Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Review

The Sigma 35mm ƒ/1.4 DG HSM Art, which Sigma calls "our true flagship," is a third-party 35mm full-frame lens that is available in Canon, Pentax, Sigma, Sony, and Nikon mount. It is intended to be a premium-quality lens competitive with the best proprietary lenses, but costs only $900, which is a bargain compared to many other makers' best 35mm ƒ/1.4 options.

I recently had the chance to try two new 35mm lenses (long my "home," or most used, focal length—I've used an embarrassing number of 35mm and 35mm-e lenses over the years, many dozens of them), thanks to a loan from Roger at LensRentals, the leading camera and lens rental site. (Thanks, Roger.) The first was the Tamron SP 35mm ƒ/1.8 Di VC USD, which was plenty sharp but did not excite further interest. It seemed too big for its moderate speed, and I was not liking what I saw of the way it transitioned to o-o-f; also its IS did not seem to be working right in very dark conditions with the D750, something I could well believe was operator error (or focusing glitches) rather than equipment failure. If I had cared to, I might have tracked down the source of that trouble. But seeing as we were not hitting it off and since my time with these lenses was very tight, I set that one aside and opted not to review it.

The Sigma 35mm Art was a different story. It put a smile on my face right from the start. I immediately settled into full lens-geek mode, exploring its properties, putting it through its paces, and happily admiring the results I was getting. I've developed a number of quick trials over the years that let me see quickly how a lens is behaving under a variety of conditions. Not only is there much more to a lens than "sharpness," but there are different kinds of sharpness! I look mainly at bokeh, since it's been years since I've tried a truly "unsharp" lens, but there are all sort of other properties hiding in plain sight, such as shadow contrast, curvature of field (to see about that, put a complex subject in the plane of focus and bring the focus forward—if you see different degrees of blur across the subject, chances are it's curvature of field), distortion, and several kinds of flare and veiling glare (which, really, you could "test" for months if you lived on a different planet where you had nothing else to do). And so on.

I liked the Sigma's kind of sharpness, though. It has a pleasing "look" with plenty of lens contrast [paywall] and is nicely consistent, with no detectable sharpness anomalies. I'll give you one example. I don't test for corner sharpness at the widest apertures, for the simple reason that there are usually only two reasons you use the widest apertures, namely that you don't have enough light, or you want things to be blurry; corner sharpness is just almost never an issue at open apertures in practical use. But I do take a look at corner sharpness at smaller, normal shooting apertures.

Take a look at that tenacious red apple in the upper left (this is from the A900, which has a nicer, brighter viewfinder than the Nikon D750):

You can just barely make out a little CA in the full file, but there's nothing wrong with this lens in the corners. If that isn't sharp enough for anybody, they don't need a different lens, they need their meds.

Flare
To single out one of my trials...the only real problem I encountered with the Sigma was with flare with the sun at the edge of the frame. Coatings have gotten so good these days that many lenses can handle this kind of thing with aplomb. Most often, flare trials leave me feeling a quiet wonderment for the state of technology in this regard. (Everyone should photograph with an historical uncoated lens for a while just to appreciate where we are now. It'll do for your appreciation of lens coatings what sleeping in a tent does for your appreciation of your nice mattress and box spring and a temperature-controlled environment underneath a snug roof.) And for the most part the Sigma does well enough; I didn't have problems with specular sunlight glittering off the lake or with indoor light sources. But...

...Uh-oh! Here's something I haven't seen in a while: big, obvious "drip" flare ghosts with the sun just out of the edge of the frame. A case of back to the past, a bit...with '70s lenses, playing with direct sunlight was like little kids pressing on their eyelids to see all the pretty colors (note to little kids: stop doing that). You just waited for all the strange surprises, all the fantastical and alarming blobs and streaks and pretty colors.

At the same time, note the distinct lack of veiling glare. There's nice lens contrast in those rocks at the lower left (take my word for this, I'm looking at the full file and you're not), and the lens is holding detail everywhere. Seventies lenses would be unlikely to match that.

As a side note, it's generally not large optical flaws and errors that trip up most pictures...it's small ones photographers are not quite aware of. Slight motion blur or slight misfocus can very subtly degrade image quality even when it's not easy to put your finger on what's wrong. Same with veiling glare...it can just cut contrast a bit and make a picture lose its magic, often without the photographer being aware of what's wrong. I can't say for certain—I'd have to use it for a longer time—but I would guess the Sigma Art has got your back where this is concerned.

You have to learn any lens you use, to be able to anticipate surprises and identify the situations where it might let you down. This specific kind of flare ghosting is what I'd most watch out for with the Sigma Art. Curiously, I wasn't able to find flare problems in most other situations. It passed the window test, for example (shadow contrast when there's a large area of bright light just outside of the field of view), and that's one of the trials that the beautiful old Mandler-designed Leica 35mm Summicron-R, to name one, fails. And my current all-time favorite* among 35mm (and equivalent) lenses, the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8, makes garish stars out of lights in the frame. With any lens, you come to know its strengths and weaknesses and can shoot accordingly.

O-o-f blur
Bokeh (out-of-focus blur) is not super-important with a 35mm lens either. Because of the wide-ish field of view, usually you're shooting to get everything in focus, perhaps excepting some inconsequential not-very-blurry far-background stuff. But bokeh bugs me, and I've got a bit of a "golden eye" problem** where it is concerned.

The news is both mixed and also good. Say what? Well, when "stressed," which you do by putting the focus relatively close and having complex, high-contrast subjects in the deep background, the Sigma Art does not look too good. It doesn't actually behave poorly, in the sense of having bright-ring highlights, but it's not attractive, either.

The saving grace is that that's not the sort of thing you commonly encounter when using 35mm lenses.

High contrast subject matter far back of the plane of focus is usually the toughest test for a wide-angle or normal lens. The Sigma is not
poor but also not pretty.

On the good side, the news is good: the sort of bokeh you will encounter a lot with 35mm lenses is near bokeh from wider apertures at closer distances, and in such cases the Sigma comports itself beautifully. I'm not sure I'd use this lens just for the bokeh (I'll break down and confess my utter dweebishness here, which is that I do own several lenses I just use when I get a hankering to wallow in beautiful bokeh), and there do exist situations that you do have to be on the lookout for. But for the most part I think this lens does very nicely with the kinds of o-o-f you're most likely to encounter with a 35mm in real shooting. Which happen to be just the sort of shots where other fast 35mms let you down. I've gotten rid of lenses for that sin. I'd keep the Sigma.

In short
Sigma's designers and engineers set out to make a world-class lens that can stand alongside the world's best without apology, and I'd say they succeeded. It doesn't feel or behave like a lens made to a price-point.

Mainly, if you like sharp, then this lens, you will like.

But that's not all. This is a very well-balanced 35mm all-purpose lens, with excellent properties and a coherent, cohesive across-the-board performance (sun-in-the-frame flare being the only glaring—pardon the pun—exception). I used the lens on two full-frame cameras, the older Sony A900 and the newer Nikon D750; and I'm quite familiar with the competition from makers such as Canon, Nikon, and Leica. This lens consistently pleases with a high degree of sharpness, just the right lens contrast, and a fine and tractable consistency across the field and up and down the aperture range. I'm hard to please, and I liked this lens a lot. It just does most of the many things I want a wide-normal to do, and does them in a way that I find good to look at.

It's not just a failure to offend which defines its goodness, though—in most cases I found it a lens that actively pleases the eye. Looking at pictures made with the Sigma Art made me happy. Given its solid but ultimately reasonable size and especially its surprisingly advantageous price, this would probably be my top pick as my main lens, if my main camera were any of the full-frame DSLR brands that Sigma makes mounts for.

It's that good. In short, maybe just shy of a total home run due to the identified shortcomings, but a good strong bases-loaded triple with three RBIs. For the price especially, it can't be beat. But even where price is no object, it's a contender. Cheers and high-fives from me.

Here's the Sigma Art from B&H Photo and here it is from Amazon.

Mike

P.S. Thanks again to LensRentals for the equipment loan.

ADDENDUM: Here's more or less the same "trial" shot taken with the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-series lens on the NEX-6. Lens hood off, sun just outside the frame area, sunlight striking the front of the lens directly.

*Although when you really love lenses, naming one favorite is like naming one favorite song...there are lots of good ones, and in many cases each can be appreciated for different reasons.

**Adapted from the term "golden ear" in audiophilia, the compulsion to obsessively identify reproduction faults inaudible to most people who are just listening to the music.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Carsten Bockermann: "After trying this lens I immediately sold my 35mm ƒ/1.4 AF-S Nikkor and never looked back.

"At least not to the Nikkor; in situations where nice bokeh is really important, I prefer the 35mm ƒ/1.4 Zeiss ZF.2."

Mike replies: Another fine 35mm. I prefer the ƒ/2 (discontinued now) but only because of size and weight.

Shubh Mohan Singh: "Excellent piece, I too am a fan of 35mm lenses and I recently tried out the Samyang 35mm ƒ/1.4. Quite liked it other than the fact that it is difficult to get the manual focusing right on the modern DSLR viewfinders."

Kusandha Hertrich: "Thanks for this great review. You've given me some good insights in to how to test my lenses here."

Mike replies: Someday I should just do an article about how to test lenses using pictures. I've been saying that for years, though.

adamct: "Where are the test charts? You can't review a lens without test charts. It's like walking and chewing gum at the same time: it simply can't be done....  :-) 

"P.S. For what it's worth, standardized objective tests have a very important role to play in evaluating equipment. Still, it's a nice change of pace to have a review from a respected voice who is clear about his biases and evaluates a lens based on experience, rather than solely based on lab tests.

"P.P.S. I don't mean to imply that anyone who includes lab tests in their review doesn't do any real-world testing.

"P.P.P.S. What I really meant to say was: 'Thanks, Mike!'"

Robert Harshman: "The Sigma Art series 20mm ƒ1.4 and 50mm ƒ/1.4 are also great bargains and extremely good lenses. I have all three. Great value and the 20mm ƒ/1.4 is suppose to be the widest ƒ/1.4 ever."

Comments

[Bill Mitchell]

I don't understand why anyone would put up with the size, weight, and price of a 35mm f:1.4 lens, when all you gotta do is up the ISO.
Things were quite different when I needed a Summilux with Kodachrome ASA=25 just for dark days. (Cost $250, weighed 6 oz).

[Hugh Smith]

Love 35mm for street shooting and this looks incredible. Unfortunately, for me, I rarely shoot with my Canon 5Dsr (too big to tote all day).
But looks awesome.

Mi dos pesos.

[Bob Johnston]

I don't own a camera that I could put with one of these but I still read your review, which is an indication of how much I respect your writing. What a great review. It tells so much more than any of the MTF bar graph type review sites.

[James Moule]

If you are comparing to the best, I would be interested in how this compares to the Zeiss lenses for Sony FE mount and/or the Zeiss Milvus, Otus, and Distagon lenses for Canikons. That seems to be where the action is these days.

[Doug Thacker]

Thanks for the informative review. I've always been intrigued by these Art series lenses. I love it when companies dedicate themselves to making thoughtful, distinctive, stand-out lenses at a reasonable price.

My one little niggle with Fuji is the lack of brand and version variety in the lenses. Not because there's anything wrong with the Fuji lenses - they're fantastic - but because like you I enjoy having a variety in my preferred focal length. (50mm is a bit too long for me - especially since they usually end up being 52 or 53mm - and 35mm a bit too wide; I prefer something in the 40-45mm range, but usually end up having to opt for 50mm.) I know I could buy the Zeiss Touit in X-mount, but I've never been sufficiently impressed with them vis a vis the Fuji equivalents to spend the money. It's too bad Sigma isn't making the Art series in X-mount.

[marcin wuu]

I don't really care about this particular focal length (too narrow for wide angle shots, to wide for portrait), but I'd love to read your take on the new Sony 85/1.4GM that I'm salivating over right now :)

[Dave I.]

As good as the Pentax Limited 31mm f/1.8? IIRC, you liked the bokeh of that lens.

The Pentax Limited 31mm lens is now $718.85 at "that big camera place in New York".

[Eric Brody]

How does it compare with the equivalent FOV Fuji 23mm f/1.4? You have said nice things about it in the past, I believe. It's a bit more than twice the weight, the same price. I've pretty much given up on full size lenses and traditional full sized bodies. I've adopted the Fuji system and am quite happy with both the primes and zooms.

[I should review that one too, since I own it and use it. --Mike]

[Stephen Scharf]

Yes, you definitely should review the Fuji 23 f/1.4! ;-)

[kirk tuck]

Thanks for writing about this one. I've been on the fence. I think you may have just pushed me over. Thanks?

[CKDexterHaven]

What about AF accuracy? That's been my issue with the Sigmas i've tried on the Canon 5D platform. With and without the AF calibration feature.

[Oh, you know, I didn't test that. I didn't notice any problems, but I really didn't check it. Sorry. --Mike]

[Joe Holmes]

I'm really happy to see Sigma releasing these high-end lenses as an alternative to the much more expensive equivalents from the big brands. I love my Sigma 50mm and 24mm f/1.4 Art lenses, and so I gave the 35mm a test when I found a used copy at KEH. Of course I discovered that I have no need to fill that hole between 24 and 50 so I returned it, but it struck me as a sweet lens. I'm looking forward to Sigma's 85mm Art lens -- not that there's any official word that one is in the works.

[Eric Erickson]

Mike, great review. I have been eyeing this lens ever since I have pared down my Nikon lens collection to fund my Fuji glass. I still need at least one good general prime lens and find the 35mm focal length, the perfect choice for much of my work. I love this type of review, no charts, just a "real world" way to look a the lens. Thanks again for all your good work.

[DB]

The excellent Zeiss 35/2 lives on as the Milvus. Essentially the same innards.
https://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/camera_lenses/milvus/milvus235.html

[Dave]

Another Pentax-related comparison request, since you had written on this previously: the 35 mm f2.8 Limited. Assuming a slightly larger image circle (i.e. maybe a 1.1 crop on the upcoming full frame!), how would it compare overall with the Sigma?

[MikeR]

But, how is the bokeh on big fat lake effect snowflakes?

[John Seidel]

It's a weird thing about lenses, the reasons that the ones that really grab you seem so good can be difficult to describe. A favorite of mine is an old Konica 40mm (60mm equivalent on my a6000). A thrift store find. It has some fogging and maybe even a little mold, but it makes images that put a smile on my face. I can't say why. The state of unclean certainly detracts from it's potential since shooting into brightness can create a fog-fest. I'm hoping to move back to Nikon for a real raw file someday and I'm really going to miss using this lens.

[Why not just buy a clean copy on eBay? They're plentiful and cost considerably less than a C-note.

That lens was highly regarded and a bit of a cult lens in its time. It has a 3-D look and exceptionally high contrast. Very pretty. --Mike]

[NancyP]

This is my general purpose lens on the Canon 6D. I am very happy with it. It's a fine night lens as well. When weight is an issue and I plan to use f/5.6 to f/11 (landscapes while on long hikes), I use the Canon pancake 40mm f/2.8, which for those situations is an amazingly good value per gram.

[Mark Sampson]

Does this lens come with a lens hood? I think of them as useful tools- but it seems many photographers, and some manufacturers, can't be bothered to use or supply them.

[Yes, it comes with a hood included in the box. You can click on the "In the box" link at the B&H Photo page to see everything a product comes with. --Mike]

[Sreeram]

Why do the picture taken with the Zeiss look like monochrome? I can see green grass in the Sigma pic

[Different day, different month. --Mike]

[Griffo Yger]

Why does sharpness matter?

Are we talking dialing sights and gunnery?

[No, we are not talking dialing sights and gunnery.

Sharpness might or might not matter to any particular picture aesthetically. But it's an aspect of how lenses render, and this is a lens review. --Mike]

[Ilkka]

How does it compare with the 2/35 Minolta which I believe you have or at least had, for the A900?

[Trevor Sowers]

I've been hearing that the Art series has terrible micro contrast. What was your thoughts on that?

[My thought on that is that three quarters of the people who are saying that probably can't either define or recognize it. --Mike

[Paulo Bizarro]

I also like 35mm focal length, probably my favourite one. Using the Loxia 35 f2 now, while waiting for a future Batis 35 f2:)

Nice review.

[Darlene Almeda]

I've been using the Sigma 35mm Art lens for almost two years and love it!

PS: Images on your site can look terrible. I hope you eventually upgrade to a website platform that is designed for image viewing. After all, for the majority of your readers, our web reading is mostly about photography.

[Tom Bell]

Here for those who find 35 not wide enough or too wide and the 50 too narrow ..... Join the sinking ship

Petax give you the lovely 43mm ...perfect

[Neil Swanson]

I was drawn to this as soon as it was announced. The size is absurd and I can't get past it. I'm an X-Leica M owner shooter (very sorry to say) and while I shoot a not small in the hand D3 I still shoot a very old screw focus 35 F2. Its all the size.

Oh how I wish Sigma, or anybody would make a killer line of F2 lenses. Do we really need 1.4? What with off the chart good HI ISO performance theses days I wonder and i love low light shooting.

[I tend to prefer f/2 lenses myself, but f/1.4 is the standard for a high-speed lenses. Shallow depth of field is popular these days, and for low light work every little bit (potentially) helps. --Mike]

[Joe Holmes]

I think we can agree that there are legitimate reasons to seek out the sharpest lenses available -- balanced, of course, with other important characteristics like bokeh and contrast.

If I may use myself as an example: A few years ago I exhibited a set of large prints from my Workspace series. Those prints were all about the extremely fine detail, including text, that filled the workspaces. bit.ly/1QbQ57j Another series from just a couple years ago, The Booth, was also about the tiny details that make up a larger scene. I exhibited prints as large as a panorama at 24x60" bit.ly/1Kfwz7M (In the exhibited print, you could read the entries on the calendar at the right side of the image!)

I wouldn't give up other important qualities for sharpness for its own sake, but I do consider sharpness a very important quality for much of my work.

[Sammy]

I have had the new lens for about 2 weeks. It is paired with my Nikon D750. I dialed in a correction of about +6 on the AF fine tune. And then, absolute brilliance. The 35mm focal length is just about perfect for anything (for me). I really like your review.

[Ken James]

Yeah, love this post. More more more . . .

[Ben]

"Mike replies: Someday I should just do an article about how to test lenses using pictures. I've been saying that for years, though."

I hope you do! Even a series of short articles, each covering various qualities, would be great.

[Gordon Lewis]

Thanks for sharing your insights and impressions of what is no doubt a wonderful lens. It makes not a bit of difference to me, though. I've long ago come to accept the fact that I'm too damned cheap to buy a lens in this price range, no matter how good it is. My art and I are just not worth it.

Even if it was a fourth the cost I still wouldn't buy it because, by my standards, it's too big and heavy. Pros get paid to haul heavy equipment from place to place; either that, or they shoot in the comfort of a studio, with the heavy stuff mounted on tripods and light stands. Call me weak and lazy, but I hate carrying a heavy load all day for free.

Please understand, this isn't coming from a place of hate or envy. The world would be a much less exciting place without Porsches, Rolexes, and Leicas; they're just made for someone other than me.

[Richard]

"Only $900...." How sad...

[The equivalent Nikkor costs $1,697, the equivalent Canon $1,799, the new Zeiss FE $1,598 and the Leica Summilux-M $4,232. So, yes, only $900. --Mike]

[Darlene Almeda]

What is the 'white stuff' against the boards of the building in the image made by the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 E-series lens on the NEX-6? Also, the roof looks odd in this photo; out-of-focus?

[Are we looking at the same picture?? I have no idea what you're asking about here.... --Mike]

[Dalton]

I'm sure I've chimed in in the past when you've mentioned this lens. It's my favorite, without a doubt, and capable of stunning results. It pairs gorgeously with my D800. 35mm is a particularly good focal length for landscape and I almost never take it off my camera.

If anyone is looking for an example of what this lens is capable of in a monochrome landscape context, here's a link to a full resolution JPG (18MB download, watch out). http://daltonrooney.com/public/d800-sigma35.jpg

[Darlene Almeda]

The last photo in your article above (made with Zeiss 24mm + NEX-6) is where the roof looks odd (out of focus/distorted shingles), and I guess the white stuff against the building is snow?

It is not my computer because I saw it first at home and now at work, completely different computer screens, etc.

[kirk tuck]

So, I went to buy the 35mm but I ended up with the 24-35mm Art lens instead. But I figure I still got some 35mm out of the deal....

[Tim]

Simply my favorite lens ever. I have a hard time taking it off my camera even when I need a different focal length, "maybe I'll just crop!"

[Peter Croft]

Good read, but until Sigma makes it for Micro 4/3 mount, I can't use it.

This made me think of my film days. I had Nikon and a 28mm Series E, 35mm f2.8 Nikkor, 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor and my only zoom was the 70-150mm Series E.

I got far better pictures than I do today. Why? Because the fixed focal length lenses made me move around. These days I stand in one spot and try to make the 24-400mm zoom do the work. It doesn't work. Of course, I'm not as physically capable of moving around now.

It would interest me to see a comparison between your Zeiss 35mm for your Sony and the Zeiss 24-200mm f2.8 on the Sony RX10 at the same focal length. In other words, just how good are these do-all zooms? I can see the quality of the fixed lens in your last shot. Lovely.

[Peter Croft]

Sorry, I meant your 24mm f1.8 Zeiss as in the last shot. With the RX10's zoom adjusted for the same view.

I realise you don't have an RX10. Just waffling. I'd lend you mine but it's a bit far.

[Al Benas]

I was a bit surprised by the beginning of your review on the Sigma 35 mm Art. You have always complained about lack of stabilization, preferably in-body, and yet, you so quickly discounted the Tamron. I bought the Sigma the instant that it came out. It was going to be my go to lens. Shot a party that same night with it - backfocused 6~8 inches, on a Nikon D800. The USB docking station (an absolute must for about $60) was not available, yet. After getting it back from Sigma, and testing it with AF fine tuning, it behaved itself. However, the unstabilized weight was unbearable (pun intended). I couldn't wait to get rid of it. Finally, Nikon added a 35 mm to their f/1.8 series and I tried that. In direct field comparisons, as well as my own standard tests, the Sigma was sharper but not significantly. It was almost too sharp. And I have several pictures where you cannot tell which lens was used. I also found that the close focusing ability of the Sigma was not one of its strong features. I bought the Nikon and gave the Sigma to my son whose first comment was about its weight.

The new Tamron 35 mm SP lens is stabilized, and a delight to use (based on my lensrentals.com time with it and my actual purchase of the companion Tamron 45 mm). Close focus on these lenses is fantastic. I think that you should have tried it. I do have a confession; I have never been fully able to get my head around the 35 mm view point. I like a 28 mm and a 45 mm, but never could love the 35 mm - I have tried :)

I'm glad for you that you liked the Sigma, but being a non-tripod guy, I could not carry that beast around all day. Why Sigma put out a line of "Art" lenses that are unstabilized, for me, was a big disappointment.

[Eolake]

Wow, that red-apple corner is impressive!!

I would like if Sigma would begin to make high end lenses for M4/3.