New Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

[eldarhau]

You can view a number of images on dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...review-samples

[Steve U]

Nice wrap up of the lens and the images look very impressive.

[btaylor]

Hmmm I'm getting more and more torn between it and the Canon 35mm f/1.4L. I was going to pull the trigger on the Canon today (sold the 5D2 last week) but now I'm going to have to do more research... again.

[eldarhau]

I´m sure Canon will produce a 35mm f/1.4L II soon, since the current one, at least in my view, is a bit outdated. And looking at the quality on some of their newer L-glass, a significant improvement should be expected. But if you want to buy now, I´d go with the Sigma.

[M_Six]

Bryan's newly posted ISO 12233 shots show the Sigma to be sharper overall, at least to f4. Then it mostly evens out. Pretty impressive.

[Dave Throgmartin]

This Sigma is the equivalent of what I had really wanted when I bought the 28mm f/1.8. I like the 28, but this appears to be a good step up.

My question is about the used market for Sigma lenses. If someone drops $900 on the Sigma today what would you think it's used value would be 6 months to a year from now assuming it was well taken care of? Will it drop like a rock because it's a 3rd party non-Zeiss lens or would it hold its value much better because the lens is so well received and popular?

Thanks
Dave

[M_Six]

This Sigma is the equivalent of what I had really wanted when I bought the 28mm f/1.8. I like the 28, but this appears to be a good step up.

My question is about the used market for Sigma lenses. If someone drops $900 on the Sigma today what would you think it's used value would be 6 months to a year from now assuming it was well taken care of? Will it drop like a rock because it's a 3rd party non-Zeiss lens or would it hold its value much better because the lens is so well received and popular?

Thanks
Dave

I'm thinking the former. Look at the other well regarded 3rd party (non-Zeiss) lenses like the Tamron 17-50. New it's near $500, yet barely used is closer to $350. If Canon updates the 35mm f1.4L, you'll see a big drop in the used price of the Sigma as folks dump theirs in favor of the Canon. And to be truthful, sometimes the Canon L lenses don't hold value all that well either. Witness the 24-105, which was selling new for around $1000 a couple of years ago. Now they can be had for $750. The L lenses that seem to hold value are the really high end ones that have a starting price well north of $1500.

[eldarhau]

Here´s a video comparing the Canon 35mm f1.4L and the Sigma 35mm f1.4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=mh0TbylMtxg

[Dave Throgmartin]

Elderhau,

What is your impression of the lens as you've used it more? It appears truly impressive.

Dave

[eldarhau]

I have more lenses than I need (16-35mm f2.8L II, 24mm f1.4L II, 24-70mm f2.8L II, 24-105mm f4.0L IS, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L II, 100mm f2.8L Macro IS, 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and 400mm f2.8L IS II) and I am willing to pay the price to get the best (even though Canon´s prices are getting more and more unacceptable). So when I recommend this Sigma so highly, it is because it is as good as it is compared to lenses of any price.
Despite that I have many alternatives, I must admit that this lens has been stuck on my 5DIII since I got it (the 24-70mm f2.8L II and the 85mm f1.2L II alternates on my 1DX. They are both gorgeous lenses). I have always liked primes, for two reasons. First you get the better aperture for both low light capability and shallow depth of field and you get the extra challenge of moving yourself instead of just zooming. I use primes more than zooms. The 35mm focal length is in my view very useful and when you combine it with f1.4, it is really good. In general I find the Canon L-lenses better than the Sigmas, Tamrons and other independent lens manufacturers in two areas. One is autofocus, both speed and noise and the other is optical quality. But in the case of the Sigma 35mm f1.4, it is not the case.
I have not measured AF speed exactly, but it is fast enough to be a non-issue for me. The guy in the video (see the link I posted yesterday), claimed it was from 0 to 1/10 of a second slower than the Canon 35mm f1.4L from infinity to close-up. Noise level is as low as the USM on a Canon lens.
I now have several hundred images verified and from a pure image quality perspective, provided I haven´t been overly lucky with the quality of my sample, the quality is outstanding. Sharpness, bokeh, color, vignetting and flare performance are all simply excellent. The sharpness in the corners at f1.4 is bit less impressive, but it is still very good. AF accuracy is also both consistent and precise. I have read somewhere that Sigma has been less consistent on AF in the past. I only know what this lens has done it the first weeks I have had it. The fun part of having a 1.4 aperture is that you also get fairly shallow depth of field also on a 35mm and you can use that to isolate your objects and get some really cool effects.
I also really like the mechanical feel of this lens. It looks good, feels rock solid, it is good in my hand, the focus ring is wide and tight and the balance with the 5DIII body is great.
If a 35mm f1.4 is high on your wish list, regardless of price, this is it. Take the $500 you save from skipping the Canon and buy your partner something nice for Christmas. Or you can set them aside for the other lenses I hope Sigma will produce with similar quality.