Bought one in Saigon yesterday to go with my Sigma 105f1.4 Art. I'm 67 and the weight doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm out taking photos every day of my life. Its what I do.
glad to hear that. I too own the 105 1.4, by far my favourite lens. Dustin, your comment almost makes me wish I went for the 28mm Art instead of the 35mm Art for widefield astrophotography mosaics. but the 35mm and 105mm make for a great pair of primes for my full frame cameras, and the 18-35 and 50-100 f1.8 make for a great versatile pair for my APS-C camera.
I got this lens.. primary use is portrait I love this image quality sharp and bokeh. this is underrated lens not common focal length that's why I love this lens.
I’m really liking the image quality of this lens . Everything looks so “real” in its rendering . If real is a lens attribute this has that . Like when you review the Tamron 35 mm f/1.4 the bokeh was almost unreal in its rendering, which I love that in a lens . This lens by no means in your pictures has a harsh fall off or bokeh character. The bokeh is beautifully soft . Not dreamy but “real” looking.
I shoot 27-28 mm a ton and like the 35-40 better than 50 most of the time . I have the 50 art and it’s just a little wide for my style of shooting. And I don’t favor the 50s fov . It feels uncomfortable if that makes sense. 28 , 40 and 105 or 135 arts are where I’m planning on going . And again the 105 art is a phenomenal lens but that focal lenght has a 50mm feel to me 135 suits my work better. Wish Sigma had a 200 f/2.0 but it would be 9 pounds . Lol
This lens has the best microcontrast of all time imo. When shooting HLG video, I literally have to set the Sigma 105mm at 1.150 contrast in Davinci Resolve to simply match 1.0 straight out of camera contrast on the 40. It's insane. Almost like it has a built in LUT for video if shooting log lol.
I got to test one for a couple days when I was in Japan this past Spring and loved the images I got out of it, but it really was massive. I would've picked one up had Sigma not put out that 35mm 1.2. A lot of tests say that it's closer to 37mm in its focal length, so it's even closer to this lens in that regard.
If you are a Sony shooter exclusively, then getting the 35mm makes more sense. The focus system is designed more specifically for mirrorless. If you shoot both Canon and Sony, then getting the 40mm makes more sense.
I think for the sharpness and well-corrected performance, the lens is actually pretty cheap when compared to the Canon 50mm RF and Zeiss 55mm Otus. I'm interested to find out next time how the flare resistance fares, and whether it is better than the 35mm 1.2. I've never seen good mtf or test chart comparisons between the Canon 50mm RF and the Sigma 40mm, so I can't quite say the Sigma is the sharpest lens 50mm and under but I think it's the sharpest under 50mm for sure.
It is better than the 35mm F1.2 in flare resistance, though the 35mm is sharper in the corners. I will be looking at the RF 50 in December, but I won't have them at the same time as the 40 ART goes back to Sigma on Monday.
Just picked it up for an even $1000 Canadian. Super excited to receive it, hoping I don't find the size and weight too cumbersome. IQ above all though, that's the reason I got it over the 50 art.
I'm looking at getting one and they are on sale for about $1100 cdn right now. This would be a 10/10 must buy but the size is the only drawback. EVERYTHING else about it is nearly perfect. It's the about the same price as the 50mm but has better build, weather sealing and is newer with better image quality.
@@77dris after having owned it a few months now, it's a behemoth. makes even my 5diii look puny and my eos kiss 35mm looks like a toy with it mounted. works a real treat though, i did end up buying the sigma dock to get the focus dialed in but it's been great overall, still the best lens i own. the focal length can be a challenge at times, subject separation doesn't come nearly as naturally as at a longer focal length. heavy as hell and gigantic but the iq really delivers, razor sharp even wide open
Facts..Sigma Art 40mm: 8k image quality equivalent. 1% distortion. Virtually no Chroma. As sharp as the Zeiss - Otus, costing 3-4 k. 40mm now new, for as little as £600 No brainer. Bought mines today, with 82mm Circular Polariser filter. 👏
In Lensrentals' test (infinity wide open though the 35mm 1.2 was tested at 1.4 as well in a rare exception) and PhillipReeve's and Cameralab's test, the 40mm is sharper and better corrected but you obviously don't get the f1.2 aperture. The difference in sharpness is away from center. Lensrentals tested the 40mm at very high lp/mm in a later and seperate round of testing (even higher than 200lp/mm) and the 40mm fared well there as well though the 35mm 1.2 was not tested.
I actually found the 35mm sharper in the corners (at least with the copies I compared). The problem is that the 40mm is mounted on an adapter, though my MC-11 has proven well centered. It's difficult to compare lenses for different systems without introducing a bias one way or another.
Hi Dustin...! It's 2024 already, it's been quite a while since this video launched. Would you still consider this lens vs EF 35mm F1.4 mark II vs Tamron SP 35mm F1.4? I am Canon R6 shooter and would consider to replace my RF 35mm F1.8 due to image sharpness of afore-mentioned lenses are much better than the RF 35mm lens. Appreciate your views, as always...!
Nice review as I am considering this lens despite its weight. I like the portrait rendering and the soft background very much. However the leaves and other detailed shots seem to be lacking vibrancy, which one can of course increase in post-processing.
More similar than different, really. The 40mm may have a bit more contrast, but both are very good. I actually found corner sharpness a little better on the 35mm with the copies I tested.
I sell Sigma lenses, and certainly, they are excellent performers, but sometimes I really suspect they add LEAD to the case to justify the rediculous WEIGHT of their 'no compromise designs'
Hi Dustin. Compared to the Tamron 45mm 1.8 , will their be a significant difference in image quality? Camera body is a canon 5D mark iv but eventually going mirrorless full frame
The Sigma is pretty exceptional optically, so you will see some difference. The question is whether or not it will be enough to be worth the huge size and high price difference.
thanks for your great and very detailed review, sir. and pardon my ignorance, is there any reason for the price of this lens to be reduced so drastically? it used to be around 1400usd when it was released, slightly above 1000usd some time ago and now it's only 800usd, which is quite odd.
I think the primary reason is that the DSLR market is shrinking with the move to mirrorless, so Sigma is probably trying to reduce existing stock through cutting the price.
Versus the Sigma 35mm f1.2... I imagine that the extra 5mm makes it kind of a wash between the two as far as out of focus backgrounds. Would still be interested in your thoughts between the two (and maybe the recent Tamron 35mm, as some one else suggested. As always, thanks for all the work you put in on these!
That's probably true in terms of depth of field. All three of these are very, very good lenses. They are also not all designed for the same system, so it's hard to directly compare them without introducing camera handicaps to one or more. The Tamron obviously wins the value for money argument.
@SwitchRich to continue in this line we should add the "option" of keeping the same distance and framing more inclusive by 3mm (the Sigma is close to 37mm. BTW how exact is the 40mm?) and croppe that in post..
I do think the Tamron has slightly nicer bokeh. Both lenses are fantastic. The Tamron is probably the better value for money with performance being more similar than different.
Have you managed to get your hands on the new 24-70mm ART for Sony E-mount? Would love to hear what you think of it, especially compared to the Tamron 28-75mm.
I am supposed to have one at some point in mid to late December. I agree about the points regarding the competition for the GM lens. Between the Sigma and Tamron the GM may be a hard sell.
Sir i am a street, travel photogrpaher as a hobbiest and wedding,fashion photographer as profession, i jst want to ask you which one is the best 35mm 1.4 DN or 40mm 1.4. i love to take more wide shots with the close subjects.
Dustin , this doesn’t have to do with this video but I was wondering if I could ask you a question. I have a 5d / 6d canon. A canon trigger. A godox ad200. My main need is a on camera flash for weddings. Would you go godox since I have the ad200 or would you go Canon since I already have the canon controller. If I went the godox v1 route I would just have to buy a xpro to control both correct. Could you help ?
Hi Dustin;) Help me to desire between this Sigma 40/1,4 or RF 35/1,8 to my Canon EOS R, Which one you would buy?I need the best possible sharpness....Thanks for all help
@@DustinAbbottTWI hmmm havent thought that far just sort of steating up again. I have a macpro 2013 so not sure if it will allow me to edit in 4k or not.
That's a good question (and a really tough call). I guess it would depend on what platform I was working on, what other lenses I had, etc... Both lenses are really exceptional. If I had no 35mm, I might lean Tamron. Mostly because (while large), it is more reasonably sized than the Sigma. But the Siggy is amazing.
Actually i have no 35mm but i have seen on your review sigma has a very good micro contrast by the way i use with D850 and you know nikon does not have a good 35mm like canon 35 ii. So if you suggest if i buy tamron and never look back again then i can buy
Several testing sites have reported rear focus shift as you stop down from f2-4. Did you notice any? Also I was wondering how it compares in microcontrast to the Zeiss lenses you've tested.
I didn't really perceive a focus shift, and I can't see it in my brick wall test. I wouldn't say microcontrast is Zeiss Otus level, but it's very strong for a Sigma.
Yes and no. Yes, I do think the Sigma 40 is slightly sharper, but I think the Canon has the nicer bokeh and overall rendering. So "better optically" is a complicated statement.
@@DustinAbbottTWI exactly! I just got last week the RF 50, and it’s definitely the best lens for shooting people ever!!! It’s extremely sharp at 1.2 hahaha, I don’t need any more sharpness 😂
Not for me! Sorry to guys who like this but this is one of those lenses that is just too big for my tastes. Sometimes the performance can override the physical aspects of a lens, but in this case for a 40mm optic I just can't see it. For someone taking JUST this lens out and about then ok but putting this into a backpack with other lenses? Really?
There is an English idiom that describes when something contains everything...including the kitchen sink. Essentially it just means that Sigma utilized all of its best technology in creating this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI btw. it would be nice if you would review the old tiny sigma a 60 mm and 19 mm for sony a6xx cameras, versus new lenses, i think they dont get acknowledge for the sharpness and tiny compact design
You are not comparing apples to apples. Fuji is building for APS-C, and if you compare Sigma's APS-C lenses (16mm, 30mm, and 56mm), they are actually more compact than the Fuji alternatives.
This is a nearly 5 year old video, so it doesn't exactly reflect my current work, but if you feel like you could fit the volume of material I cover into 8 minutes, I would be very impressed at that effort.
WHY are also YOU adressing Your followers (us) with this type of feeling like insane manipulative vocabulary : 'It is about (!!) 13 hundred 99 dollars" instead of 'about 14 hundred' ? Any correct reason I can not jet recognize as being reasonable jet? (Otherwise I'm quite a fan of Your channel of course)
Ummm, what? There is some vacillation in price from different retailers and that price will be completely different in other countries, so "about" is the correct term, and you are professing to be "manipulated" over a dollar? Give me break
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok so let me explain that for me, it's more that 13'999 is(!) "About" 14'000. And 13'999 is a commercial perversity to make our brains register 13 instead of ("about") 14. I don't give You a brake to Your answer that implies You want me to believe that You believe I will believe that you can believe I believe it's all about a dollar... ;-) I admire Your reviews a lot though. And I recommend them often.
Bought one in Saigon yesterday to go with my Sigma 105f1.4 Art. I'm 67 and the weight doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm out taking photos every day of my life. Its what I do.
I think this lens, 28mm, and the 105mm represent pretty much the best of the ART lineup.
glad to hear that. I too own the 105 1.4, by far my favourite lens. Dustin, your comment almost makes me wish I went for the 28mm Art instead of the 35mm Art for widefield astrophotography mosaics. but the 35mm and 105mm make for a great pair of primes for my full frame cameras, and the 18-35 and 50-100 f1.8 make for a great versatile pair for my APS-C camera.
18:36 Wow, the background rendered by this lens looks simply amazing
I think it is one of Sigma's nicest lenses in that regard.
I got this lens.. primary use is portrait I love this image quality sharp and bokeh. this is underrated lens not common focal length that's why I love this lens.
It is underrated, but that's in part because it is so large.
I’m really liking the image quality of this lens . Everything looks so “real” in its rendering . If real is a lens attribute this has that . Like when you review the Tamron 35 mm f/1.4 the bokeh was almost unreal in its rendering, which I love that in a lens . This lens by no means in your pictures has a harsh fall off or bokeh character. The bokeh is beautifully soft . Not dreamy but “real” looking.
This is a really solid lens, for sure. It joins the 28mm and the 105mm as an unconventional trinity with better IQ than Sigma's 35/50/85 ART lenses
I shoot 27-28 mm a ton and like the 35-40 better than 50 most of the time . I have the 50 art and it’s just a little wide for my style of shooting. And I don’t favor the 50s fov . It feels uncomfortable if that makes sense. 28 , 40 and 105 or 135 arts are where I’m planning on going . And again the 105 art is a phenomenal lens but that focal lenght has a 50mm feel to me 135 suits my work better. Wish Sigma had a 200 f/2.0 but it would be 9 pounds . Lol
This lens has the best microcontrast of all time imo. When shooting HLG video, I literally have to set the Sigma 105mm at 1.150 contrast in Davinci Resolve to simply match 1.0 straight out of camera contrast on the 40. It's insane. Almost like it has a built in LUT for video if shooting log lol.
It’s one of Sigma’s best, optically
I got to test one for a couple days when I was in Japan this past Spring and loved the images I got out of it, but it really was massive. I would've picked one up had Sigma not put out that 35mm 1.2. A lot of tests say that it's closer to 37mm in its focal length, so it's even closer to this lens in that regard.
If you are a Sony shooter exclusively, then getting the 35mm makes more sense. The focus system is designed more specifically for mirrorless. If you shoot both Canon and Sony, then getting the 40mm makes more sense.
I think for the sharpness and well-corrected performance, the lens is actually pretty cheap when compared to the Canon 50mm RF and Zeiss 55mm Otus. I'm interested to find out next time how the flare resistance fares, and whether it is better than the 35mm 1.2. I've never seen good mtf or test chart comparisons between the Canon 50mm RF and the Sigma 40mm, so I can't quite say the Sigma is the sharpest lens 50mm and under but I think it's the sharpest under 50mm for sure.
It is better than the 35mm F1.2 in flare resistance, though the 35mm is sharper in the corners. I will be looking at the RF 50 in December, but I won't have them at the same time as the 40 ART goes back to Sigma on Monday.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you both.
Just picked it up for an even $1000 Canadian. Super excited to receive it, hoping I don't find the size and weight too cumbersome. IQ above all though, that's the reason I got it over the 50 art.
That's great value for this lens, but yes, it is VERY big.
I'm looking at getting one and they are on sale for about $1100 cdn right now. This would be a 10/10 must buy but the size is the only drawback. EVERYTHING else about it is nearly perfect. It's the about the same price as the 50mm but has better build, weather sealing and is newer with better image quality.
@@77dris after having owned it a few months now, it's a behemoth. makes even my 5diii look puny and my eos kiss 35mm looks like a toy with it mounted. works a real treat though, i did end up buying the sigma dock to get the focus dialed in but it's been great overall, still the best lens i own. the focal length can be a challenge at times, subject separation doesn't come nearly as naturally as at a longer focal length. heavy as hell and gigantic but the iq really delivers, razor sharp even wide open
Got it for $900 in India. Outstanding deal 🇮🇳
That's a fantastic deal
@@DustinAbbottTWI it still is available for that price. Amazon.in
Thank you Dustin
You're welcome.
The GOAT
It is a nice lens.
Facts..Sigma Art 40mm:
8k image quality equivalent.
1% distortion.
Virtually no Chroma.
As sharp as the Zeiss - Otus, costing 3-4 k.
40mm now new, for as little as £600
No brainer.
Bought mines today, with 82mm Circular Polariser filter. 👏
It is definitely optically one of the best Sigma lenses...period.
@Dustin Abbott -
Yes Sir.
Happy New Year Dustin, BTW.
Have you tried: Ttartisans 90mm?
I would really like to know your opinion on the Tokina 50mm Opera someday. I'm on the fence between this and the tokina.
Unfortunately I have done very few Tokina reviews as I haven't had a source for loaners.
Great review Dustin.
Which one is sharper from your experience please ?
40 Art or 35 Art 1.2 ?
i presume, the 40, but waiting for dustin's verdict.
In Lensrentals' test (infinity wide open though the 35mm 1.2 was tested at 1.4 as well in a rare exception) and PhillipReeve's and Cameralab's test, the 40mm is sharper and better corrected but you obviously don't get the f1.2 aperture. The difference in sharpness is away from center. Lensrentals tested the 40mm at very high lp/mm in a later and seperate round of testing (even higher than 200lp/mm) and the 40mm fared well there as well though the 35mm 1.2 was not tested.
I actually found the 35mm sharper in the corners (at least with the copies I compared). The problem is that the 40mm is mounted on an adapter, though my MC-11 has proven well centered. It's difficult to compare lenses for different systems without introducing a bias one way or another.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you
Hi Dustin...! It's 2024 already, it's been quite a while since this video launched. Would you still consider this lens vs EF 35mm F1.4 mark II vs Tamron SP 35mm F1.4? I am Canon R6 shooter and would consider to replace my RF 35mm F1.8 due to image sharpness of afore-mentioned lenses are much better than the RF 35mm lens. Appreciate your views, as always...!
This lens is huge, but it is optically impressive. I would personally lean towards either of the 35mm lenses because of the size
Nice review as I am considering this lens despite its weight.
I like the portrait rendering and the soft background very much. However the leaves and other detailed shots seem to be lacking vibrancy, which one can of course increase in post-processing.
I suspect that this has more to do with the lack of vibrancy in the time of year I was shooting. IQ seems pretty special to me.
Hi Dustin, great review (as always! :). How does this Sigma 40 compare to Sigma 35 1.2 in terms of sharpness and bokeh?
More similar than different, really. The 40mm may have a bit more contrast, but both are very good. I actually found corner sharpness a little better on the 35mm with the copies I tested.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Thank you.
I sell Sigma lenses, and certainly, they are excellent performers, but sometimes I really suspect
they add LEAD to the case to justify the rediculous WEIGHT of their 'no compromise designs'
LOL. They make some heavy ones.
The lens doubles as a dumbbell. :)
Hi Dustin. Compared to the Tamron 45mm 1.8 , will their be a significant difference in image quality? Camera body is a canon 5D mark iv but eventually going mirrorless full frame
The Sigma is pretty exceptional optically, so you will see some difference. The question is whether or not it will be enough to be worth the huge size and high price difference.
thanks for your great and very detailed review, sir.
and pardon my ignorance, is there any reason for the price of this lens to be reduced so drastically? it used to be around 1400usd when it was released, slightly above 1000usd some time ago and now it's only 800usd, which is quite odd.
I think the primary reason is that the DSLR market is shrinking with the move to mirrorless, so Sigma is probably trying to reduce existing stock through cutting the price.
I don't know why, but I like the way you say "KEELograms"
Unfortunately I'm not really familiar with the Nikon catalogue.
Versus the Sigma 35mm f1.2... I imagine that the extra 5mm makes it kind of a wash between the two as far as out of focus backgrounds. Would still be interested in your thoughts between the two (and maybe the recent Tamron 35mm, as some one else suggested. As always, thanks for all the work you put in on these!
That's probably true in terms of depth of field. All three of these are very, very good lenses. They are also not all designed for the same system, so it's hard to directly compare them without introducing camera handicaps to one or more. The Tamron obviously wins the value for money argument.
@SwitchRich to continue in this line we should add the "option" of keeping the same distance and framing more inclusive by 3mm (the Sigma is close to 37mm. BTW how exact is the 40mm?) and croppe that in post..
If you were to decide between the Tamron sp 35mm f1.4 or this...?
dzeng yes I’m interested in this comparison also . To me the Tamron 35 f1./4 has a dreamier bokeh
I do think the Tamron has slightly nicer bokeh. Both lenses are fantastic. The Tamron is probably the better value for money with performance being more similar than different.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thank you for your response!
Have you managed to get your hands on the new 24-70mm ART for Sony E-mount? Would love to hear what you think of it, especially compared to the Tamron 28-75mm.
SwitchRich at 1100 it need only be nearly as good.
I am supposed to have one at some point in mid to late December. I agree about the points regarding the competition for the GM lens. Between the Sigma and Tamron the GM may be a hard sell.
David Kloss how exactly would he have his hands on one when they aren’t even released yet ? Some of these questions
At this stage there would only be pre-production models out. My Sigma guy is saying late-December.
Have u tested Sony 35.4 GM lens? Im considering between this gm lens and sigma 40.4 lens with A7R3.
I definitely have. Search on my channel for my full coverage.
$2,000 in my country 😲
There's a lot of variation from market to market which has a lot to do with exchange rates and local tax policies.
Sir i am a street, travel photogrpaher as a hobbiest and wedding,fashion photographer as profession, i jst want to ask you which one is the best 35mm 1.4 DN or 40mm 1.4. i love to take more wide shots with the close subjects.
Which camera system do you shoot? If you shoot exclusively Sony, go for the 35mm F1.2. If you shoot both Canon and Sony, buy the 40mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sir I do shoot in sony alpha a73 and sony alpha 6500
@@sumanhazra8731 Then go with the 35mm
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks sir
When will the review for Sony fe 35mm f1.8
I'm scheduled to receive the lens on December 2nd.
My bro just bought this
Nice. It's a very sharp lens.
Hi Dustin. Can you use Eye AF with this lens on A7R3 via MC-11?
You definitely can.
Could you also comment on how the image looks or compares to the Voightlander 65mm f/2 macro . I too love the images from that lens .
Thanks
It's not the same, really. The Sigma has softer bokeh, but the Voigt has richer color and more obvious microcontrast (APO). Both are very sharp.
Kind of what I expected. Thanks
Why do youtubers keep calling Canon cameras "EEEYOS" LOL. It's E.O.S.
Unfortunately there are those who just as aggressively argue the opposite is true.
Sigma 40mm 1.4 vs Zeiss Batis 40mm ? Omg this sigma is massive 😳 more i watch 35mm , 40mm 1.2 , 1.4 1.8 , 2.0 i have no idea what to buy :((
The Sigma is huge, for sure. It is definitely optically impressive, though.
Dustin have you ever reviewed the 135 canon
No. I owned one for years and have used it in multiple comparisons, but it wasn't a new lens even when I owned it, so I didn't do a review of it.
Dustin , this doesn’t have to do with this video but I was wondering if I could ask you a question. I have a 5d / 6d canon. A canon trigger. A godox ad200. My main need is a on camera flash for weddings. Would you go godox since I have the ad200 or would you go Canon since I already have the canon controller. If I went the godox v1 route I would just have to buy a xpro to control both correct. Could you help ?
If you plan to continue to go with the AD200, I would go Godox V1 and X-Pro. I think you'll get more consistent results than mixing and matching.
Dustin Abbott ty Dustin !
Hi Dustin;)
Help me to desire between this Sigma 40/1,4 or RF 35/1,8 to my Canon EOS R, Which one you would buy?I need the best possible sharpness....Thanks for all help
The Sigma is definitely the stronger lens optically.
Thanks a lot Dustin. Make my decision very easy😇
which camera do you suggest overall for youtube videos? Ive been looking at the T7i and 80d right now but don't know whats best in general.
Do you want to do 4K or just Full HD?
@@DustinAbbottTWI hmmm havent thought that far just sort of steating up again. I have a macpro 2013 so not sure if it will allow me to edit in 4k or not.
Hi Dustin, if you have a choice between sigma 40 art vs tamron 35 1.4 have same price which one do you choose
That's a good question (and a really tough call). I guess it would depend on what platform I was working on, what other lenses I had, etc... Both lenses are really exceptional. If I had no 35mm, I might lean Tamron. Mostly because (while large), it is more reasonably sized than the Sigma. But the Siggy is amazing.
Actually i have no 35mm but i have seen on your review sigma has a very good micro contrast by the way i use with D850 and you know nikon does not have a good 35mm like canon 35 ii. So if you suggest if i buy tamron and never look back again then i can buy
I would go Tamron, then. The Sigma is not worth twice as much money. The Tamron is amazingly good.
Did you ever try the 40 mm Batis a comparison would be nice 👍
I've got a thorough review of the Batis on my channel. For many, many reasons, not every review can be a multi-lens comparison.
@@DustinAbbottTWI So no point really to mention the Voightlander 40mm f1.2 (so not even because it laks AF,) ...
Thank you 🙏 I just checked out all of your Batis reviews 👍 you are the best!
I haven't used the Voigtlander yet, so there's not much I can mention other than it's existence.
Several testing sites have reported rear focus shift as you stop down from f2-4. Did you notice any?
Also I was wondering how it compares in microcontrast to the Zeiss lenses you've tested.
I didn't really perceive a focus shift, and I can't see it in my brick wall test. I wouldn't say microcontrast is Zeiss Otus level, but it's very strong for a Sigma.
Another UA-camr claims that this Sigma 40 is even better optically than the RF 50mm f1.2, would you agree?
Yes and no. Yes, I do think the Sigma 40 is slightly sharper, but I think the Canon has the nicer bokeh and overall rendering. So "better optically" is a complicated statement.
@@DustinAbbottTWI exactly! I just got last week the RF 50, and it’s definitely the best lens for shooting people ever!!! It’s extremely sharp at 1.2 hahaha, I don’t need any more sharpness 😂
So pretty much this is the sharpest prime?
One of them, for sure.
Dustin Abbott how is the weather sealing? I want a lens I can take everywhere and not worry about it! (I don’t mind the weight)
Dustin did you do the scribble words on the cover page ? Or maybe your kids do it ? Also are you Canadian ?
That's a font that I purchased. And yes, I am a Canadian (a dual-citizen, actually). I am an American by birth and became a Canadian citizen in 2018
Dustin Abbott what made you become a Canadian ? Pretty interesting
isit larger than the 24-70art?
Yes it is.
@@DustinAbbottTWI damnnnn
Yep
@@DustinAbbottTWI was recently speaking to a sigma rep about this lens. Hope one day ill get this.
Not for me! Sorry to guys who like this but this is one of those lenses that is just too big for my tastes. Sometimes the performance can override the physical aspects of a lens, but in this case for a 40mm optic I just can't see it. For someone taking JUST this lens out and about then ok but putting this into a backpack with other lenses? Really?
You're absolutely right. It's not for everyone, and probably not for those taking a backpack of lenses along.
english is not my native language, what does it means , saving kitchen sink design ????
There is an English idiom that describes when something contains everything...including the kitchen sink. Essentially it just means that Sigma utilized all of its best technology in creating this lens.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks a lot, Dustin Abbott, i ve just learnt two things, about the meaning of that saying and about the big sigma lens, LOL
@@DustinAbbottTWI btw. it would be nice if you would review the old tiny sigma a 60 mm and 19 mm for sony a6xx cameras, versus new lenses, i think they dont get acknowledge for the sharpness and tiny compact design
I did review the DN lenses if you look on my channel
When will Sigma learn to build small lenses like Fuji has managed to do for years now?
camerasize.com/compact/#717.833,836.456,809.803,ha,t ;)
You are not comparing apples to apples. Fuji is building for APS-C, and if you compare Sigma's APS-C lenses (16mm, 30mm, and 56mm), they are actually more compact than the Fuji alternatives.
That's a helpful visual aid.
Another 8min review stretched out to 45min over two videos Dusty?
This is a nearly 5 year old video, so it doesn't exactly reflect my current work, but if you feel like you could fit the volume of material I cover into 8 minutes, I would be very impressed at that effort.
WHY are also YOU adressing Your followers (us) with this type of feeling like insane manipulative vocabulary : 'It is about (!!) 13 hundred 99 dollars" instead of 'about 14 hundred' ? Any correct reason I can not jet recognize as being reasonable jet?
(Otherwise I'm quite a fan of Your channel of course)
Ummm, what? There is some vacillation in price from different retailers and that price will be completely different in other countries, so "about" is the correct term, and you are professing to be "manipulated" over a dollar? Give me break
@@DustinAbbottTWI Ok so let me explain that for me, it's more that 13'999 is(!) "About" 14'000.
And 13'999 is a commercial perversity to make our brains register 13 instead of ("about") 14.
I don't give You a brake to Your answer that implies You want me to believe that You believe I will believe that you can believe I believe it's all about a dollar...
;-)
I admire Your reviews a lot though. And I recommend them often.