[les3547]

I recently acquired the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM and find it to be possibly the best normal-range lens I’ve ever owned (on a list that includes FA 31 LTD, DA 35 LTD, Zeiss 35 ZK, Contax/Zeiss 28 f2.8, and Leica 50mm f/1.4 Summilux on FF). While researching it I watched this forum closely for opinions, but there wasn’t as much about it as I expected (especially with the imminent arrival of Pentax FF). Yet every professional review one finds gives the Sigma about the highest praise a lens can get.

I did a search here and found concerns over it mis-focusing at times and wondered if that’s why there hasn’t been more enthusiasm among Pentax users. My own experience with the Sigma 35 f1.4 autofocus thus far has been perfect. I exclusively use spot focusing (and metering), a habit I picked up from learning A. Adams’ Zone System on film cameras. I am swamped with work right now and unable to do much shooting, so I haven’t been able to thoroughly test the hypothesis that it might be matrix AF that’s caused the Sigma trouble. Or, maybe Sigma has fixed the problem?

Anyway, I'm curious because it seems a shame that, for example, in threads one sees here asking for recommendations in the “normal” range, the splendid Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM often isn’t on the list. I am interested in hearing other's opinions on why the lens isn't more desired by Pentaxians (including that my impression about its popularity is wrong). A couple of shots I took as a first test. Both are hand held, I will do more with a tripod when I get a break.

First shot with lens, a foggy day, f5.6 1/20:




"Art" shot at F1.4:




Crop shows impressive detail for 1.4:

[bertwert]

Looks like a great lens!

Price is probably a factor though.

[Na Horuk]

You mean the Sigma 35mm Art?? It caused quite a stir when it was released. Got lots of praise. But its not something you recommend to first time 35mm buyers because it is huge and expensive. And I think there were reports of some AF problems? But I think people who need top quality 35mm prime regardless of size usually get to the Sigma 35mm art, without recommendations.

Its easier to recommend something like DA 35mm, FA 35mm, or DA 35mm f2.8 macro; all of which are good lenses at their price points. Only when those are not fast enough or sharp enough wide open, then you look at things like Samyang 35mm, Sigma 35mm Art, Zeiss Otus (well, the Otus isn't in K-mount, I guess..)

[virusn3t]

Idk, i have a 31ltd so im not really looking for a new 35, i need some 50mm but the Sigma 50mm art is not available in K mount...if after the FF Theres no 50mm art or Tamron 45, maybe i will buy a 43ltd

[kp0c]

I would own that lens if it wasn't for the price. acrually, once I get enough money for it, I'll probably just buy a fa 31mm instead :| ! I purchased a used Sigma 30mm 1.4 in the meantime and I quite like it for a normal prime. I wouldn't do landscape with it and don't shoot much in direct light, but I still really like what it offers me.

[Penumbra]

I did see it beeing described as "the best APS-C" lens. And i did study it a bit.

I think one of the reason you don't see it mentioned is because it's fairly new. Another thing would be that the more advanced users here already have the FA 31mm or would go for that before going for the SIgma (due to smaller size, pixie dust (rendering), reputation, why not loyalty to the brand and so on and it's about the same price, these days even a bit lower (the 31).

For me, at this moment, minuses (from the reading i did about this lens and not from actual experience with it!): big (yes, i know it's a 1.4 and you can't have it all dammit ) and heavy though weight for me is not that important but i am searching for a walk-around prime and would prefer a less conspicuous lens; pricey (for me); not weather sealed; i would use it for medium and high distances and rumors say for landscape (distant detail) rendering is not as good with it's closer focus detail which looks just perfect indeed. Could you test that, when you'll have some time ?

But of course, these kind of assesments are subjective, eventually i'd love to be able to test it myself and who knows what love at first sight might.. develop (pun intended )

In time, be it on Pentax, Canon or Nikon mounts, this lens will probably make history.

Here's a good read btw, since we're here
Interview with constructor of Sigma lenses - Interview with constructor of Sigma 1.4/35 and 18-35 mm f/1.8 lenses - LensTip.com

[les3547]

You mean the Sigma 35mm Art?? It caused quite a stir when it was released. Got lots of praise. But its not something you recommend to first time 35mm buyers because it is huge and expensive. And I think there were reports of some AF problems? But I think people who need top quality 35mm prime regardless of size usually get to the Sigma 35mm art, without recommendations.

Its easier to recommend something like DA 35mm, FA 35mm, or DA 35mm f2.8 macro; all of which are good lenses at their price points. Only when those are not fast enough or sharp enough wide open, then you look at things like Samyang 35mm, Sigma 35mm Art, Zeiss Otus (well, the Otus isn't in K-mount, I guess..)

One thing I'd say about the criticism of size is that ergonomically it seems a great fit for the K-3. The balance point is right where the lens meets the camera, so it balances in the hand where it makes the focus ring perfectly available for quick shift (a nice, wide focus ring too). Personally I've struggled with all the small lenses I've owned and now prefer lenses long enough to cradle in my hand.

I get the expense thing for people starting out. But people are still buying the FA 31 LTD at a premium price when this lens is worthy of consideration as an alternative. I'd hate to see Sigma stop making this quality of lenses for Pentax because we don't give it fair go.

[starjedi]

Looks like a great lens!

Price is probably a factor though.

Sigma 35 F1.4 is a great lens. The sharpness is very impressive for a good copy. I think several factors impact its popularity(same as canon 35L or 35Lii v.s sigma 35 in many places):
1) Price. Yes. In the same price league, Pentax has FA31 1.8, in sometimes, Pentax FA31 can be cheaper in U.S.(eg recent deal $750 in Adorama) .

2) Balance. FA 31 1.8 is also super sharp (for a good copy). But it is much smaller. It is a well balanced lens among a lot of factors render, bokeh, sharpness, build, portability with good reputation among pentaxian for 15 years... Sigma 35 is heavy relatively...

however, if there has a coming sigma 85 1.4 art and Pentax 77 1.8 ( for current sigma 85 1.4 and Pentax 77, people might still be favor 77 for similar reason) on the same table with similar price, I think sigma 85 1.4 art will win... Larger aperture is more important here... For 35mm, people can live with f1.8 or even f2. Of course, It will be a different story if Pentax also issues HD FA 77mm DC limited...

[condor27596]

Here is the thing. I considered the sigma art but went with both the 31 and the 77.

We do a birthday shoot once a year. My sister with her $25000 Nikon. Me with my Pentax.

Remarkably we changed lenses unprompted at the same time. I have since had the occasion to go back and do PP on all pics.

The only way to distinguish mine from hers : she almost always shoots vertical. I almost always shoot horizontal.

My LBA ended at that point.

And keep in mind our advantage only begins there. I still have the 21 the plastic fantastics 35 and 50 the fa 50 1.4 the HD 40 and others. We can do that. At $12000 each for a Nikon lens most people can't.

I'm less commenting on your lens and more saying Pentax kicks butt.

But why spend X when you can spend 1/10 X and do better ?

I do want that 85 star though lol.

[bertwert]

Are you adding an extra zero in your prices?

[stevebrot]

$$ (not hugely expensive, but not cheap)

Size

Weight

***********************************

Steve

[clackers]

I have it - it's a wonderful lens!


Very sharp, very big, very Sigma.


Works well on FF.

[tuco]

I owed that lens for a while in a F-mount. I liked it and got some nice pictures with it. And the onion ring bokeh in lights really didn't bother me. But when the 35/1.8G arrived, I traded it in for that. Mostly because the weight/size factor because I shoot a 35mm a lot. And when it was mounted on my Df ( which weights less than a K-3) it was too much and not balanced well for my candid and travel camera.

[les3547]

. . . rumors say for landscape (distant detail) rendering is not as good with it's closer focus detail which looks just perfect indeed. Could you test that, when you'll have some time ?]

Yes, it does focus close (11 inches), very nice.

Okay, so I ran outside for a quick shot of a distant house . . . there's almost always ocean mist hanging in the hills (Pacific is 13 miles away), but still pretty contrasty. Here's a five shots that include the full pic, 1 each corner and center edge shots, and then two crops of the house in the center—medium crop and an extreme crop. I think the detail holds up pretty well. Picture was shot at F8, hand held:

Full scene:




Right edge, center crop:




Left corner crop:




Center average crop:




Center extreme crop:

[tgchan]

It probably had been posted before, but for those who might not seen it:

31mm vs 35 Sigma Art 1.4 comparison

http://info.xitek.com/product/201404/09-149487.html


I still decided on more expensive used 31mm xD but I am known for my illogical actions.