Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens

[Erik Lund]

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!

[Jan Anne]

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    

[Airy]

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

[Roland Vink]

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.

[stenrasmussen]

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.

[Airy]

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?

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Alex Cejka]

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?

[stenrasmussen]

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 

[Airy]

Thanks !

[PeterN]

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]

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.

[Fons Baerken]

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.

[Peter Forsell]

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  ). Unfortunately she got a plastic snowball with blinking led lights inside 

Sigma 35/1.4A.