Sigma 35mm f1.4....?!!

Im thinking Sigma are making the most of the increased price gap between their products and the new Canon gear. Traditionally they've been making lenses to a price - and now perhaps they foresee that they will have a bit more leeway and this is resulting in their quality creeping up. The new leans is hardly cheap in general terms.... but its cheap compared to what is becoming the "norm" with new lenses. I dont think people would be very surprised if when a new Canon 35mm came it would cost £1500+ .
 
Yeah Canon need to have a rethink not only on prices but a few replacements to keep tabs on sigma if as I read they are refreshing the whole line up to 3 ranges A, C and S line ups. They have fallen behind to Nikon on the bodies but people always back it up with the quality and tolerances of their own lenses. If they start losing out on the lens front as well it hopefully will force them to look at their pricing.
 
A 35L replacment will be similar price (when it settles down) should be comparable to the 24L mkii. £1,500 is in the region of the 24L TS bracket.

dannyjo22 said:
Yeah Canon need to have a rethink not only on prices but a few replacements to keep tabs on sigma if as I read they are refreshing the whole line up to 3 ranges A, C and S line ups. They have fallen behind to Nikon on the bodies but people always back it up with the quality and tolerances of their own lenses. If they start losing out on the lens front as well it hopefully will force them to look at their pricing.
Click to expand...

I think this Sigma love thing is got a bit out of proportion. Lets face it, they have 3 decent lenses on EF, a 35, 50 and 85. Most of other Sigma lenses I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, their stuff is decent for the money (if you get a good one) but the quality control on them (Except the 3 recent ones) has been terrible, not just personally speaking but it has been general consensus for years.

If you want the best 24mm it is not a Sigma.

If you want the best 100mm it is not a Sigma.

If you want the best 135mm it is not a Sigma.

If you want the best 24-70 it is not a Sigma.

If you want the best 70-200 it is not a Sigma.

So I wouldn't think Canon has anything to worry about yet, they refresh their lenses often enough (check the age for 24mkii, 50/1.2, 24-70ii, 70-200ii, 16-35ii, 85ii, 100L, 135L), and keep bringing out new lenses that no one else makes in recent years, the 17mm TSE, 8-15mm fisheye. The only exception is the 35L (and the 50/1.4). Between the time the first 35L came out til the Sigma 35 came out, Canon has releases and replaced practically all their L lenses between the range of 14mm to 200 in both zooms and primes.

I could argue that if you want the best 35/50/85 that they are not Sigma lenses either, aperture speaking at least, both the Canon 50/85 gets to 1.2 and the 35L is a very close or better performer (I do admit Sigma has less CA), certainly the Sigma 35 is a very very decent lens and I would happily buy or use one. But we have to remember that the Canon lens is almost 15 years old, before the age of 10D, I don't think the D30 (yes, Canon used to put D in front of their numbering at one point) even came out yet, it pre-dates all Canon/Nikon DSLRs.

I do agree though, they are trying and getting away with their new increased prices.
 
Last edited:
I think it's healthy. As Ray says Canon will always beat Sigma when it comes to image quality. Im sure that will not change over time. What is evolving though is the pricing - which is allowing Sigma to up their game, initialy it seems in the quality of certain new lenses. What will be more impressive is if over time we see quality control has improved starting with the 35mm 1.4 Sigma.

Pros who make a tonne of ££ can justify and afford £1000+ for the latest primes, and for everyone else (or even those pros that want to make a calculated decision) there will hopefully be a good range of much (50%) cheaper, but still very good quality lenses.
 
Image quality is subjective though, in some ways the current (old) 35L may have a slight edge in bokeh (important to some) but it has worse CA (important to others) - Best to wait until the refresh is out and then the fair comparisons will be done. Given how many people already have the new 35mm, I've not seen a 1.4 image that isn't pin sharp yet so their QC is certainly keeping up with their statement about it!

Yeah Sigma's zooms are a bit pants but if these new lenses and the news of the 5yr refresh for all lenses holds strong then this would be a thing of the past over the new few years.

This all comes at a premium though, Sigma lens prices will go up and as such, so will the perception of quality. Sure they're cheap(er) compared to the L/G equivalent but the 35 is damn expensive for what it is in most people's eyes, a Sigma.

It's all for the good though.
 
cokebottles said:
Im thinking Sigma are making the most of the increased price gap between their products and the new Canon gear. Traditionally they've been making lenses to a price - and now perhaps they foresee that they will have a bit more leeway and this is resulting in their quality creeping up. The new leans is hardly cheap in general terms.... but its cheap compared to what is becoming the "norm" with new lenses. I dont think people would be very surprised if when a new Canon 35mm came it would cost £1500+ .
Click to expand...

A large part of the improvements s progress in the optical design and simulation software that can better model optical performance and facilitates optimization.

Is is also why lenses like sme of nikons kit lenses are as sharp a the older primes and why Nikon's new f1.8 primes can be so sharp at such a low price point.


Canon's picking may be sky rocketing but nikon's pricing is increasing at a more moderate rate, sigma have to be aware of the pricing of lenses across both systems, and also Sony ( although there are less Sony owners they tend to buy more sigma lenses on average) .

Sigma is charging more for their lenses than historically but they still face some of the same problems about weak GBP and general materials inflation that canon and Nikon face.
 
The one Sigma made in the press announcement about the 3 new lenses, that they've undergone big changes, got a new facility and employed new technologies to support the new stuff coming out.
 
The price increase for Sigma seems less drastic mainly because Canon has raised the ceiling for their lenses.

I think we have to accept that prices are rising across the board, brand name regardless, it has been the trend for every lens mkii replacement of the old one for the past couple of years.

Although I remember a 70-200 2.8 L was £999 from Kerso, the mkii is still around £1,400 on grey import.
 
IS for 999? When I got the mk1 2.8L IS I paid £1100 for it! Although that was before the across the board price hike on lenses :/
 
mrk said:
The one Sigma made in the press announcement about the 3 new lenses, that they've undergone big changes, got a new facility and employed new technologies to support the new stuff coming out.
Click to expand...

Ah right I thought you meant they had made a statement on quality control improving :)
 
mrk said:
IS for 999? When I got the mk1 2.8L IS I paid £1100 for it! Although that was before the across the board price hike on lenses :/
Click to expand...

Exactly and nearly 2 years after launch the uk price for the 70-200 2.8 mk2 is £1750. Still £500+ up on what the uk price on the mk1 was.

So people try to justify the price rise by quoting importers most of the time.
 
mrk said:
IS for 999? When I got the mk1 2.8L IS I paid £1100 for it! Although that was before the across the board price hike on lenses :/
Click to expand...

It hit £999 at one point for the IS.

I remember because I never paid attention to any other 70-200 variant ever of their prices as I never wanted one.

This was around the same time as the 24-70 mk1 was around £700 though. I know it hit mid £600's one point.

These are Kerso prices, valid UK VAT invoices.
 
Last edited:
I was so close to buying the 24-70 around the 700 region but I was determined I needed wider on crop so got the 17-55 instead :o

dannyjo22 said:
Ah right I thought you meant they had made a statement on quality control improving :)
Click to expand...

It kind of does say that without directly saying that though, if that makes sense :p

It's pretty clear to see that QC has improved with these new lenses:

1: Build quality is excellent, it feels solid, feels like there's lots of metal inside too (which there is). Is unlike any Sigma lens to date. Take away the Sigma logo and no one would believe it was a Sigma.

2: Sample variation, not seen a soft sample being mentioned yet on any of the other forums where people are posting thoughts/pics from the 35mm!

Related to the lens as well, the front element doesn't move at all, just like the 85mm, so I'm not quite sure why the recess is so big on this lens whereas the 85mm is half the depth. Not a complain, just a curious observation!

Picking up the 30mm 1.4 from my friend at around 7 so will compare shortly!
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
:

1: Build quality is excellent, it feels solid, feels like there's lots of metal inside too (which there is). Is unlike any Sigma lens to date. Take away the Sigma logo and no one would believe it was a Sigma.
Click to expand...

The new-finish 50mm f/1.4's feel pretty solid too :)

I swapped mine for the 30 1.4, and it's not bad either!
 
buzzlightweight said:
sweeeet :)
Click to expand...

Hi,

You can see the barrel through the viewfinder, it's a DC lens though so I should have realised this from the start so this kind of puts a downer on any suitable comparison :o

Anyway, differences I've noticed:

- Close focusing distance is worse.
- Resolving power is worse.
- AF speed is worse.
- CA is worse (more purple fringe, similar green fringe on some highlights but the 35mm is more controlled and eliminates them whereas the 30mm has some left after PP).
- Quality of bokeh is decent though I give it that.
- Weight (too light!)
- Feel.
- Looks, it doesn't look manly enough!

Obvious points are obvious considering the eye watering price difference between the two but thought worth mentioning :p

Basic quick comparisons, I don't think it's gonna be worth comparing these two lenses any further really!

35mm:
5D3_3253.jpg


30mm:
5D3_3255.jpg



35mm closest focusing:
5D3_3264.jpg

100%:
5D3_3264_100.jpg


30mm closest focusing:
5D3_3267.jpg

100%:
5D3_3267_100.jpg


In the last 2 examples you can see what I meant elsewhere when i mentioned that you get more in focus on the 35mm and 85mm at the same wide aperture (1.4 here) whereas on the 50mm (and this 30mm) that wasn't the case. The buttons on the right are the giveaway.
 
The bokeh on you 35mm shot looks more nervous than the 30mm shot?

Bokeh quality is one area where sigma lenses vary form smooth and creamy to harsh and nervous depending on the lens. E.g. the 24-70mm f/2.8 zooms are relatively sharp but their out of focus rendering is appealing. The 85mm has pretty good bokeh, not as nice as the Nikon 86mm f/1.4 or 1.8, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is about the same as the 2 Nikons.



If the Sigma 35mm has nervous bokeh then it is disappointing. Creatign smooth bokeh on wider angle lenses is quite tough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom