenses I have used in the past. I am wondering also if the success of the GM 35mm design is muddying the waters considering how well corrected it is as to make very good lenses seem "bad".
Something else that I found is interesting is how the focus breathing has been complained about quite a bit, but in your AF tracking section, the breathing is not nearly as bad as I would have expected from some of the reviews I saw.
Thanks again!
It's unfortunate, but a lot of UA-cam reviewers tend to jump on bandwagons and focus on the same things. I don't even have enough time to watch UA-cam videos for the most part, so I just report what I personally see.
@DustinAbbottTWI Based on your advice and reviews, I purchased the Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4 and Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4. Those two lenses are superior to my Nikon Nikkor and Zeiss manual focusing lenses (which were made in Germany) in every regard possible. Those two Sigma lenses are so well-corrected that they render a landscape scene sharper than what my unaided eyes can see. So, I agree with you about some UA-camrs focusing on minutia. Moreover, many of these same UA-camrs do not use an extensive regimen of test charts and real-world subject matter the way you do. All too often, they rely on a few quick tests or no tests at all and then voice their opinion solely on personal impressions and anecdotal experience. In your reviews, you try to be both fair and balanced, something I really appreciate. Clearly, the Sigma Art primes are pro-grade glass at a more affordable price.
Great review, as always. What makes the buying decision difficult now is the bad performance in terms of chromatic aberration in other reviews...I thought this would be a perfect 35mm for hobby photographers, but these differences make me think twice.
I think some of those reviews were unfortunately fixated on isolated issues. I absolutely did NOT see any crucial issues with CA.
@@DustinAbbottTWI hi Dustin didn’t forget about this review but based on results I just got it for my SL2. Outstanding piece of glass!
Excellent review, as always
My only disappointment with all those new lens releases, is that E mount still lacks long tele options. For 35mm, I can count at least 8 native E lenses (!); few from Sony and also 3rd parties
For 400mm, we still only got two options (Sony G and Sigma). 600mm - only one option. And yes, I m excluding the 10K lenses and the recent Tammy
I don't get why there is no emphasis at all in producing more options in those longer FLs..is there no demand for it? Nature? Sports?
I honestly expected at least a Sigma option at 600mm, but after two years, there is no indication that they even considering make one. As a result, one has to pay 2K for adding that FL to their arsenal
That's a very fair point, and I think you've put your finger on the last remaining vulnerability on Sony. I would also add that it seems like - thus far- that getting maximum burst rate on the sports bodies requires putting Sony glass on them.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I had totally forgotten that! Your last point is probably the reason why 3rd parties have yet to release something at this FL (who would buy a 600mm lens with capped burst rate?) Not that one can complain even about those capped fps (wouldn't even dream those few years back!)
But that could well be it. So unless Sony decides to lift this restriction, nothing will probably change in the foreseeable future. Which also makes me wonder is that 200-600 G still selling well? If a native E Sigma 150-600 was to be released, it would probably be one of their 'Contemporary' range, which means 'value for money' (my bet would be around 1.2K). In such scenario, the Sony would still remain the class leading option at this FL in terms of IQ and (quite likely) AF performance. Even though your review here on that 35mm proves that Sigma can indeed match Sony in that respect (AF)
As I haven't been around for too long - did Sigma ever released an Art series ultra-tele lens? (on any mount)
Having just watched one of your reviews dating 5 yrs back - and to answer my own question - that could probably be a Sigma 150-600 **Sport**
I wonder what the differences are between Sport and Contemporary (other than the build quality and motor of course). Is it same glass? Similar IQ? Because if a Sport ultra tele was to be released, it would be much closer to the performance of the Sony G (and price tag!)..Just assumptions at this point of course!
I just bought the 200-600 G myself because I wanted a long telephoto that could take full advantage of the burst rate of my Alpha 1
@@DustinAbbottTWI Although macro is still my passion (and actually the reason for me to be involved with photography!), I have realised that I will too be adding a tele lens to my kit. Following a recent trip to Costa Rica, I ve realised that birding can be an exciting area indeed. It was then that I wished to have that longer reach, as the 90mm of my Sony G where too short for this purpose.
After purchasing the A7R3 last Christmas (on a very good cashback deal), I ve decided to keep my a6300. Perhaps when I manage to buy a tele lens, it will stay permanently on my a6300, as I ve decided that the FF body serves me better for macro. If I manage to find a decent deal for the 200-600 G, perhaps I ll go for it. Right now its priced at 1900EUR where I live, and that hurts, since I m not a PRO and not making money out of it. Just a hobby, but one I spend many pleasant hours with!
Despite the much lower fps on my humble a6300 (compared to an a9/a1), I still think it will be a decent combo for birding
Where did you find one for 899?
bhpho.to/3u63dRD
@@DustinAbbottTWI do you know if this will work on canon?
No - this lens is designed for Sony FE or Leica L only
Hey Dustin, what are your thoughts on this Sigma 35mm f1.4 vs the Samyang 35mm f1.8? I'm not sure how I should value the better optical quality and larger aperture of the Sigma, versus the portability and price of the Samyang. I have a difficult time deciding which one to go for, and as a casual photographer, I feel it is not worth getting both. Which one would you go for and why?
I think that really depends on your tolerance for lens size. The Samyang is tempting because it is so compact while still delivering great results. The Sigma is a little sharper, but at the price of considerably more size and weight.
Do you think this lens good for videography?
Yes, though it does have some focus breathing.
I own the old Sigma 35 1.4 and it was a great lens, been looking forward to this newer version but been hearing a lot of mediocre review regarding about it which is weird and it sways people to prompt for the GM version instead.
That's strange to me, as I found the lens really strong optically.
“Fantastic”
Tahnks!
This lens is so sharp it almost hurts my eye! However I noticed some inconsistancy between reviewers, Sigma are known for some quality control issues, please not again. I really like sigma's price to performance ratio but the quality inconsistancy always stops me from buying from them.
Hmmm, I'm not really sure that any of the reviews indicated the lens wasn't sharp; some found more CA or that it wasn't as sharp as the GM lens (that's not true in my copies of the two lenses).
Need.
That's what Sigma wants to hear!
Sigma, making me wish I woulda pumped the brakes 2 years ago one lens at a time. ROFL
LOL - yeah, pretty much.
Few years ago : Sony lacks good 35mm prime!!
Now: Sony has too many 35mm primes!!
Pretty much!