Sigma 35mm F14 Dg Hsm Art Lens for Sony E Review
Summary
The Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG DN Art is a quality wide-angle lens for mirrorless cameras that's capable of attractive rendering and sharp results. In my tests with a pre-product sample, the bokeh in blurred areas was not simply a footstep-up from the original DSLR version, but up there with models costing a lot more. Meanwhile the focused details are okay at f1.4 and become very crisp if you can shut the aperture even just one cease to f2. In terms of Sigma's own native mirrorless lenses, information technology slots comfortably between the f2 and f1.2 models in terms of cost, size and overall quality, so a step-up from the cheaper and more than compact model, simply a respectful step-back from the flagship f1.2. If you're an 50-mount owner looking for a relatively affordable 35, Sigma has you lot covered with its iii native 35s. Sony owners however have a lot more than pick. In my tests the more expensive Sony 35 one.4 G Master may have been similar in rendering manner and only a little worse in terms of focus breathing, but delivered visibly crisper and more contrasty results at f1.iv, plus its focusing on the Alpha 1 was much more consistent while besides supporting the fastest burst speeds in AFC. The G Master is simply the better lens, merely it'due south also $500 more expensive. Sigma can match its optical quality, but using the similarly-priced 35 1.2 and in my tests it didn't focus as reliably as the Sony lenses. Interestingly it'due south the Sony 35 1.8G which arguably gives the new Sigma ane.four the greatest competition - it's a key rival to weigh-up. As a pre-production sample that's all I can say for now!
Buy it now!
Check prices on the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG DN ART at B&H, WEX UK, Adorama, or Calumet.de. Alternatively get yourself a copy of my In Camera book or treat me to a coffee! Thanks!
Sigma 35mm f1.iv DG DN Art review -
- Written by
Intro
The Sigma 35mm f1.four DG DN Fine art is a wide angle prime lens for total-frame mirrorless cameras and, at the fourth dimension of testing, available in Sony e and Leica Fifty-mountain versions; here's hoping for Canon RF and Nikon Z versions of Sigma's mirrorless lenses soon.
Announced in April 2021 and costing $899 or 799 pounds, it's the successor to the 35 one.iv DG HSM, a DSLR lens that launched Sigma's Fine art series back in September 2012 – around eight and a half years previously. Optical design, not to mention camera mounts, have come a long fashion in that fourth dimension and in 2021 Sigma at present offers three 35s in a native mirrorless mount, with the latest 1.4 joining the existing f1.2 and f2 models.
Sigma loaned me a 35 i.4 to test for this review and while they described information technology as a pre-product sample, the quality and performance was near to final – and the box it came in certainly looked pretty last. As a pre-product sample though, the final models may vary. Find out everything you lot demand to know in my video review below, just as always if you prefer to read the written highlights, proceed scrolling!
Sigma has high aspirations for the 35 1.4, so In this review I'll directly compare it confronting Sony'south 35 1.4 1000 Chief. Costing $1399, the Sony is a considerable $500 more expensive but widely regarded as 1 of the all-time 35s ever made – no force per unit area there and then. Since I'k a thorough kind of guy I'll likewise include comparisons against the Sigma one.2, which at $1499 is the nigh expensive of the group, and the Sigma f2 which at $639 is the cheapest.
Above: Measuring 76x110mm and weighing 645g, Sigma'due south mirrorless 35 1.four is actually 16mm longer and 20g heavier than the previous DSLR version. That said, if you're comparing the DSLR version with the built-in due east-mount adapter, the new lens becomes 10mm shorter and 110g lighter.
Above: Sony's 35 i.4 G Master here on the correct is actually 14mm shorter than the new Sigma and 120g lighter. Once mounted on a body though they're in a similar ball-park and you won't observe much deviation in a handbag. The undisputed heavy-weight here is the Sigma 35 ane.ii on the far right, longer and wider at 88x136mm and around fifty% heavier at 1090g – you really know when you're carrying that one. And finally on the far left, the Sigma 35 f2 is smaller at 70x65mm and roughly half the weight of the two 1.4s at 325g. Oh, and in case y'all wondered, Sony'southward 35 ane.8G measures 66x73mm and is lighter than all four here at just 280g.
Higher up: hither's the Sigma 35 1.4 with its supplied petal lens hood. Annotation the Sony lens with its hood is most the same length as the new Sigma without it.
Above: In terms of controls, the Sigma 35 1.4 has a clicky aperture ring running between f1.4 and f16 with a switch to i side locking it in the A position if you prefer trunk-based control. A switch below the barrel to the other side declicks the discontinuity ring for smooth and silent operation preferred by videographers. The manual focusing ring is wider than the Sony 35 1.4 and while both turn very smoothly, the Sigma felt a fiddling stiffer and required a longer turn to travel through its focus range; that said I found the Sony easier to manually focus. There'southward also a focus hold button that's customisable on compatible bodies.
Above: Sigma describes the blueprint as dust and splashproof, including a rubber grommet on the mount. You'd expect weather-sealing on a high-end lens, but remember the original DSLR version of the lens was not sealed so this is an of import upgrade.
Above: Meanwhile the 35 1.4 employs a 67mm filter thread, the same as the Sony 35 one.4, although unsurprisingly the Sigma 1.2 demands larger 77mm filters while the meaty Sigma f2 and Sony 1.8 use 58 and 55mm filters respectively.
Above: In terms of focusing, the Sigma 35 one.four is adequately swift, although like most Sigma lenses I've tested there'due south a visible dissimilarity-based hunt at each end to confirm. Set the body to continuous AFC though and the focusing is much faster. In comparison, the Sony 35 1.4 (also in AFS style on the Blastoff 1) is visibly snappier than the Sigma, although again when ready to AFC, both lenses focused at a similar speed. That said, Sony does not always support its fastest burst speeds with third party lenses when using continuous autofocus. On the Alpha one, the 35 1.4 G Principal was able to shoot at up to 30fps using the electronic shutter with AFC, whereas the Sigma 35 i.4 slowed to between 12 and 14fps in my tests, giving me roughly one-half as many frames to play with. Now that'south still lots of pictures, simply if you're ownership a Sony body for the fast burst speeds, check for lens restrictions.
Above: Permit's move onto optical quality at present, starting with a portrait with the Sigma 35 1.iv at f1.4 on the Alpha i using heart detection.
To a higher place: Taking a closer look reveals sharp details effectually my eyes as well equally bonny shine rendering in the background – an improvement over the old DSLR version of the lens which oftentimes suffered from busy bokeh. Viewed in isolation you'd be happy with this result, but I have three more to show you.
Above: Starting with the cheaper Sigma 35 f2 on the right at f2, where you can see it's a picayune less well-baked on the focused areas of my optics, while the areas in the groundwork are patently less blurred and more distinct thanks to the slower f2 aperture. So the pricier 35 1.4 unsurprisingly wins this pairing.
Above: Only at present allow'due south switch to the Sony 35 ane.4 G Primary on the right at f1.4 where it's clear the Sony is delivering much crisper details with higher contrast too. It most looks like the Sigma on the left is a trivial out-of-focus but I reshot this multiple times and chose the best examples for each lens, and as y'all'll see in a moment, this performance is reflected in my other tests as well. In terms of background rendering, they have slightly different styles but look equally expert to me, but in terms of focused detail and contrast, the Sony is simply better at f1.four and information technology also delivered a college striking charge per unit on focusing than the Sigma. Just then it's also $500 more expensive.
Above: And finally for the Sigma 35 1.ii on the right at f1.two, delivering a more magnified view cheers to its slightly longer actual focal length. But expect beyond the size difference and again information technology's easy to see how this more than expensive lens is crisper on the details, similar in fact to the Sony although lacking its ultimate contrast here. Meanwhile the slightly greater magnification and slightly faster aperture are delivering slightly bigger bokeh blobs that are arguably the smoothest of the iv lenses. A strong result for the Sigma i.ii, although it's by far the biggest of the four lenses and the almost expensive too, a whole $600 more than than the Sigma 35 1.4. Plus the college price didn't improve the AF consistency over the Sigma ane.4, with the Sony delivering the best hit-rate, at to the lowest degree in my tests on the Blastoff 1.
Above: Now for bokeh blobs and in my video I run through the entire aperture range of the Sigma 35 one.4 from f1.4 to f16, taken from close to its minimum focusing distance of 30cm. Here y'all can run into 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 at that place's inevitable rugby assurance in the corners at the maximum discontinuity, only shut it fifty-fifty by ane cease and they by and large get circular while the xi-bladed diaphragm maintains a nice more often than not 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.
In a higher place: 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 at that place's a dramatic departure in the size of the bokeh blobs. Looking closely, the blobs on the f2 version on the right are likewise a little more textured than the one.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.
In a higher place: Side by side up the Sony 35 1.iv 1000 Master at f1.4 which is delivering similarly-sized blobs to the Sigma 35 1.4 which are likewise mostly bereft of textures within – note whatsoever dots on the Sony blobs are due to some dust on the lens, sorry. The Sony blobs also have less outlining which may take you lot preferring i result over the other, just both lenses here are rendering very attractive blurred areas – a good consequence for the Sigma given its cheaper price, although notation the Sony can focus a bit closer, allowing it to deliver bigger blobs if you adopt.
Above: And finally the Sigma 35 1.ii on the right at i.ii, delivering the largest bokeh blobs of them all from the aforementioned distance again thanks to its slightly longer actual focal length coupled with the slightly faster ane.2 discontinuity. Both lenses show a little outlining which you may or may not similar, and arguably the i.2 blobs have slightly more than visible textures within, simply I'd exist delighted with either – and so over again a good result for the new 35 ane.4 given its lower price.
Above: At the modest-terminate of the aperture scale, hither'southward a quick look at diffraction spikes on the Sigma 35 one.4 at its minimum aperture of f16. UK skies can be quite hazy, so this isn't going to be as crisp every bit other climates, but it bodes well for sunstars and night cityscapes alike.
Above: One concluding close-up test with each lens focused every bit shut every bit information technology would allow when set to transmission 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'southward fairly sharp in the middle simply becomes quite soft at the edges where I needed to finish it down to f4 to f5.half dozen for a adept consequence at the extremes.
To a higher place: For comparison, I'll put the Sigma 35 ane.4 at the top and get-go with the Sigma 35 f2 at the bottom where the cheaper lens is reproducing 170mm across the frame, fractionally less than the 35 i.4, although the more than interesting aspect is how the 35 f2 is a little sharper at the far edges but dips a piffling in sharpness around the APSC edges. I've seen this before on some lenses and information technology'south always worth checking sharpness around this mid point also as in the middle and the edges.
To a higher place: Now for the Sony 35 i.4 G Chief at the bottom where it's reproducing 134mm across the frame, delivering the greatest magnification in this foursome, although you will demand to manually focus from this altitude. More importantly though it'south crisper in the centre and while information technology softens towards the edges, it's still ahead of the Sigma 1.4.
Above: And finally the Sigma 35 1.2 at the bottom, reproducing 165mm across the frame, making all three Sigma lenses similar in this regard. The Sigma ane.two is however sharper than the ane.iv in the middle and maintains this closer to the edges too – and remember this was shot at f1.2 also. All four lenses improve their edge sharpness when airtight, but the 2 near expensive models are already excellent out of the gate.
Higher up: And now for my afar landscape scene, taken with the Alpha 1 and angled as always so that details run right into the corners where the lenses struggle the near; I used the default Lens Correction settings which on the Alpha one has Distortion set to Off. I'grand starting with the Sigma 35 ane.4 at f1.4 where I had to manually focus for the best issue.
Above: Taking a closer look in the middle shows a off-white amount of particular, although at f1.iv it'south lacking the ultimate crispness and dissimilarity of higher-end lenses like the Sony GM or Sigma one.2.
Above: End it down fifty-fifty a picayune though and y'all'll gain sharpness and dissimilarity with the lens peaking around f4 to f5.half-dozen.
Above: moving into the corner shows some darkening due to vignetting and again some softness when the aperture is wide-open.
Above: Equally you close the aperture this improves chop-chop, and again the best upshot is around f4 to f5.6 here.
Above: Now for a comparison in the eye with the Sigma 35 one.4 on the left and the Sigma 35 f2 on the right, both at their maximum apertures and zoomed-in for a closer look where they're both looking quite similar.
In a higher place: Moving into the far corner likewise shows a similar result when they're at their maximum apertures and coincidentally both lenses capture almost exactly the same field of view – remember only because the model quotes the aforementioned focal length, doesn't hateful the coverage will be identical in exercise.
Above: Next on the right is the Sony 35 1.4 G Chief, with both lenses at f1.four and you lot can clearly see how the Sony is delivering crisper details and higher dissimilarity, avoiding the balmy softening consequence of the Sigma when shooting at their maximum apertures – plus I could achieve this result using autofocus.
Above: The Sony maintains this lead across the frame, although once you're looking in the far corners, some of the benefit is lost due to darkening from vignetting. Note the Sony 35 1.4 captures a slightly smaller field-of-view than the Sigma 35 1.4, perhaps due to some geometric correction taking identify. Note the Sigma lens exhibited some barrel distortion at distant focus or pincushion close-up, both of which can be reduced with Distortion Compensation on the camera gear up to Auto.
Above: And finally on the correct is the Sigma 35 i.2 at f1.2 and like the i.4 model on the left, manually focused for the all-time result; I found both lenses sometimes slightly missed optimal focus on the Blastoff 1 when autofocusing wide-open whether in AFS or AFC. Looking closely in the heart shows the i.2 lens on the right delivering crisper details and higher contrast, just similar the Sony in the previous comparison. In some previous tests I plant the Sigma 1.two occasionally defective, but information technology may have been downwards to less than optimal focusing. Become it spot-on and this lens tin deliver the appurtenances, but you may demand to switch from car to transmission focus to reach information technology.
Above: Moving into the corner shows the Sigma i.2 suffering more from vignetting, but expect through it and y'all'll see it impressively maintaining sharpness across the frame – and remember this is with the aperture broad-open. Note the Sigma 35 ane.2 is delivering a slightly narrower field of view than the other iv lenses, and is probably closer to around 38mm. I'1000 glad I'k able to bear witness this lens at its sharpest here, but over again it struggled to perform consistently in my tests with the Alpha one in autofocus.
Before wrapping-upwardly my review, a few notes for the videographers out there. Just similar for stills, 35mm is an ideal full general-purpose length for filming, broad-enough to squeeze in bigger scenes, but not so wide to suffer from distortion. Flick autofocus is shine, quiet and hassle-gratuitous with none of the hunting of AFS in stills, nor any issues with accurateness or repeatability. That said, information technology's non an event with the other three lenses either.
Focus breathing is however an issue for the Sigma 35 1.4 which visibly reduces the field of view as y'all focus from infinity to the closest altitude of around 30cm. Information technology almost appears as if the lens is zooming-in and this can be distracting when pulling focus for video. You may also find some butt distortion at infinity gradually becoming pincushion at the closest altitude, although enabling Distortion Compensation in the Alpha 1 menus tin can correct this for stills or video. It's not lonely in focus animate issues though. The Sigma 35 f2 may not be quite equally bad equally the 1.4, only it's non far off either.
Meanwhile Sony's 35 1.4 One thousand Master, despite acing well-nigh every exam, is really the worst behaved in terms of animate. Hither the reduction in the field of view is greater than the Sigma 35 1.four, although non by a huge amount. The winner of this detail foursome in terms of animate is the Sigma 35 1.2 which may bear witness a mild reduction in the field of view and crave quite a turn of the focusing ring to become from far to near and back again, just it is the mildest offender in terms of breathing here.
Check prices on the Sigma 35mm f1.iv DG DN Art at B&H, WEX UK, Adorama, or Calumet.de. Alternatively get yourself a copy of my In Camera book or care for me to a coffee! Thanks!Pages: 1 two three
Source: https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg-dn-art-review/
Enviar um comentário for "Sigma 35mm F14 Dg Hsm Art Lens for Sony E Review"