Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art..

FallOutBoy

FallOutBoy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
115
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
I'm interested to hear people's opinions on the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art lens. I'm considering getting one for my D750 as I want something wider than the 50mm and 85mm 1.8 primes I'm currently using.

How many people on here are using the Sigma professionally, is it reliable, quick to AF and accurate? I've heard mixed things about the lens, apparently it's a great quality piece of glass and the bokeh is great but I've heard some negative points online about the AF accuracy and possible build quality. I want a lens that will be fast and accurate but I certainly can't afford the Nikon equivalent at twice the price, and id rather not get the budget 35mm 1.8 DX lens as I don't think it would do my D750 justice..

Are there any similar alternatives?

Also, If I want to start getting into wedding photography, would I be better off investing my £599 towards a Nikon 24-70 2.8..? Ideally I want to work with primes and build up my collection with a 24mm 1.4 as well, but many people say that using a 24-70 or similar zoom lens is easier, especially when starting out shooting weddings..
 
minnnt said:
What about the Nikon 35 f1.8?
Click to expand...

I've heard that the FX version isn't much better than the DX lens, so I guess I'd consider the budget 35mm 1.8 DX but not sure how it compares to the Sigma 35 1.4..?
 
FallOutBoy said:
I've heard that the FX version isn't much better than the DX lens, so I guess I'd consider the budget 35mm 1.8 DX but not sure how it compares to the Sigma 35 1.4..?
Click to expand...

It's a great lens. Better than the Nikon equivalent IMO but it does weigh a ton so my opinion would be.

1. Best lens if money and weight don't matter - Siggy 35mm.

2. Best lens for a lighter and cheaper set up - Nikon 35 1.8G.
 
I`m really happy with my siggy. Great in low light too.
 
I picked a used one up from my local store a week or so ago. Stunning lens which is unbelievably sharp even wide open.

It's a seriously heavy lens but one of the best I have ever owned.

Need to get the 50mm version now
 
I have not used it professionally but from the use that I have got out of it, I have had no issues at all with AF accuracy or speed. The image quality is superb but it is very heavy when put on a professional type body, though less so than a 70-200 2.8 zoom or, i would imagine, the 24-70.

If it was me, and I was buying one lens to use professionally, i would most likely prefer the 24-70 as it would seem to be more versatile.
 
FallOutBoy said:
How many people on here are using the Sigma professionally
Click to expand...
I've used it but not professionally. But I have about a dozen of them and I've spoken to many clients who have used them. Hope that counts for something...
FallOutBoy said:
... is it reliable, quick to AF and accurate? I've heard mixed things about the lens, apparently it's a great quality piece of glass and the bokeh is great but I've heard some negative points online about the AF accuracy and possible build quality.
Click to expand...
You've heard negative points about the build quality? Really? Really? That's absurd. Sigma's recent Art lenses all have superb build quality. I'd rate them as comparable to Zeiss and certainly well above Canon and Nikon in this market segment.

As for the AF though... If the lens does have a weakness it's probably here. The AF is definitely slower than I'm used to with Canon lenses, but on the other hand as a Nikon user you might not think it particularly slow. (Canon's AF is faster than Nikon's. I'm not trying to score points here: I have tons of both Canon and Nikon gear and I prefer to use Canon for reasons unconnected with the AF.)
FallOutBoy said:
Also, If I want to start getting into wedding photography, would I be better off investing my £599 towards a Nikon 24-70 2.8..? Ideally I want to work with primes and build up my collection with a 24mm 1.4 as well, but many people say that using a 24-70 or similar zoom lens is easier, especially when starting out shooting weddings..
Click to expand...
There's no right way to photograph weddings. I've had clients shooting weddings with everything from 4.5mm to 500mm, fisheyes, tilt-shifts, macros, you name it. What matters is your approach to shooting the wedding: zooms facilitate some styles whilst primes work best with others. Only you know what's right foot you.
 
I would agree with pretty much everything said above, I love mine. It's bigger and heavier than I expected but not quite so heavy as a 24-70. Ken Rockwell states the weight at just over 2/3 of the original 24-70. It's not as tall so balances better on camera IMO. I bought mine new because I had heard issues with AF and wanted an easy option of sending back etc, but mine has worked perfectly on 3 separate D700s so can't complain. I don't think i need to big up the IQ because you've already heard it before. Build quality is excellent though, feels really nice in the hand.

For a size shot, this is it fitted to a D700

Nikon D700 and Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art by andyroberts1868, on Flickr

I've only shot a handful of weddings, the 35mm has had more use than the 24-70 but as Stewart said above, everyone is different. I prefer the 35/85 on 2 bodies approach, if using 1 body then I would use a 24-70 for versatility. That said, there have been plenty of instances where 2.8 really hasn't been enough in some situations. You will fare better with a D750 over my D700, but even then an extra 2 stops of light is ruddy handy!
 
Last edited:
I find the 35 Art to be incredibly reliable shooting weddings. It needed a slight AF adjustment but well within the limits of the D750 micro-adjust (i.e. I didn't need the Sigma Dock). it's built really well but isn't sealed against water, so worth bearing that in mind.

Shoot with whatever you're comfortable with, if you like primes stick with them, nothing worse than going into a wedding with kit your not comfortable with or used to. Being limited to say, 35 and 85 really isn't that big a deal if you're worried about that.

I've shot 3 weddings of varying sizes with just 35/85 in the past few weeks and there wasn't a single time in 30 hours of shooting where I would have traded being limited to two focal lengths but with f1.4, rather than a 24-70 limited to 2.8.

This was my first with the 35/85 a few weeks back (work in progress on the blog now: http://www.chrisharrisonphotography.com/blog/2016/8/1/sarah-laurence-seymours-court
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much everyone for your kind input on this thread. Looks like I'll be getting the sigma soon then hopefully!

Ukaskew: I've posted a new thread relating to this now, but just out of interest, what solution do you use to carry/use your two body camera setup? I'm looking for a convenient, comfortable and usable solution to carrying a pair of D750's wth primes fitted..
 
Still not quite purchased the sigma yet lol I've got my finger on the trigger but some things still making me hesitate..

Could any kind users of the sigma 35mm 1.4 please let me know how well it handles focusing in low light?
I will be looking to possibly use the lens during weddings in future and I read in a couple of places that it hunts in low light more than most Nikon lenses tend to, and struggles to find focus, meaning it may be responsible for me missing out on important shots.. I may end up going for the Nikon 35mm 1.8 if it's going to be more reliable.
 
Try the Peak Design straps which you can lengthen and shorten very quickly with one hand. Stops the one flapping around and lets you bring other upto your eye.
 
Also, maybe not what you want to hear when you have a GAS attack, but until your wedding photography business is able to pay the cost if the 1.4 Art lenses, get the 1.8s. None of your customers will ever know the difference in the final prints.
 
I can only comment on the Sigma 50mm as i previously owned that and the Nikon 1.8 variety. The Sigma produced a more attractive and sharper image to my eye with far less distortion. But I think it was 4x the weight of the 50 1.8! The sharpness delta reduces the more you stop down. Low light it worked as good as any 1.4 lens. Not really noticeable at all over 1.8.
 
My 2 pennorth, it's as good re build quality as any lens I've owned (nowhere near as many as Stewart but I've had a fair few Canon L lenses in my time). The focus has never occurred to me, it just works quickly and accurately enough (we only notice these things when they're below par).

With FF I'm happy shooting most of a wedding with the 35mm and 135 f2L.

It might be gear pride, but I've never shot around that focal length using zooms and it has something about it wide open.
 
Thanks everyone, I'm still leaning toward the sigma, it just has an extra dimension to the images it produces, IMO, which I love the look of..
I guess if I buy from Amazon etc I'm covered if I need to swap/return it. I'm just worried about fine tuning it, I don't want all the hassle of using the dock to make sure the lens focuses as it should, at various different distances..
 
FallOutBoy said:
Thanks everyone, I'm still leaning toward the sigma, it just has an extra dimension to the images it produces, IMO, which I love the look of..
I guess if I buy from Amazon etc I'm covered if I need to swap/return it. I'm just worried about fine tuning it, I don't want all the hassle of using the dock to make sure the lens focuses as it should, at various different distances..
Click to expand...
Never had to adjust mine.
 
same - never needed the dock. It's the sharpest lens I own (even vs. my canon 24-70 2.8ii) and it'd be the last lens I sell. Love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top