[les3547]

Sigma 35mm F1.4 ART is in my opinion one of the if not the best lens for Pentax, period. It is spot on with focus and it does not need any adjustments on two K-3 cameras. Very sharp wide open and just gets extremely sharp on other f-stops. I sold brand new Zeiss 50mm (used max 10 times) for this one and do not regret it.

Very nice portraits. I also sold a Zeiss, the 35mm ZK, to get the Sigma because I thought the Zeiss was a bit flat. I'd been determined to get a "normal" lens, so before the Zeiss I tried the FA 31. I know it is a great lens, perfect for some tastes, but (to my tastes) it feels "stark." I felt the same way about the DA 35 LTD, which I bought and sold twice trying to like it. The only lens I've tried I like more than the Sigma is the Contax/Zeiss 28 f2.8, which is still the finest piece of glass I've ever had, just not quite long enough for me (plus having to mess with the aperture ring to see was a pain). I really wanted a 35mm with the soul of the Contax, and I wanted autofocus.

I hoped the Sigma might do the job, and so far I am pretty blown away by its IQ. I actually like its heft, it helps me steady my camera. Mine does overexpose by 1EV, but that is just a simple two clicks of my forward E-wheel to correct. No sweat! It also front focuses by 2 units, also easy to remedy. All six of my Voigtlanders overexposed by a stop, and my Sigma 70 Macro front focuses by 8! Easy to fix. It's funny but the reason I gave the Sigma 35 a try was because of the Sigma 70 Macro's IQ; it is a lovely lens, sharp with soul, just like the Sigma 35 Art.

[clackers]

My Sigma 35 has erratic AF consistency. It makes me hesitant to shoot with it, particularly for important work.

Must be your copy, Rawr, never had a problem with mine.

[clackers]

I find its bokeh somehow unpleasant (from what I've seen posted around the forums) .. not sure why, it is not just the onion rings

But I might check it again once the FF gets released

Bokeh?

You Tube

You Tube

As for bokeh highlights, which do you prefer (photographylife.com review)?

[RAART]

Bokeh?

As for bokeh highlights, which do you prefer (photographylife.com review)?

1. Rokinon
2. Sigma
3. Nikon
4. Zeiss

[clackers]

1. Rokinon
2. Sigma
3. Nikon
4. Zeiss

Yeah, the Samyang does seem to be the cleanest.


Look at the Zeiss - yuk!

[drypenn]

Must be your copy, Rawr, never had a problem with mine.

This is what I find disturbing with Sigma.

Their sample variation just seems to be too widely dispersed. It almost always seems you'll have to have lady luck to get a good sample. This may be okay if you're in the US, but in my country where Sigma's local support has been limited to Canikon, even sending a faulty one back to BH/Adorama for an exchange will be an expensive exercise.

So, in response to the OP's question, Sigma, in general has little appeal to me because 1) they don't want to support Pentax in my country, and 2) feedback to their products are still spotty at best. Without official local distributorship and support, purchasing a Sigma isn't confidence-inspiring.

[Digitalis]

My Sigma 35 has erratic AF consistency. It makes me hesitant to shoot with it, particularly for important work.

Same here, which is why I seldom use the Sigma 35mm f/1.4* myself, as I prefer the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 or if I really need accurate AF I use the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G

*Bodies I have used the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART on: Nikon D3,D3s,D4s,D700,D800,D810,Df. I also own the Sigma Lens dock for Nikon mount, even after careful calibration the issue persisted.

[Rondec]

I think the issue with the Sigma lens is that it is the sort of lens that isn't particularly attractive to Pentaxians -- large, fast, with good sharpness wide open, but not the best rendering of out of focus areas. I chose between the Sigma and the Pentax FA 31 limited and even though the Pentax is a little slower, I decided that it fit better with the rest of my lens choices.

All of these lenses are pricey, but I've seen folks saying the FA 31 is more expensive, but I don't think it is. B and H Photo has the FA 31 at 750 right now, while the Sigma is 899. When you consider the all metal build, the smaller size of the FA 31, it wasn't a hard choice for me.

FA 31 at f2.2

[RAART]

Very nice portraits. I also sold a Zeiss, the 35mm ZK, to get the Sigma because I thought the Zeiss was a bit flat. I'd been determined to get a "normal" lens, so before the Zeiss I tried the FA 31. I know it is a great lens, perfect for some tastes, but (to my tastes) it feels "stark." I felt the same way about the DA 35 LTD, which I bought and sold twice trying to like it. The only lens I've tried I like more than the Sigma is the Contax/Zeiss 28 f2.8, which is still the finest piece of glass I've ever had, just not quite long enough for me (plus having to mess with the aperture ring to see was a pain). I really wanted a 35mm with the soul of the Contax, and I wanted autofocus.

I hoped the Sigma might do the job, and so far I am pretty blown away by its IQ. I actually like its heft, it helps me steady my camera. Mine does overexpose by 1EV, but that is just a simple two clicks of my forward E-wheel to correct. No sweat! It also front focuses by 2 units, also easy to remedy. All six of my Voigtlanders overexposed by a stop, and my Sigma 70 Macro front focuses by 8! Easy to fix. It's funny but the reason I gave the Sigma 35 a try was because of the Sigma 70 Macro's IQ; it is a lovely lens, sharp with soul, just like the Sigma 35 Art.

Thanks Les! IQ of the Sigma as well as micro contrast amazes me always I use it. I do not think that my overexposes but I usually always use matrix metering in K-3 which does excellent job. As of the autofocus I do not need any adjustments there and this has been verified on two K-3 cameras. Sigma is always on the second K-3 and usually never leaves the artist studio where we use it for taking pictures of the finished paintings. You can literally see all brush movements there. K-3 colour profile is excellent and it is not necessary to adjust too much when using Sigma. True to the eye... It took me time to go through several different manufacturer lenses to find a good match for critical painters eye when reviewing his work on computer screen (both platforms, PC and MAC with calibrated screen on MAC). I like the Pentax lenses very much but this Sigma...

[savoche]

I think the issue with the Sigma lens is that it is the sort of lens that isn't particularly attractive to Pentaxians -- large, fast, with good sharpness wide open, but not the best rendering of out of focus areas.

Very much this for me.

[MadMathMind]

All of these lenses are pricey, but I've seen folks saying the FA 31 is more expensive, but I don't think it is. B and H Photo has the FA 31 at 750 right now, while the Sigma is 899. When you consider the all metal build, the smaller size of the FA 31, it wasn't a hard choice for me.

To be fair, the FA31 was at $1250+ most of 2014 and didn't come to $1000 until early 2015 (when I bought mine). It has only been below that very recently.

[Rondec]

To be fair, the FA31 was at $1250+ most of 2014 and didn't come to $1000 until early 2015 (when I bought mine). It has only been below that very recently.

I know where the price was at -- I bought mine for 950 about 3 years ago and thought I was getting a really good deal. I don't regret it either, it is a very nice lens.

But I thought the thread was addressed at the current state of affairs. Pentax has gotten pretty aggressive with their pricing and the FA 31 is priced cheaper than the Sigma 35, the FA 77 is priced at 750, while the Sigma 85mm is at 1000 (B and H pricing). If the lenses were priced the same, I still would probably choose the Pentax models, since I like the builds/small size and the half stop difference in max aperture doesn't make that much difference to me, but with Pentax pricing them 150 less than the Sigma glass, I would definitely go with the Pentax.

I think the pricing in the United States is a lot better than in other places in the world, but currently it feels like the FA and DA limiteds are really low priced currently, particularly when they are on sale.

[Digitalis]

o be fair, the FA31 was at $1250+ most of 2014 and didn't come to $1000 until early 2015

I paid $1450AUD which is about $1022 US - i'd pay that again without regret, the FA31 is THAT good.

[clackers]

I think rendering is part of why we're all here.


I like what Stevebrot said a couple of years ago:


"I am not in the market for either the FA 31/1.8 or Sigma 35/1.4 (already own the FA 35/2 and have no desire to trade up), but if I were, I am sure that the choice would come down to build, size, and price. Yes, the Sigma is better optically (see 16Mpx comparisons at photozone.de) and 2/3rds the price, but if I was able to get the FA 31 for the same dollar or a little less, my attitude would be "Sigma? What Sigma?""


And, unfortunately for me, that pricing situation is what we have now, not when I was buying! :-D


But I guess I'll have to make do (btw, check out @Hattifnat's many pics in the Sigma Lens club):

[Paul the Sunman]

The current price of the FA 31 gives me pause: Is a HD D FA update about to appear with the FF?