Table of Contents
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art
Reader Interactions
Reader Comments
Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.
Excellent review!
There’s a small mistake on page two though: “The *zoom* ring of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4…”
Thanks for pointing this out! I fixed it when I re-read the article, but forgot to clear the cache :) Now the cache is cleared, so it should show “focus ring” instead.
Thank you for your feedback! Now I am off to work on the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 review, followed by the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 – those will be easy, since most of the info is duplicated in this review…
Yes very excellent review…but I think nikon is better for dimensionality… thank you!!!!
Ha, ha!
The review is excellent but all photographs shots are in outdoor. There must be some indoor photography. Again the review is excellent.
What do you mean? There are many indoor photos: girl indoor, building interiors, butterfly, some flowers, shots from aquarium, snake, cat statues, etc…
Thanks Nasim for a great review. It’s spot on. I’ve had this lens for a few months and it’s my favourite. Very sharp and lovely colours. I feel I have to move to full frame soon to get the most out of it!
Thank you for your feedback!
Hi Nasim,
Congrats on yet another informative review.
I understand you have used the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 and wrote an informative review for it.
I am looking to own my first 35mm lens and was looking at either the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF.2 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 A.
Manual focus is not a problem for me. As a matter of fact, I was looking forward to manual focusing. I predominantly photography landscape and pre wedding portraits. In this regard, which lens would you suggest?
Steve
Steven, get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 instead of the Zeiss.
Thank you for the advice.
It is very much appreciated. Your reviews and advise had always been spot on and this is all I needed to make up my mind.
Best regards with Thanx,
Steve
I am looking at either the Sigma 35 art or the Zeiss Milvus 35 f2.0 zf.2 lens for mostly landscape type photography. I am leaning towards the Zeiss from the standpoint of weather proofing and fantastic glass. Nasim, why do you recommend the Sigma over the Zeiss? I have heard of many problems with the Sigma auto focus and needing the dock.
Your review of the Zeiss 35 f2.0 zf.2 lens was very convincing concerning especially landscape type photography.
Larry
Thanks for your review which confirm most of my experience using this lens. There is one problem I found with my copy of lens (some other people are having the same issue): the focus of this lens is inconsistent regarding to focus distance. I tried to MFA this lens on my 800e, found it needs -8 adjustment at close distance and only -2 at far distance. Does your copy has this issue?
Thanks,
Ben
Ben, mine was spot on, so I did not need any adjustments. As for AF Fine Tune, unfortunately, a number of lenses will behave differently at different distances, so it is best to optimize lenses for a specific shooting range. I know it is not always practical, but that’s the unfortunate part. I think if you see AF accuracy issues, it is best that you send yours to Sigma for repair/fine tuning instead.
… or just buy the Sigma dock and software
This review confirms what I regularly experience using this wonderful lens on a D600. It is my favorite, followed by the 85/1.8G. What a fine pair these make! I like the ability to juxtapose a foreground object close up with a nicely blurred background that has enough information to reveal the context. I eagerly await Sigma 24mm and ~17mm Art series lenses and would buy them NOW, though the Nikon 14-24 is tempting. A Sigma Art 300/f4 would also get my attention and likely purchase. Way to go, Sigma!
I can’t wait for them to make ultrawide Fx lenses too, especially if they are like this lens! They really have upped their game. They even look nice!
Interested to know if you have since bought the 14mm f1.8 ART, and if so how do you rate it?
Agreed, Sigma is certainly moving in the right direction!
Love the sharpness but hate the bokeh. Its a shame. I will stick with the nikkor 28 1.8g. Much better background blur and still sharp enough in my opinion.
I’m not trying to change your mind — and this works with any lens — but I wonder if you have tried reducing clarity and/or contrast (< 0) in LR/Photoshop to smooth out background blur? This lens has such good contrast and sharpness, I sometimes use the portrait or neutral camera profile, especially in those scenes with strong lighting and shadows, then readjust black/white end points, and still get plenty of snap/pop, with less sharpening needed than most of my other lenses.
I don't own it, but I like the much lower weight of the Nikon 28/1.8G compared to the Sigma 35/1.4. Modern plastics are plenty tough for lens barrels with smaller primes like these. Metal is heavy and is structural overkill for most lenses. I love the featherweight feel of the 85/1.8G, for example.
Cheers.
You know bokeh is so subjective. One persons trash is another persons treasure. I am spoiled to own the nikon 85 1.4g and that sets the bar for me. Heck I almost switched completly to cannon just to use the 85 1.2 because I loved the way it rendered backgrounds. I hate to use lightroom unless its just for the most minuscule adjustments. I agree about sixe and weight. I have the new 18-35 3.5g and it is great optically and super light and small which is a BIG deal because it pairs nicely with my d600. Weight wise he 85 1.8g would pair better then the 1.4g with my d600 thats for sure but the pictures I get with the 1.4 are to die for. And yes the Sigma is heavy also. There are so many tradeoffs to make but I give sigma credit because 2 years ago I wouldn’t even of considered their lenses and now they are getting my attention.
Why 35mm anyway on FF?
I am using nikon d7100 and have the tokina 11-16 a and love it.
For low light I have the sigma 30 f1.4 which is 45 on FF.
Finaly I bought the tamroon 24-70 2.8 vc. Which I am disappointed. Not just havy but I am using the 70mm most of the time so better a prime which is lighter.
Image stabilizer.? Thats a joke since its take almost two secound to be fully operational so the objects are gone. For video it is very usefull.
35mm not sure hiw it fit to a ff body.
Yeah for me 35mm is a bit tight I think thats why my walk around lens is the 18-35. The tokina is a great lens!!! You know thats funny ken rockwell argues that there is no need for full frame anymore with the capabilities of the crop cameras these days and I tend to agree. I had all the best crop lenses and a d5100 and I tell you I dont like my images anymore or less on the d600. VR is highly overrated. Unless you are using a telephoto lens. I have no VR lenses and I still get handheld images that are so sharp it would make the hair on your neck stand up. Even my wife manages sharp images and she is shaky mcshake. LOL.
m43 / crops are good, but I wouldn’t say VR is overrated. In-fact, what’s is even better would be IBIS. You can use very fast prime lenses with IBIS, some different manufacturer bodies have this. Lower shutter speeds equals smaller ISO, thus less noise.
Max,
I think 35mm’s angle of view is a matter of personal preference. I, myself, like using 28mm instead, although it has a tricky distortion when doing portraits and you really have to watch your vantage point. But… I’ve seen great shots with 35, so – again – it’s a matter of taste.
Some people love 35mm on FF. I am impartial to it, I personally like to be a bit wider (24mm) or longer (50mm). The Tokina 11-16mm is a good lens, but too bad there is no FF version.
Nasim
Well done, as always!!!
Other than focal length, How does this lens compare to the nikon 50 1.4, and 24 1.4 ?
Considering it as a replacement for times when one lens is better.
Thanks
The 24mm f/1.4 is very sharp and I like the 50mm f/1.8 better in terms of wide open performance. But these are all different lenses and very different optical designs. One could not compare them as a result…
İt Has 16-28mm 2,8 for FF
And I wish if you can also review that glass. At least I wish you examine it just for yourself. I’m really sure that you’ll love it.
It is a great lens and amazing value for money. Same goes for new Sigma 18-35 F1.8 zoom. Now what bothers me that nobody mentions just how ripped off we consumers have been all this time by Canon and Nikon!
These “market leaders” have not been able to put stabilization on their bread and butter zooms, 24-70 f2.8 while Tamron has that.
I really like that Sigma bokeh, Nikkor is just too harsh on that highlight in the middle of the picture. That Nikon still has stomach to ask that money for something that is outclassed by 2x cheaper Sigma is just beyond me. And why would anybody choose Nikkor over this is also a good question… Yes I know about weather sealing but just how many of you out there are shooting in pouring rain ?
I am not :)
“…nobody mentions just how ripped off we consumers have been all this time by Canon and Nikon!
…And why would anybody choose Nikkor over this is also a good question…”
People like myself (26 years as freelance photog) for example who put a great deal of trust in Sigma lenses in the past to be let down not by one of them but three, and multiple times. That’s who.
Many are quick to diss the proven Nikon and Canon workhorses these days in favor of the new Sigma lenses, but there is a reason why Nikon and Canon cost more, they’re just that much more reliable and durable.
I share the same sentiment as you Ronald, not only towards Sigma, but Tamrons, Tokinas etc of this world. I shot Canon in the past switch to Nikon 3 years ago and shoot with all those 3rd party lenses for both Canon and Nikon mounts, with about 1/3 failure rate, ranging from failed A/F, mechanical and construction issues.
I only ever had 2 issues ever with Nikon/Canon brand lenses. Sorry this sounds like an overzealous CaNikon brand loyalty post, which certainly isn’t, but when you get burned so many times you tend to stick to what it works and your business relies upon.
Ronald, as of today, I do not have a single third party lens in my arsenal. I too have been frustrated with QA issues on third party lenses in the past, so I have been only buying Nikkor glass for a number of years now. However, those frustrations with third party lenses were in the past. After testing this Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens for several months, I am very pleased with its performance and build – the lens does not feel like a third party lens anymore, it is that good. Hence, I will be a lot more open to these new Sigma art / sports lenses going forward – they seem to be as good or better than lenses from the big brands.
“…they seem to be as good or better than lenses from the big brands”
I wish I could be as optimist as you are in this case. BTW, none of my Sigmas started playing up in the first year or two, it all happened after the warranty period expired.
Nasim, time will tell…let’s hope for the best, but in my case it would take some time before I even consider looking at another Sigma.
thanks,
Ronnie
I really worry about the dust issue.This might happen with the lens mounted on the body or during the changing of the lens?
Nasim,
I have a friend who has this lens and he loves it; however, he shot a wedding on a beach, in a very humid environment, and told me that its AF was acting up and giving him trouble. Now I wonder if it’s his sample, because I haven’t heard about this issue anywhere else.
Probably sample variation. I beat up the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 quite a bit for 3 months and it survived my abuse :) Although I did not try shooting in an extremely humid environment within that period…
Both Nasim in the review and Daniel Michael in comments mentioned that the colour rendition is superb.
I have a Sigma 20 1.8 (bubblesorted, hell yeah, I still remember old Sigma QA, hehe). It has a slight yellowish cast compared to Nikon 85 1.8G, for example. Not pronounced, just a barely seeable slight cast. I experienced with the Nikon 24-70 that it does not simply conveys light, it somehow paints on the sensor…
… so, how does the color rendition of this Sigma dreamlens compare to Nikon prime portrait lenses or the 24-70?
Well David, this is the first non-Nikon lens I have had. Compared to my other primes, my Nikkor 105mm /2.8 macro or my 50mm/1.8 the colours feel more natural, they look truer to life for me than my other primes. Maybe it’s the subjects I’m shooting, I don’t know. Maybe its that I’m always using it 1.4 indoors and no extra lighting that makes the difference.
I’ve always stayed away from non-Nikon lens, but having done a lot of research I picked up this lens and was blown away after the first few shots :)
Thank for the reply. The lens indeed looks like a great package… I am in! :)
David, to me, it looks as good as Nikon lenses in terms of color rendition.
Thank you too, I am convinced. :)
Thank you too, I am convinced. :)
Hi Nasim, great review. I’ve been looking to buy a sigma 85mm 1.4 instead of nikon version.
Any suggestions?
Thanks
Sunil
Sunil, the Nikon is better optically.
While testing sigma 18-36 f1.8 on Nikon D 7100?
Is that a question?
Congrats on another very thorough, reasoned, informative review. Had I not already been an owner of this lens I might have been convinced by this review to give it a try, but since I have been using it for several months I must agree that it is a fine performer. I’d actually been swayed by a pro photog friend to give it a try when he raved about its sharpness and colour rendition, and thought that I would give this focal length a chance to work its way into my heart since it had never been a favorite of mine – even though I was familiar with it via two of my favorite film cameras, the Olympus XA and Mju II. Since using it on several Nikon SLR bodies, including my F100, D700 and D600, it’s performed exceptionally well. The build is impressive, focusing spot on, and it’s sharp where it should be.
Recently I’ve found myself using this lens a lot in a studio setting due to space constraints and it’s been just as great as for general outdoor use, showing no unwanted visible distortion and always focusing accurately. Of course, for portraits with studio lighting at f/8 to f/11 it’s going to be sharp, but I never expected it to be so useful in this setting.
I’m moving to a large studio space soon and probably won’t use it there, but will continue to use it extensively outdoors. Along with the Sigma 85 f/1.4 this is my best third party lens.
I would be careful about photographing people with this lens, especially at close distances. Distortion is minimal, but it does not mean that it cannot make people’s heads look too big at a close proximity :) Just stay back a little or use a lens longer than 50mm.
Advice well taken, Nasim. I’m conscious of the potential for distortion from certain perspectives, but have been mindful of focal planes to try and avoid unwanted exaggeration of heads and limbs. It did work brilliantly for a low angle shot of a very athletic model to accentuate her long, muscular legs, but I chose it specifically for that effect. Used it again the other day for a huge wedding party indoor portrait, lit with a reflective umbrella and an SB-800 bounced off the ceiling for fill, and it was sharp from front to back at f/5.6 so I’m quite pleased with its performance.
Thank you for a very good well written review. I had already bought this lens before reading this but I have to say since I bought it I have had it constantly on one of my D700’s and I find the results amazing.
I wanted a wide angle 1.4 lens and find 35mm is perfect for what I do and wide open I can still get amazing images in very low light conditions.
Regards,
Tony
Tony, thank you for your feedback!
Hello,
Wouldn’t it be interesting to compare this lens with the Nikon 16-35mm (or 18-35mm) and the 24-70mm 2.8 lenses at their 35mm settings. Not pixelpeeping in the corners or just watching test targets but in real live pictures. I think this will help many of us who already own a professional zoom lens to see whether it is worth to buy such a specific and expensive prime lens.
An other thing: although I am sure this Sigma lens is great ,I think a better alternative is the new Nikon 28mm 1.8 using in the 1.2 crop mode on a D800. This gives a 33mm lens (cutting the corners that are usually the worst), cheaper, lighter, and still plenty resolution (more than the native d600 resolution). Bonus: if you need you can go wider! What do you guys think about this option?
Max, you can compare the performance of the lens in terms of MTF by visiting those reviews. Real live pictures? How would that work when you have f/4, f/2.8 and f/1.4? I do not see the point of shooting images at f/4 just to compare lenses…
The whole point of buying a prime lens is for its speed and bokeh / aesthetics. A zoom lens would never be able to reproduce what a f/1.4 prime can do.
As for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 versus 28mm f/1.8 + 1.2x crop, that’s not the same thing. Cropping is chopping – it does not do anything with the focal length or the aperture. Please see this article for a detailed explanation.
Hi Nasim,
Well, of course a 1.4 lens is faster than a 4 or 2.8 lens and can give better object isolation. That is a big advantage for sure. But today we have very good high iso’s and VR. Not everybody needs to shoot at 1.4 but many people reading your review will be triggered by the excellent corner to corner sharpness of this lens. What I expect is that this superior sharpness is not relevant above F4 or 2.8 in normal photography at all but I would like to see the impact on, let’s say an A3 print.
About the 28mm 1.8 lens: I will read your article but as far as I understand a 28mm lens in 1.2 crop gives about the same VOF as a 35mm lens ff. I think chopping the extreme corners in a 36 megapigel camera is not a bad thing. Is the full 36 mp most of the time not a bit too much anyway?
Max, I don’t know who starts spreading these misconceptions about VR and high ISO being able to compensate for aperture differences. There is no such thing. If you talk about purely from the shutter speed perspective for shooting in low light, then yes, VR and ISO can compensate for slower aperture. However, VR and ISO cannot help with depth of field, subject isolation, bokeh, aesthetics and other factors that go in favor of prime lenses. And please please please, let’s not add printing to the mix! Printing is extremely subjective and what works for one person does not work for another. Too many variables there, too much headache.
A 28mm f/1.8 lens is 1.2 crop mode is still a 28mm f/1.8 lens. All you are doing is chopping corners off, which is exactly the same as cropping in post. The focal length of a lens does not change with the sensor size / crop factor. So it is incorrect to state that a 28mm lens in 1.2 crop factor is equivalent to a 35mm lens. It is more complex than that. If we use your logic for cropping a 36 MP image, then we might just say that one does not need multiple lenses or zoom lenses, since you could take an image and crop it to any focal length you like. That’s just not how it works. Please read the article I gave you, it will hopefully shed some light on these misconceptions.
Nasim,
Thanks for the review. I have very much enjoyed your reviews and the site.
I have been debating getting this lens. I shoot mostly pictures of my 18 month old using an 85 1.8g, 50 1.4g and a 24 1.4g on my D800. The 24 1.4 is too hard to shoot with now that she moves around a lot. Do you think this sigma would be any better for these type of shots or should I just stay with the 50 and and the 85.
Thanks
Hari, 35mm is a different perspective compared to 24mm or longer lenses. I cannot really say if it would work better than the 24mm f/1.4, because I don’t know exactly what you are experiencing. The 85mm f/1.8G should be tougher to focus than the 24mm f/1.4…
I am attracted by the great reviews of this lens. Can anyone tell me how it performs as a food photography lens? Focus distance etc
What about low light people shots? I have the nikon 85 mm 1.4 d but find it too flaky with its af on my d3s. Dies it go ok in fast focus acquisition in low ligh?
Peter, the lens will work great for food photography as well, especially at f/1.4! The lens is super sharp at large apertures, which is what many food photographers seek in lenses. Obviously, this is no macro lens and you have to learn how to work with it at short distances – but that’s another subject.
Being an f/1.4 lens, it goes without saying that it is also great for any type of low light photography. As for the 85mm AF-D, I never liked its AF accuracy – that has always been my complaint with the otherwise phenomenal lens!
Thanks nasim,
Is focal distance ok. I am thinking here of taking food shots at high end restaurants, whilst seated. My current 24-70 2.8 sometimes has me backing away, and focus is sometimes eratic. The low light being the culprit. I am looking forward to the f1.4 and being able to be a bit more creative.
Thanks
Peter, I guess it depends on what you are trying to photograph. If 24mm is too long already, then 35mm is not going to work for you. That’s strange though – what are you shooting with? 35mm is pretty wide on a full-frame and equivalent to a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor camera. Perhaps you need to upgrade your camera to something better to handle those low-light situations?
It is a pity that most people who buy this lens will use it on a Nikon or Canon body. Bored with my all singing all dancing Nikons (I still have my D800 and a collection of top of the range prime lenses) I decided to go against the trend and purchase a Sigma SD1 Merrill. The camera is absolutely pain to use (in the manner of an old film Hasselblad) but I persevered. When I printed the photos from the SD1 using my Epson pro printer, initially I was in a state of shock. I had never seen a 35mm format DSLR produce such astonishing pictures and believe me, I have used many pro DSLRs with top quality prime lenses over the years (I tend not to use zoom lenses). if you really want the best out of this 35mm 1.4 Sigma lens, I suggest hire a Sigma SD1 and use this lens with it -you will require a lens with the Sigma SA mount. Sigma has a APC sized sensor and this will generate a focal length equivalent of approximately 50mm. But then some of the world’s most iconic images have been taken with the 50mm lens.
Very interesting to read, thanks – I am thinking about the same after using the Sigma DP1-3 Merrills (yes I have all three), also after using high end Nikon gear such as Nikon D3x, D7100, and more and some of the best lenses Nikon has made.
This Foveon-sensor is something special.
O’ yummy….Going to get one as 35mm is my favourite focal length..I have been using the old 35mm f2D on my D3s.
To help with some of the questions above. That were very well answered by Nasim.
24mm f1.4 = expensive but simply adorable.
50mm f1.8 = great and a bargain lens to boot.
24-70 f2.8 had one for a year – We never really gelled…back to primes = thoughtful photography.
Hi AK,
There is a very little trick for thoughtful photography with zoom lenses: first choose the focal length on your zoom lens and then take your photo. It safes a lot of money and is more convenient and saver for your equipment than changing lenses. Just have the discipline!
Nasim, great review, and am glad to see your opinion matches mine, having shot with this lens the past 10 days. However, on my D700, I had to apply a -16 AF calibration. This is my first AF 1.4, and I could tell from the first shots (close, 3 feet) that the AF was wrong. Now I need to test my 50 1.8 AF-S to see if it’s an AF skew on my body or a specific miscalibration with the ART lens. Assuming my other lenses check ok, wouldn’t the new Sigma dock provide a way to reset the AF to a more neutral point? Reason I ask is you made a reference to sending a Sigma lens back if the AF is markedly off. Thank you for your opinion.
Great review! This lens has made my “must buy” list. Will you be reviewing the 85mm sigma? I’m very curious to see how that goes. Most of my glass is Nikkor, but I do love my Sigma 150 f/2.8 (I won the QA lottery with that one).
Thanks for the review Nasim, thorough/very well done. I’ve own a few sigma lenses prior to replacing all of them with they’re Nikon counterpart but am very interested on this Sigma 35 prime lens as the Nikon is outside my budget at this time, however I have a few question; does this 35mm sigma gives u a focus confirmation when in manual AF mode? (Beep/focus ilum.) Does it give u manual AF override when in AF-C mode?
Keep up the good work, best site I’ve come across with specs/real world perspective review.
Thank you for the review Nasim. Nice read.
Since you like the Sigma 35/1.4 art, I suggest to try the Sigma 180/2.8 os macro as well. I promise you will not be disappointed. This lens absolutely blows away every lens I know. I compared it at 180 mm with my Nikon 70-200/2.8 vrii. The difference is huge. The sigma is much sharper at all apertures, wonderful bokeh, no CA.
It is a fantastic portrait and landscape lens. The macro feature is a nice bonus.
I bought the sigma 35/1.4 art as well, i read to many nice comments about this lens :-)
Nasim – Melvin brings up a good point – is there any chance you will be reviewing the Sigma 180 2.8?
Thank you for the great review(s).
JB, my biggest enemy is time – there is just not enough of it to review all these great lenses! Let me get done with the Sigma 120-300mm and all the Nikkor stuff first (have a number of super telephotos to review), then I will certainly move to reviewing more of Sigma lenses.
Dear Nasim,
Whenever I want to purchase new lens I always read your reviews.
This is the case now for 35 mm / 1.4 lens (or similar to this focal range).
Recently, I visited Morocco which is a photographs’ dream spot. To my biggest lucky, nomad Berbers invited me into their home which was two poor canvas tents. Inside the tent the daily life of nomad people was a wonderful subject for social documentary photography. In addition, they allowed me to shut photos. This is really an exception!! Of course, it was very low light environment with lots of dust and smoke. Due to the limited place, 24-35 mm focal range with f1.4-2.0 would have been ideal for my D600. Unfortunately, I had only my 50mm/1.4G with me. That was the moment when I decided to acquire a 35mm/1.4 lens or similar.
I need such a lens in my travel kit. For a travel lens the dust or dusty environment should be considered. Since I am not bokeh minded in this focal range but much more contrast and sharpness minded, Sigma 35mm/1.4 seems to be ideal for me expect for the dust. Nikon would be the ideal for my expectation. I have never ever any problem with Nikon lens in difficult environments such as dusty desert, glacial high montage and ice field, and humid forest. My most used lenses are prime lens. I consider that the 35mm/1.4 is not the most used lens. It is used only for occasion. My budget does not allow me to pay double for an “occasionally used” lens. The only point is the dust sensitivity which scares me.
Hi Nasim, i’ve been looking very much into this lens, but would like your recommendation. as posted by someone else earlier, i’m looking to shoot my 18 month old running around the house, small 550 sq ft apt, and maybe even take it to disney world as my only lens. would this lens focus fast enough on toddlers? btw, i’m using a canon 5D mark iii (fx format). your inputs greatly appreciated.
Hello Nasim (and everyone),
I recently moved from DX (D7000) to FX by spending all my earnings on a D800 and this Sigma 35 1.4 lens.
Of course, I am generally quite happy with what I got except for 2 things, I do a lot of concert photography and I noticed that:
1)The D800 noise isn’t as impressive as I expected (but I know this isn’t the place to discuss it)
2) I noticed that my Sigma Lens deals very badly with many light sources (concerts, candles, etc.). It gives me plenty of flares and it’s not easy to correct them in Post prod.
At first I thought a good filter would help but I got the HOYA UV HMC and it didn’t really help.
So I’m curious…did anyone have similar issues?
Could that be that the lens is faulty?
Is any other filter going to help?
Any comments would be highly appreciated.
with an event photography it can be tough, but you could embrace the light. I did find that having a dome flash softens the light sources just a bit with out flooding the scene with extra light (I keep my flash at -2–2 1/3 ev) – here are some samples taken with Nikon 50mm 1.8G (at around 2.2 – 2.5) D750 body
Excellent review! I have heard some good things about this lens from friends so was looking for more info. That’s good to know about the AF being spot on wide open. That’s exactly what’s needed, and the manufacturers lens certainly wasn’t when I hired it recently. I’ve arranged to hire this and try it out in a couple of weeks, I’m hoping I don’t have flare issues like the poster above as I will be shooting in candle light!
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the review, excellent as always!
Are you planning to compare this lens to the new N35 1.8ED anytime soon? Especially in terms of sharpness and bokeh (i know the latter is always a bit subjective)?
Yes sir! I believe the 35mm f/1.8 is already shipping, so I should get mine pretty soon!
Hi Nasim,
I am confused between new nikon 18-35 and Sigma 35mm 1.4g….
I want to buy one lens for general purpose use….I am not professional photographer….just amateur…
if I buy 18-35 I am planning buy nikon 50mm 1.8g…..
Do you think its good idea to buy two nikon than sigma 35mm 1.4….
Or Sigma 35 1.4 would satisfy my everyday need…
Please advice….thanks in advance…
Hi Nasim, is this lens compatible with Nikon D90?
I bought a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM, Nikon version recently and having focussing problems. I tried to take a picture of my wife with the Eiffel Tower in the background and noticed that when I focus on my wife, the tower becomes fully out of focus, even when photographing at f22. If I focus on the tower, my wife becomes blurry. I was using this lens on a D610 and no other lens has this problem on that body. I did sent the lens for repair to their service centre and it came back and has the same problem, so not sure whether I am doing something wrong or it is the lens or the camera body. I am taking pictures for about 5 years now and this is the first time I used a sigma lens.
Any advice?
Thanks,
James
I have absolutely no issues with focus (however – I did have to micro adjust this lens – mine was +11 consistently). I also noticed that when (by mistake) I used AF-S it would sometime not get 100% correct focus – I always use AF-C – no problem so far.
Thank you Nassim, your post is so valuable and it fully convinced me to buy this 35mm Sigma, I’m a Nikkor lens fan but I’m open to other brands. Of course flair is something I don’t like very much and it’s always a challenge wit my wonderful 14-24mm, according to your test the Nikkor is better. In other hand the sharpness wide open is something I like very much as my Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is very soft wide open.
I was always huge fan of primes vs zoom (yes it is a pain to change your lens but the rewards are equally huge). I can’t believe how much sharper this lens I than my Nikon 50mm f1.8G and 85mm f1.8G. I am ordering Sigma 24mm f1.4 DG HSM Art and as soon as funds allow I will replace my 50mm f1.8G (lens which I really like btw) with Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM Art – I will keep my 85mm not only because Sigma does not have 85mm Art version but also because for portraits I never go below 2.5-2.8 on 85mm and the 85mm 1.8G is VERY sharp at 2.5/2.8. I am thinking of selling my Nikon 24-120 as quite honestly I can’t see ever shooting with it (I rather use the funds towards 50mm sigma art) Yes it is a pain but I rather change between 24, 35, 50 and 85 than have one zoom lens. As far as weather seal. I found that a really wide rubber band (I used what came with gary fong dome) I just snap it around the lens – works like a charm ($2 weather seal) – I can’t believe how sharp that lens is (I am going to botanical gardens this weekend to take some fun test pictures)
this is from the align test – (at F1.4) – this sharp at F1.4???? :) – I am getting 50mm version today since it is $100 off
Great review Nasim, I have learnt so much from your website since I found it ! Would you be doing a review for the Sigma 24mm F1.4 DG HSM | A as well?
I rented this lens a couple of years ago, and my experience was that, while it was absolutely fantastic in daylight, it back focused horribly in low light. It was ridiculous, and it wasn’t just one or two missed shots, but over and over and over again no matter how carefully I focused on the subject. I subsequently rented both the Nikon 35mm 1.4 and the 1.8g ED and they were far superior in all lighting conditions. And I actually don’t think the 1.8’s bokeh is that bad. I really wanted to like the Sigma for its value, but it’s low light performance was a deal breaker.
Hello Nasim,
Thank you for sharing the information, it is a great review and I like it.
By any chance, will you be making comparison of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art with the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM lens? I was toying with the idea of buying the Canon lens until I was introduced to your sharing.
Looking forward to your reply.
Hello Nasim,
I am a videographer and I cannot find a review of the Sigma 35mm 1,4 prime that really covers the needs of someone who only shoots video. I own a Sony a7ii and I need a 35mm prime. I am torn between the optical excellence that the Sigma is praised for and the size of the Sony Zeiss 35mm 2,8. Both cost the same in Europe by the way.
Which one is best for video…?
Thank you
Sigma, please make this lens in Sony FE mount.
When will you review the tamron 35 1.8vc? Very curious on your thoughts between the 2. Frankly i cannot also decide wc one to get. Hope you can review the tamron and the vc.
This is a great review! I want to know how the lens is performing some time later. I am considering trading my Nikon 24-70/2.8G for this lens to expand my prime kit as a (primarily) wedding and portrait photographer.
What are your thoughts on the Sigma 35/1.4A at the end of 2015?
Would you do the trade? (Kit: D810/D750, Nikon 50/1.4G, Nikon 105/2.8G, Nikon 70-200/2.8G)
Thanks!
Hi Nasim,
I am interested in astro pictures the lens takes.
The low light as i see it is fantastic. What about pure darkness
Hi !
I have read a lot of your blogs and reviews over the last few days and found them so interesting! Thank you! I currently have a 50mm f1.8 and wow it’s been my baby for the past 2 years! It’s time to get s new lens and want something like the 35mm as the 50 is just to close sometimes! I was going to do the 35mm Nikon 1.8 but I love bokeh so I think I will go with the sigma 35mm 1.4 ! It will be my first sigma lens…I believe this would be compatible with my d5100 ? I’d love your opinion if you think this is the best next lens to purchase? It would be for a wedding and portraights! You do s greaT job !!
Hi Nasim,
I read many of your reviews who most of the time did influence my purchase.
So, since a year I own a D750 with 14-24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 VRII which is sunning :)
I was considering the new 24-70 f/2.8 VR, but the price and the so-so reviews made me looking for other option. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is on the top of my list. I am a all purpose photographer, but manly landscape.
What is your opinion ?
Best,
Michael
Nice review. Comparing the pics to the Distagon I still get more of a 3D pop from the Zeiss and it also fells more balanced/harmonic. I might be biased though =) The autofocus on the Sigma would be handy sometimes. Shooting from the hip for example. Maybe the low CA is the key for better microcontrast/3D?
Hi Nasim,
I read this review about a month ago, and because of your in depth review I needed no other reads to get convinced about buying this lens. I was shooting pictures with Nikon D5200 which was indeed giving great results. However, about two days ago I bought the Nikon D750 and I paired it with this Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art, and honestly it is a piece of art every snap I take, though it took me a while to figure out my settings on how to shoot from D5200 to D750, I wasn’t getting the same results with the same settings, but figured out the basics and I have to say every snap I take is a piece of art.
Thanks to your in depth review, now I have a great lens in my collection. I mean, you did such an in depth review that you even commented on the rubber band that it doesn’t have which upon removing the lens from the body it could let debris / dust in collected/stuck in the metal frame. I see that the rubber is a must for all lenses since I see that on my Nikkor 50mm lens it has it and it doesn’t collect dust around like the metal does.
I was hoping you will have done a review of the Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG OS HSM and compare it with Nikkor 105mm F2.8 VR (both macro/micro lenses) because there is no in depth review for these two lenses anywhere out there. I am about to purchase today a used Nikon 105mm F2.8 VR for $410 USD but if I wait two weeks I could be getting a new Sigma 105 for almost the same price so I didn’t know on what to set my mind for. Your review on this lens and the comparison of two would help thousands of us out there struggling between choosing one of these two lenses.
All the best and thank you for helping us.
God bless you and your family,
Fadil
Could you expplain MTF chart – in this review we see both the Sigma and Nikon lens’ MTF below 3000. But from the Nikon lens review we see that this lens (35mm/1.4G) is about 3500. how to undstand this difference?
Hi i’m Lerios and i’m from Greece. I recently bought the New Crop Sensor body Nikon D5600 with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC Art Lens. I wanted a lens for portraits, so i end up bought this magnificent Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art Lens that will give me 52.5mm equivalent for my DX Crop Sensor Body. Today i took some pictures with the new 35mm f/1.4 art lens and i noticed that the focal length is exactly the same as my Sigma 18-35 at the 35mm. WHAT???? I took several photos, i changed these lenses 5 times and the result remains the same! It’s pretty much a 35mm lens on my D5600 body!!! Can you please help me?? What’s going on? I’m very confused because i paid so much money for a portrait lens and the 35mm focal length doesn’t help me at all. For those purposes i have the 18-35mm!!
If you have a chance to return the 35mm and get the 50mm that would have been better.
Of course the 35mm F1.4 will be the exact same focal length as your 18-35mm @ 35mm. They are both great lenses but the only advantage you’re getting on your new lens is that you’ll be able to widen up your aperture by two stops F1.6 and down to F1.4, it’s just a faster lens then the F1.8 that’ll allow you to take good pictures in low light.
Indeed is an expensive lens so I personally would not recommend you keep it since you have the 18-35mm Art Sigma and that’s a great lens for Landscape and Street Photography.
If you can exchange it for the 50mm F1.4 Art then that’ll be better option, but honestly, if you can just return it and get your money back that’ll be the best option because you can buy the 50mm F1.8 Nikon lens and that will give you great portrait lens on a crop sensor. So, on the 50mm F1.8 lens it will give you the area of an 85mm lens, but please bare in mind that the focal length will still be 50mm, just due to the crop sensor you’ll only see the same area as you’d see with a 85mm lens but the compression of the image is 50mm
Sincerely,
Fadil
Hi Nasim
I just returned the Samyang 35mm f1.4 as I was finding Manual focus though thrill to use and with excellent results but difficult as
I wear reading glasses.
Should I go for this and i use DX format Nikon mount(Nikon D7100). Pls advice.
I’m on the hunt for a 35mm – This is awesome and helpful. Thanks!
I adore my 35mm Sigma! Most of my wedding photographs are taken with it! great review! :)
This lense in now my favourite lense.
Simply the best ever 35mm I ever had in my hands.
If you don’t have it and you’re thinking, do not hesitate ! After you get it, you can sell the rest of your stuff. I used to take many lenses with me when going to a concert, but now I only take this one, a 70-200 on my second camera, and a 16mm in my pockets just in case I want to take a wide shot.
I have the Sigma 35MM1.4 ART LENS and all I can I can say is WOW !!!
I already have a sigma 18-50 f2.8 and was doing okay with it until I heard about this lens. I thought to myself this can’t be as good as they make it out to be, and boy oh boy was I wrong. This lens is a cracker, images soooo sharp, F4 is sharp, but i find f8 sharpest. It is a lens that is always attache to the body and produces some remarkable results, I have no had any of the focusing issues mentioned and I have tried it all the way through the various F-STOPS. AT 1.4 THE LENS produces some brilliant Bokeh, might be ever so slightly soft, but f1.8 & 2.8 you can get some PINS SHARP images and the colors are very vibrant and the photos POP. Since using this lens I have had nothing but positive comments, so much so that it seems to stay on the body 90% of the time, I;d rather move around and get a shot, than change the lens, I like it that much.
BUY IT !!!!
Hello, how is this lens good in bad light condition? I am metal concert photograper and wanna have something to my 70-200/2,8. I was thinking about it as a change for my nikkon 50/1,4 af-d for wider angle but af speed and accuracy interests me too. I think it is better in both aspects, but i rather ask and I have not had the opportunity to hold the Sigma. Will be used with d750. Thank you.
This Sigma looks more like a Zeiss. I have read elsewhere that the Sigma Art Lenses are actually better than the Nikkors and are much less expensive. The Zeiss lenses are definitely better than the Nikkors for sharpness and microcontrast. Nikon better get there act together
Hi Sir.
Just recently bought this lens paired with D750.. It is sharp using far Left and far Right AF points. When I use the center AF point, it is consistently out of focus. If I add +15 on in camera AF-fine tune, Center AF-point is sharp but using side AF points are now back focus. Does this lens have curvature issue? will the dock solve my problem?
Hi, Nasim
Ken Rockwell seems to be not a huge fan of Sigma 35mm art. He specifically says:
This Sigma is as good optically, but its mechanics seem to be the poorest of any other 35mm f/1.4 lens I’ve ever seen.
If you shoot Nikon, the classic Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AI-s ($850 new or $500 used) is better made than any of these — and less expensive to boot, but as the oldest isn’t quite as good optically wide-open as the rest. The Nikon 35mm f/1.4 AI-s is a professional manual-focus lens. It’s still made today, but not well known outside professional circles.
www.kenrockwell.com/sigma…mm-f14.htm
For 35mm he seems to prefer Nikon 35mm f/2
This is a jewel of a small, fast sharp lens. It’s been a key part of the Nikon System of Professional Photography since 1989 when the F4 dominated, and today it’s still a top-performing lens. If you think you want one, you’ll love it!
This 35/2 is optically about as good and feels better-made than the newest 35/1.8 G FX lens that’s bigger, heavier and more expensive.
www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35af.htm
I also read that a lot of people swear at 35mm f/2 and praise Sigma 35mm 1.4.
I realize that your review is some years old, so you could change your mind since then or new lenses were deployed that are a better choice.
So, can you please advise what are your thoughts on Ken’s judgement and what do you think is the best 35mm FX lens for Nikon with a three digit price tag?
Thank you and Merry Christmas.
Hi Nasim,
Ken Rockwell seems to criticize this lens and prefers Nikon 35mm f/2 to it.
He specifically says:
This Sigma is as good optically as the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L and Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G, but its mechanics seem to be the poorest of any other 35mm f/1.4 lens I’ve ever seen.
Now, 6 years after your initial review of this lens, would you still recommend it over Nikon 35mm f/2?
What would be your first choice of an FX 35mm for Nikon under 1,000usd?