NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: PeterN on November 24, 2015, 17:39:39
-
As I haven’t seen a report on the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens yet o this site, I thought to share my impressions of the lens. The 35mm focal length has grown on me after adding the Fuji X 23mm lens and the X100T camera. I opted for the Sigma lens after the raving reviews.
My impression from one trip with this lens: the reviews are right. This lens is incredibly sharp, also wide open. It might be a tad softer in the corners but that’s hardly noticeable in photos Without having compared lenses in detail, I would say as sharp as the Zeiss 135mm APO lens and sharper than the Nikon lenses I own. I can’t find negatives about colors, tones, and contrast either. The only negatives are weight (for someone who prefers to travel light) and no-weather”proof”.
I know some people experienced performance issues but I have not.
Hopefully these photos give an impression about the quality of this lens (all photos with D750).
Feel free to add your photos in this thread!
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs6%2Fv135%2Fp1668489870-5.jpg&hash=bcfc04369e8c6cf988a28a1306912bd59c800a9f)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv2%2Fp1631563092-5.jpg&hash=6f188d5e94c4a6cf7c565d0ddd65be4c4dcaa82b)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv17%2Fp1791602148-5.jpg&hash=4b6c988148351fb8ea082d214a6a4a213cddd392)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs11%2Fv29%2Fp1875820775-5.jpg&hash=a211ea074085702110a08218526b80a56b7aa68b)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv125%2Fp1721424549-5.jpg&hash=546e1569e225a95b97e525c5ea265338715ad74f)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv65%2Fp1815766599-6.jpg&hash=d1a4eb13c056633d9624761abe04be72a24dfc6b)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv2%2Fp1693767961-6.jpg&hash=8614565803b4d69b8323f452a0ab3d6028656a88)
-
Just returned my copy for exchange - soft and excess coma.
-
Nice images Peter, thanks for sharing.
Do you have more images which show the character of the boke wide open?
-
Nice images Peter, thanks for sharing.
Do you have more images which show the character of the boke wide open?
Thank you. These are some other shots taken wide open (for some it did not make sense to do it but I just wanted to check the results). BTW: I see a lot more chroma in my Nikon lenses than in this lens. So apparently my experience differs from others. This lens is definitely a keeper for me. I've also read good things about the 24-35 art lens, which performs like a prime, but I find that one too big.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv18%2Fp1842722744-5.jpg&hash=40f42b1989d9290d3569bf06f0c47d5e9cba2a19)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv63%2Fp1614064428-6.jpg&hash=438198caa38305a97d9a4e46148743611e4d62e4)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv124%2Fp1627399544-6.jpg&hash=bda4c0e55cba4ed701c7c7087e6e9a48b33cd542)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs11%2Fv29%2Fp1723121015-6.jpg&hash=629ef0d4ade7b9ef6171efbbb9a5c6c2810c4c7b)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv18%2Fp1824789911-5.jpg&hash=dd686e60f2a9b8a837162e5e60fbd3ec8aeecd32)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs12%2Fv171%2Fp1816112854-5.jpg&hash=153e45982c2e181863b99cd51e0f57367089d8e8)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs5%2Fv118%2Fp1755912183-5.jpg&hash=6cefa09761c7bcf86dcfe6453668d1a4f0b0eb17)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs11%2Fv29%2Fp1663777657-5.jpg&hash=8f569a9155edb090b8815300ba6538cfb8ed9d16)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv66%2Fp1652824520-6.jpg&hash=73b62319f3a475c9c6eb61caaa41a881541be462)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv18%2Fp1844812453-6.jpg&hash=ece47916460d93d0fa2737fde5c563fe8181184d)
This one was at f2 and ISO11400:
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv10%2Fp1689952134-5.jpg&hash=7145a22fb06ad175d40d6e98b4d4835c99358927)
-
It does look like a really nice lens indeed, thanks for posting ;)
-
Again great images and these perfectly show the viewer what a fast 35 can do, placing a subject in their (natural looking) environment but have enough DOF control to isolate them from their surrounding objects or other subjects.
The faster the lens the further away you can be from your subject to do the latter, any lens can generate a small DOF up close but faster lenses will provide just more room to play with. One can always use a longer lens to render the background out of focus but then the relation of the subject to its surrounding objects and subjects also changes, eg making things look like they are positioned closer to each other than they really are.
As mentioned before, some seek freedom in a zoom range of a zoomlens and other seek freefrom in a wider aperture range to play with. Neither is good or bad, just up to personal preferences. Of course one can bring both lenses and use the benefits of both type of lenses ;D
-
I find the 35mm a versatile focal length. Perhaps on my next trip, I will only bring a 35mm and a 300mm and shoot everything with those 2 lenses. Shooting with one focal length is quite liberating as you start to see the world in that frame. I used to shoot with zooms in the past, but now have difficulty in using a zoom. Strange, isn't it.
indeed, the wide aperture helps me separate subjects without giving up the context. I guess I am a bit of a subject-separation-snob.
-
I'd like to see a comparsion between the AFS 1.8/35G (FX Version, not DX) and the ART which seems to be really very nice!
My "35" currently is the X100T. A complete camera the size of one of these lenses...
-
I'd like to see a comparsion between the AFS 1.8/35G (FX Version, not DX) and the ART which seems to be really very nice!
My "35" currently is the X100T. A complete camera the size of one of these lenses...
I would be happy to do that. If only I owned a nikon 35mm...
I like the x100T a lot. I usually bring it on city trips and family gatherings. It's the only camera I've owned that attracts compliments of people.
I even like to take photos of the x100t. ;-)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs4%2Fv9%2Fp1676689779-5.jpg&hash=be8dbf77063bfc3730363a2414e4441a53c5069c)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visualcue.photography%2Fimg%2Fs9%2Fv18%2Fp1731402060-5.jpg&hash=f7cdb6732201d1a40c76d751f0f540e9f8f0cbb6)
-
Some really nice images here Peter.
That Sigma looks really nice.
-
I've owned the Sigma 35/1.4A and after testing the Nikkor 35/1.8GFX I'd say the Nikkor is no match for the Siggy.
-
see also: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-35mm-f1-8g-ed/3
They were very impressed with the sharpness of the nikon but found the Sigma to be superior in handling of distortion, vignetting, CA and bokeh.
They also have a review of the Sigma 35mm lens:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-35mm-f1-4
-
Some really nice images here Peter.
That Sigma looks really nice.
Thank you, Jakov. You can always try mine, if you want.
-
Thank you, Jakov. You can always try mine, if you want.
It's too sharp for my taste, but thanks! 8)
-
Jakov has a good point, sharpness is not everyone's cup of single malt. I have over a long period now tried and tested Tamron/Sigma/Zeiss/Nikkors and my next buy is the 58/1.4G (am waiting for the right candidate to surface). I had a go with the latest Milvus 50/1.4 but found it close to the Sigma 50/1.4 A...too "perfect".
For those seeking well corrected optics the latest Zeigmas are fantastic though and the 35 Art is certainly very good. If I were in the market for a new 35 the Sigma is one candidate. I tired the new 35/45 Tammies but did not like them that much (despite the class leading VC feature).
The pictures shown here are very good ambassadors for the topic'ed lens.
-
Sten you must already have shot with the 35mm 1.4 AFS or ?... It's fantastic, I borrowed Bjørns lens a couple of years ago and could not forget it, had to have it, it's painterly creamy and does well at all apertures, it's very similar to the 58mm 1.4 AFS actually
58mm is a little tight for a walk around lens but 35mm is just right for that ;)
while we are at the 1.4 AFS there is also the 24mm perfect for environmental portraits and architecture!
Happy hunting for the New Noct!
-
The 35/1.4G was designed for character and not blinding sharpness, in many paper test reviews it wasn't rated very good but those whom used this lens knew better.
As Erik, I used Bjorns lens for "one lens day" in Lofoten and bought it shortly after trumping the 50/1.2 as my main lens ;D
-
Hi Sten, what is it that you did not like about the 35 and 45? I happen to be interested by the 45, but could not test it so far
-
The 35/1.4G was designed for character and not blinding sharpness, in many paper test reviews it wasn't rated very good but those whom used this lens knew better.
Yes, the AFS 35/1.4 G has smoother background rendition which gives images a pleasing character. The Sigma is sharper but the bokeh is not so smooth - it's fine at close range but at medium range the more distant background is rather harsh, as the pictures by PeterN show.
The Sigma is better for images where everything is meant to be more or less sharp such as landscape or architecture, while the Nikkor is better for images with shallow DOF such as portraiture.
-
Hi Sten, what is it that you did not like about the 35 and 45? I happen to be interested by the 45, but could not test it so far
I guess I found them too modern in their rendering. What also put me off was the price...dearer than the Sigma 35 Art and Nikkor 35/1.8G. The Tamron 35 has a somewhat smoother bokeh compared to the Nikkor 1.8G- but the difference is small. But, if VC is wanted the Tamrons do play in the elite series.
I owned the 35/1.4G a few years ago and regret selling it. I also had the 24/1.4G but never took a liking to it. Nothing wrong with the lens' character...tis just that focal length. 20mm is better in my book.
-
Thanks for answering. Then again, what is your understanding of "modern" : clean and high contrast, I guess ?
The thing that puts me off with the 35/1.4G is LoCA wide open. The Sigma is much better, but its bokeh is problematic (double edges). I end up in using the Zeiss 35/2 much more : lesser aperture, lesser resolution, no AF, and huge vignetting, but its IQ (esp. micro-contrast) and flare resistance are very endearing, not to mention the smaller size (and the small price : 2nd hand, mint condition, 450€).
In the "Art" series, I prefer the 24/1.4, which maybe is less perfect, but has a much nicer bokeh.
The Tamron 45/1.8 would be perfect for my pipe organ shootings : close-up capability and stabilizer... and, being mainly used on my Df, the (theoretically) lesser resolution compared to, say, the Sigma 50/1.4 A would not play a role. What it your opinion about its flare resistance when shooting against bright backgrounds, if you had a chance to test it?
-
I've owned the Sigma 35/1.4A and after testing the Nikkor 35/1.8GFX I'd say the Nikkor is no match for the Siggy.
thank you. price is roughly the same here
-
I did compare the 1.4/35 and the 1.4/24 Nikkors
There is one thing I do not like: Bending lines in the viewfinder.
The 1.4/24G ist very well corrected, the 1.4/35G not.
That is why I bought the 1.4/24G
-
Would like to have 35mm prime as a walk around lens for landscape and street photography. The 35/1.4G was on my list but never got to pay the price. Was thinking about Sigma as well. I own good copy of 85/1.4 Sigma and I like it for my work however on the other hand I had to get rid off another Sigma lens which was just a failure. They seem to really inconsistent with their quality control.
Couple weeks ago I ordered Ziess 35/2 which was on really good sale but I was too late to get one (they still had some for Canon). Now I am thinking about 35/1.8G ED - the price here is only $100 less than I would pay for the Zeiss lens which I would of preferred.
Anyone has in depth experience with 35/1.8 FX or 35/2?
-
Thanks for answering. Then again, what is your understanding of "modern" : clean and high contrast, I guess ?
The thing that puts me off with the 35/1.4G is LoCA wide open. The Sigma is much better, but its bokeh is problematic (double edges). I end up in using the Zeiss 35/2 much more : lesser aperture, lesser resolution, no AF, and huge vignetting, but its IQ (esp. micro-contrast) and flare resistance are very endearing, not to mention the smaller size (and the small price : 2nd hand, mint condition, 450€).
In the "Art" series, I prefer the 24/1.4, which maybe is less perfect, but has a much nicer bokeh.
The Tamron 45/1.8 would be perfect for my pipe organ shootings : close-up capability and stabilizer... and, being mainly used on my Df, the (theoretically) lesser resolution compared to, say, the Sigma 50/1.4 A would not play a role. What it your opinion about its flare resistance when shooting against bright backgrounds, if you had a chance to test it?
Yup, almost too clear and contrasty. Will see if I can give the Tamron 45/1.8 another test in the coming days...and will check your questions :)
-
Thanks !
-
Is it possible to start another thread about the other lenses? It was my intention to use this one only for the sigma art lens.
-
Mongo tried a friend’s sigma 35 f1.4 Art about a year ago and went out and bought one pretty shortly thereafter. It is one of the best lenses Mongo has used and enjoys using.
It is a reasonably largish lens but not too heavy and handles beautifully. The build quality and balance are superb. Sharpness is unmatched in Mongo’s experience for a 35mm. Mongo notes the comments of others in relation to the desirability or otherwise of too much sharpness and particularly, Ronald’s comments. Mongo has not used the Nikon 35 f1.4 but broadly understands what others are referring to in relation to too much sharpness for certain purposes. Whilst the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art is tremendously sharp , its OOF backgrounds still yield a very pleasant rendering. Comparing it to a Nikon 85mm f1.4 AI-s, which Mongo considers has a lovely sharpness with a “mellow” feel about it, the sigma 35mm is as sharp (if not a little more) but not as mellow. Mongo usually has his 800E set to +3 sharpening and the D4s to about +1. In both cases when he uses the Sigma 35mmf1.4 Art, he has to dial the in camera sharpness down to +1 and 0 respectively to try and avoid an "oversharpened" look
Mongo could not fault the Sigma 35 f1.4 Art in terms of colour, AF speed and accuracy, flare etc in any of the uses to which he has put the lens.
It is his “go to” lens for wider landscapes and functions. Photographed a 50th anniversary function only days ago with this and a 90mm lens (although, the Sigma 35 is even capable of producing really excellent portraits also) and could not be happier with the results.
For price , quality and performance in this focal length, it is almost impossible to beat at present. Mongo strongly recommends this lens if you are considering a prime of this focal length.
-
Why no mention of the nikkor 35/1.4 ais, i cant speak of the sigma, i have the nikkors 35/1.4 ais and g, they look similar in the produced results, the 35ais goes for about €400 mint 2nd hand and is a lot more compact.
The zf 35/2 is iq wise very different from the nikkors i find the zeiss often too saturated for my taste.
-
Why no mention of the nikkor 35/1.4 ais, i cant speak of the sigma, i have the nikkors 35/1.4 ais and g, they look similar in the produced results, the 35ais goes for about €400 mint 2nd hand and is a lot more compact.
The zf 35/2 is iq wise very different from the nikkors i find the zeiss often too saturated for my taste.
I have the AI-S 35/1.4 and I have liked it for years. It has its own character and it is very sharp imho at f/2 and beyond, but wide open there's this glow, or veiling. I guess it is called residual spherical aberration, but those wiser please correct me if I'm mistaken. It is still very sharp wide open, but the glow (not unlike my 28/1.4D btw, but much stronger) might be distracting sometimes and manual focus is something I'n not too good unless the subject is static.
The Sigma 35/1.4A has more neutral and some would say more boring rendering, but for such a low money one can't go wrong.
Next shot shows my 6yo daughter after her taekwondo practice. Their team had a small (potluck style, dutch treat?) surprise present xmas party (limit was 3 euros per gift). She took a small card game there and chose the biggest box available (naturally, my girl :P). Unfortunately she got a plastic snowball with blinking led lights inside ;D ;D
Sigma 35/1.4A.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/569/23615025542_eb41c92d86_o.jpg)
-
Yup, almost too clear and contrasty. Will see if I can give the Tamron 45/1.8 another test in the coming days...and will check your questions :)
Greetings,
I'm more curious about your experience with the Tamron 35mm f1.8 VC. Currently I use a Sigma 35 and it has definitely spoiled me in terms of sharpness expectations at wide open. It's clinical I guess but gets the job done.
Conflicting reviews on Tamron are flying all around, some saying it's much less sharp, with lots of chromatic aberrations. Others praise it's uniformity.
I'm trying to shed some weight, gain VC and the much needed weather sealing. I hope this does not happen at a very heavy cost of sharpness. Wide open sharpness not that important but I'm more curious on how you fared with different aberrations with your limited testing both in focus and out of focus.
Also, the manual focus direction on Tamron lenses is still wrong compared to Nikon's right?