Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Review

« »

  • Yoan

    Excellent review!
    There’s a small mistake on page two though: “The *zoom* ring of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4…”

    • Nasim Mansurov

      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…

  • Parag Sengupta

    The review is excellent but all photographs shots are in outdoor. There must be some indoor photography. Again the review is excellent.

    • Nasim Mansurov

      What do you mean? There are many indoor photos: girl indoor, building interiors, butterfly, some flowers, shots from aquarium, snake, cat statues, etc…

  • Daniel Michael

    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!

    • Nasim Mansurov

      Thank you for your feedback!

  • Steven

    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?


    • Nasim Mansurov

      Steven, get the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 instead of the Zeiss.

      • Steven

        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,

    • ben

      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?


      • Nasim Mansurov

        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.

        • Andrzej

          … or just buy the Sigma dock and software

  • HomoSapiensWannaBe

    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!

    • Daniel Michael

      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!

    • Nasim Mansurov

      Agreed, Sigma is certainly moving in the right direction!

  • Randall

    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.

    • HomoSapiensWannaBe

      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.


      • Randall

        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.

    • max

      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.

      • Randall

        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.

      • Mikhail


        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.

      • Nasim Mansurov

        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.

        • daniel

          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.


          • Nasim Mansurov

            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…

        • Ali

          İt Has 16-28mm 2,8 for FF

          • Ali

            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.

  • Red

    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 :)

    • Ronald Patterson

      “…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.

      • JakeB

        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.

      • Nasim Mansurov

        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.

        • Ronald Patterson

          “…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.


  • Mikhail


    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.

    • Nasim Mansurov

      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…

  • David M. Gyurko

    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?

    • Daniel Michael

      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 :)

      • David M. Gyurko

        Thank for the reply. The lens indeed looks like a great package… I am in! :)

    • Nasim Mansurov

      David, to me, it looks as good as Nikon lenses in terms of color rendition.

      • David M. Gyurko

        Thank you too, I am convinced. :)

  • David M. Gyurko

    Thank you too, I am convinced. :)

  • Sunil Sharma

    Hi Nasim, great review. I’ve been looking to buy a sigma 85mm 1.4 instead of nikon version.

    Any suggestions?


    • Nasim Mansurov

      Sunil, the Nikon is better optically.

  • Gheorghe David

    While testing sigma 18-36 f1.8 on Nikon D 7100?

    • Nasim Mansurov

      Is that a question?

  • Bitanphoto

    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.

    • Nasim Mansurov

      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.

      • Bitanphoto

        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.

  • Tony Cullinane

    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.


    • Nasim Mansurov

      Tony, thank you for your feedback!

  • Max


    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?

    • Nasim Mansurov

      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.

      • Max

        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?

        • Nasim Mansurov

          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.

  • Hari

    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.


    • Nasim Mansurov

      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…

  • Peter

    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?

    • Nasim Mansurov

      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!

      • Peter

        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.

        • Nasim Mansurov

          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?

  • Bhaskar

    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.

    • Kyndel

      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.

  • AK

    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.

    • Max

      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!

  • Eric

    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.

  • Scott

    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).

  • Roldz

    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.

  • Melvin

    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 :-)

    • jb

      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).

      • Nasim Mansurov

        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.

  • Laszlo

    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.

  • Mark Li

    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.

  • Foukographer

    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.

  • Karen Julia

    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!

  • Tomasz

    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)?

    • Nasim Mansurov

      Yes sir! I believe the 35mm f/1.8 is already shipping, so I should get mine pretty soon!

  • Amit

    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…

  • HP

    Hi Nasim, is this lens compatible with Nikon D90?

  • james

    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?



  • Francis NAEF

    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.