Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Hi all... Here to do short review on the Sigma f/1.4 DG HSM that I recently had delivered. I’ve been in the market for a new 35mm prime ever since the girlfriend latched on to my Nikon 35mm f/1.8G some time ago. After having some problems with two copies of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DG HSM that I had for a short time, I decided to try the 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM instead.
I’m going to say right now I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Nikon G lenses. I don’t like the cheap, plastic-y feel they have, or the rough, sloppy manual-focus they exhibit just to rattle off a couple reasons why. Yes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and in that regard, G-variant lenses do get the job done. Still, they’ve always left me feeling they're a lens that could be done a lot better.
Enter the latest generation of Sigma lenses. In my opinion Sigma seems to flipping-the-bird to a lens-crafting world of smaller, lighter, more plastic-y offerings. If smaller, lighter, plastic lenses are your thing (and I can understand why they might be), Nikon has got you covered. If you don't mind, or actually happen to *like* the heft of all-steel construction, Sigma is singing your song. I’m not saying one is better than another, I’m acknowledging a difference exists and expressing a personal preference.
All that being said the Sigma 35mm is a hefty little beast of a lens. While I haven’t compared, offhand I’d say it’s easily twice the weight and length of the Nikon variant and requires a larger filter; 67mm vs. the 52mm filter-size of the Nikon lens. The bayonet mount is steel, as you would expect. There is no “VR” equivalent on this lens (Sigma calls is Optical Stabilization).
The auto-focus motor is about as close to silent as I think is mechanically possible. If I want to hear the AF motor doing its thing, I need to hold the camera up to my ear and actually listen for it; that's no exaggeration. Auto-focus itself seems very snappy but I have no way of measuring this. As far as I can tell AF on this lens is as fast as any other lens I currently own.
The manual focus ring is damped just short of perfection in my book. It’s just a tad bit softer than I’d like but the action is silky smooth and solid when turning. I wish all my lenses manually focused like this. For those skilled in the Dark Art of Manual Focus the MF ring on the Sigma is the type that brings a cryptic smile to your face. Yeah, you know what I mean...
Minimum aperture on the Sigma is f/16. Not f/22 not f/32… f/16. I’ve read reviews that state otherwise and I have the lens in my hand as I type this, mounted to my camera, and I’m telling you the minimum aperture is f/16. Just so we’re clear on that. f/16.
The supplied lens hood is tulip shaped (for whatever reason) and made of plastic. I mention that it’s made of plastic because I read more than one review that stated the lens hood was metal; mine is not. I will point out that the lens hood attaches to the lens with a sense of authority that Nikon lens hoods do not. This is one of those silly things you might think is silly until you feel for yourself what I’m talking about. The Sigma hood attaches with a reassuring, audible “snap”. It’s a small thing but it’s something I definitely noticed.
Sigma also provides you with a seriously nice lens bag. I mean it's *really* nice. This lens bag is nicer than my bedroom! Just thought I'd mention that because the little drawstring bags you get with some Nikon lenses, I think, are just tacky.
Here are a few test shots taken earlier today with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM. All have been given some basic processing and have been resized to 1200 pixels on the long edge. EXIF data should appear but if there are questions feel free to post them.
.....
I’m going to say right now I’m not the world’s biggest fan of Nikon G lenses. I don’t like the cheap, plastic-y feel they have, or the rough, sloppy manual-focus they exhibit just to rattle off a couple reasons why. Yes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and in that regard, G-variant lenses do get the job done. Still, they’ve always left me feeling they're a lens that could be done a lot better.
Enter the latest generation of Sigma lenses. In my opinion Sigma seems to flipping-the-bird to a lens-crafting world of smaller, lighter, more plastic-y offerings. If smaller, lighter, plastic lenses are your thing (and I can understand why they might be), Nikon has got you covered. If you don't mind, or actually happen to *like* the heft of all-steel construction, Sigma is singing your song. I’m not saying one is better than another, I’m acknowledging a difference exists and expressing a personal preference.
All that being said the Sigma 35mm is a hefty little beast of a lens. While I haven’t compared, offhand I’d say it’s easily twice the weight and length of the Nikon variant and requires a larger filter; 67mm vs. the 52mm filter-size of the Nikon lens. The bayonet mount is steel, as you would expect. There is no “VR” equivalent on this lens (Sigma calls is Optical Stabilization).
The auto-focus motor is about as close to silent as I think is mechanically possible. If I want to hear the AF motor doing its thing, I need to hold the camera up to my ear and actually listen for it; that's no exaggeration. Auto-focus itself seems very snappy but I have no way of measuring this. As far as I can tell AF on this lens is as fast as any other lens I currently own.
The manual focus ring is damped just short of perfection in my book. It’s just a tad bit softer than I’d like but the action is silky smooth and solid when turning. I wish all my lenses manually focused like this. For those skilled in the Dark Art of Manual Focus the MF ring on the Sigma is the type that brings a cryptic smile to your face. Yeah, you know what I mean...
Minimum aperture on the Sigma is f/16. Not f/22 not f/32… f/16. I’ve read reviews that state otherwise and I have the lens in my hand as I type this, mounted to my camera, and I’m telling you the minimum aperture is f/16. Just so we’re clear on that. f/16.
The supplied lens hood is tulip shaped (for whatever reason) and made of plastic. I mention that it’s made of plastic because I read more than one review that stated the lens hood was metal; mine is not. I will point out that the lens hood attaches to the lens with a sense of authority that Nikon lens hoods do not. This is one of those silly things you might think is silly until you feel for yourself what I’m talking about. The Sigma hood attaches with a reassuring, audible “snap”. It’s a small thing but it’s something I definitely noticed.
Sigma also provides you with a seriously nice lens bag. I mean it's *really* nice. This lens bag is nicer than my bedroom! Just thought I'd mention that because the little drawstring bags you get with some Nikon lenses, I think, are just tacky.
Here are a few test shots taken earlier today with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM. All have been given some basic processing and have been resized to 1200 pixels on the long edge. EXIF data should appear but if there are questions feel free to post them.
.....
Last edited:
