I know what you’re thinking: “What we really need
is another 35mm lens for Sony E-mount.”
Well, luckily, Sigma is here
to make your 35mm lens buying decision
a little more confusing and a lot more difficult.
Let’s get Undone!
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What’s happening, everybody? I’m Gerald Undone,
and I put the “bop” in the “bop shoo bop shoo bop.”
So, as usual, some disclosure:
Sigma lent me this lens to make this review.
I do not get to keep it, no money changed hands,
and Sigma does not get any input on this video’s production
or get to preview it before it’s posted.
Now, if you’ve been following my channel for a while,
you’d know that not only do I favour the 35mm focal length--
in fact the video you’re watching right now
is shot on the Sony 35mm f/1.8 lens--
but I’ve also extensively covered
most of the 35mm releases for Sony
as part of my search to find the best option for the money.
Back in January, I reviewed
Sony’s new G Master version of the 35mm,
and it was essentially perfect, save for two things.
One, it was kind of pricey at $1400 US,
and two, it had rather horrendous focus breathing.
But if you had the money and focus breathing
wasn’t a concern for what you do,
it was the best 35mm you could get for Sony E.
Well, now Sigma has made their version of the G Master,
complete with a de-clickable aperture ring, function button,
and a much smaller size
compared to their earlier adapted version.
They're doing all this for $500 less than the G Master,
at $899 US.
So, I was pretty excited to test this lens out
and tell you guys that we finally have
the ultimate 35mm lens and there was nothing else to consider,
but sadly, that’s not the case.
First off, just like the G Master,
this lens too has pretty terrible focus breathing.
Maybe not quite as bad as the Sony, but still noteworthy.
But I suppose that doesn’t really detract from its value
since it’s not any worse than the G Master in that regard.
It is a bit heavier and longer, though:
about a 20% increase in size,
coming in at 660g with the caps on,
versus the 550g of the G Master.
And the focus ring is similar to the one that’s found
on the newer 24-70 f/2.8 zoom Sigma has,
meaning it’s mostly linear. It’s not exactly linear,
but you can definitely achieve repeatable focus
as long as you don’t drastically change
the way you rotate the ring.
But the full focus throw does fluctuate a little,
with the slowest movements getting you
close to a 360° throw.
But I haven’t really had any issues with manual focusing.
The ring feels good, and it performs well.
I do think it would be easier if they just made it truly linear,
but what are you gonna do?
The focus motors are good: fast and quiet.
I don’t have the G Master anymore to test side-by-side,
but over the last couple weeks of mixed use,
I haven’t noticed it to be any slower
than what I’m used to from Sony.
I did have some issues where it was having trouble locking
onto a tree branch and it kept jumping to the background,
but that could have been scenario-specific,
as I’ve had no other problems since.
Its close focusing distance isn’t quite as good
as the G Master, and both are worse than the f/1.8 version
from Sony, with this new Sigma focusing up to 0.3m,
or 0.98ft, where the G Master is 0.27m,
and the Sony 35 f/1.8 is 0.22m.
And this is something that’s important to me,
because one of my favourite things to do
with the 35mm focal length is to get real close
and capture these interesting little details
with a balanced, natural perspective.
But when I started doing that with this lens,
I noticed a major issue: none of my images were sharp
when close focusing at f/1.4.
Here, let me show you in Lightroom.
OK, so this might be a little bit difficult
to explain and show, and I don’t know how
it’s gonna look over YouTube, but what I’ve been doing
is getting these really close-focused shots that I like
to look at the details, and here’s an example of one.
But if we punch in on the actual details,
what it looks like to me is almost kind of like a hazy,
diffused kind of look, almost as if there was
a heavy diffusion filter on, where the speculars
almost have this multicoloured disco glow to them,
and none of the fine details are very sharp.
And this is coming from somebody who focuses close
on all the 35s, including-- like I had the previous Sigma,
and I don’t really remember seeing this issue.
The Sigma 35mm Art Lens previous for Sony,
the one that had the longer adapted part of it.
I used to use that lens all the time,
and I never noticed this before,
and this definitely doesn’t happen on the G Master.
Another example here were these berries.
Now, obviously there’s a depth of field issue here,
but you can see that none of the berries are really sharp,
and as much as I like the creamy out-of-focus areas
and I think that the falloff is nice,
and I like the bokeh on this lens,
I don’t like how it sort of lacks punch.
There’s nothing-- a lack of contrast and a lack of,
just, kind of punch when shooting wide-open close-up.
Here’s another example of a shot that I like.
I like-- this is what I like to do with 35 half the time,
and so you get these kind of, like-- you know,
little worlds going on with a fun perspective.
But if we zoom in here, you can see that all the little details
of this moss, they all look kind of blurry,
like there’s some kind of, like I said,
diffusion on them or something. So then I started to wonder
maybe there was something wrong with my lens.
Maybe I got a bad copy.
So I reached out to a couple other people,
and Jared Polin was kind enough to send me his raws,
and I also got him to do a side-by-side test for me
between the G Master and the new Sigma
so we could see, you know, what’s going on.
And there’s two things that I wanna note here: first off,
he sent me some photos of more, like, environmental portraits
and some moderately close-up but not super close-up stuff,
and there’s not really any issue with his photos, so...
See this one here?
If we punch in on this X-Acto knife here...
looks fine, you know?
There’s no issues here.
And we can go through the rest of his photos,
and they all look nice and sharp.
This one here in particular, we can punch in
on the ring... looks good.
And I was finding that there was no real issues with the shots.
I did notice, however, when I punched in on this one
that there is some significant chromatic aberration going on--
let me zoom in a little bit closer-- on the label here.
It almost looks teal. And we’re gonna get into
chromatic aberration in a minute.
But anyway, the idea is that these environmental portraits
look great, and so if you’re gonna do that, that’s fine.
And I also talked to another YouTube creator
that I don’t really want to call out because maybe there’s
some embargo thing going on there,
but they recently just messaged me
and said they’re not really having issues,
but they were shooting mostly wide as well.
So if you shoot wide, I don't think
you're really gonna notice this.
But if you like to get up close, there is definitely an issue.
And so Jared was kind enough to shoot the Nikon label
on his camera, several different focuses
with the Sigma and several different ones with the G Master
so we can just make sure there wasn’t anything weird going on.
And what you can see here if we punch in
is exactly what I’m talking about.
Do you see how over here on the Sony--
now, they’re not focused in exactly the same spot,
but that’s not-- well, actually, that’s part of the problem.
I don’t know where it’s focused exactly over here
on the Sigma on the left.
But on the right, on the Sony, we can always tell
because there’s this band, almost,
where the metal is sharper.
There’s, like, more detail in the metal.
And when you have a shallow depth of field,
you almost see it like a band.
I’m sure you’ve seen this before. You know,
if you focus on the table, there’s, like,
a strip of wood grain that’s really, really detailed,
and then it goes out from there.
On the Sigma, there is no band anywhere.
Like, I can tell on the Sony that it was focused right here.
I can tell.
And on the Sigma, I can kind of make the deduction
that since the “N” is sharper than the rest
that he probably focused on the “N” to keep them the same,
but I can’t really see that band as clearly.
And also, that weird specular thing I was talking about,
you can see as the focus transitions out here
that on the Sony it stays nice and clean,
and on the Sigma we start to get a whole bunch
of chromatic aberration into the speculars, and it just starts
to get this hazy coloured weirdness thing going on.
Now, afterwards, I did notice this paragraph
in the press materials for this lens
that perhaps explains this issue.
It said, “The performance at the minimum focusing distance
is slightly lower than the previous 35mm f/1.4 Art.
However, the performance up to a shooting distance
of 0.7m is equivalent or better.”
And I guess this has to do with trying to make
the lens smaller or more compact.
There had to be some compromises that were made,
and in this case it was the clarity when focusing
at the minimum focusing distance.
Now, obviously, in Jared’s shots, if you’re doing
environmental portraits like I already explained,
you know, they seem fine. For that kind of sharpness,
it’s not really something you have to worry about.
But, again, I want to touch on that
chromatic aberration that I was talking about.
By the way, apologies,
I’ve noticed in the last couple minutes
that the ongoing construction sounds
that have been plaguing my shooting experience
have just started up again, but I don’t--
[distant thud]
--but I don’t wanna stop,
so I’m just gonna keep rolling on through.
Apologies if anybody’s wearing headphones, if it’s annoying.
All right, so let’s punch in here
and look at chromatic aberration.
And right away, it is...serious.
Not only is there blue fringing heading up this way
and then amber fringing on the way down, but if we punch in
a little bit further, we can see that they’re actually
sort of overlapping each other, and there’s blue
around the amber here, and it just-- it’s pretty bad.
I know that I’m being pretty critical,
but this is some of the worst chromatic aberration
I’ve seen on a lens of this caliber.
I usually consider Sigma Art lenses to be very high quality
image-wise, and... I’m not seeing that really.
You know, I feel bad.
I kind of feel like I’ve been giving Sigma a hard time lately,
‘cause Sigma’s, you know, one of my favourite brands,
but I hold them to such a high standard
that when I see stuff like this, I go,
“This is worse chromatic aberration
than you should have, Sigma. Come on!”
But I don’t know if it’s all just to make the lens smaller.
And if we compare that to-- this is the Sony 1.8,
and you can see that it still has it,
the same exact issues with the cyan and the amber--
this one’s actually a bit more red-- but it’s better.
Now, if we take this into a more practical situation,
I got some fence shots here, and...
I mean, you can just really see it, so...
Even this close-- so when it comes to longitudinal,
it’s like, when your focus is going out of focus further away
and out of focus closer, and just one rung on the fence,
we’ve got quite a bit of cyan fringing here,
and quite a bit of red down here.
And even if we’re not specifically shooting for it,
but maybe just something like this branch here.
All along the branch is quite a bit of fringing,
and it’s all in through here, and all the way at this end,
it’s already blue again.
What’s interesting is that it’s mostly LoCA,
which is the one that you can only correct by stopping down,
which is gonna be another interesting thing
about this lens. But before we talk about stopping down,
here’s another image.
What I find interesting is that the lateral chromatic aberration
isn’t too bad at all, and neither is the distortion,
and the transmittance is really good, too.
But if we compare this 1.8 to Sony’s 1.8--
not the G Master, the actual 1.8 lens--
you can see it’s a lot darker.
So we’re getting more light at 1.8
than we get on the Sony at its 1.8.
It’s about equivalent to the G Master, but it's much brighter
than the Sony f/1.8 lens, so that’s a good thing.
And like I showed, the lines are pretty great here,
and there’s not much lateral chromatic aberration,
which is awesome. However, if you want to
sort of fix all these problems that we talked about--
that means the detail at close focusing,
the vignetting, the longitudinal chromatic aberration--
all of these things pretty much go away at f/2.8.
OK, so here we have a shot at 1.4, and then I stopped down
a few different stops from there.
And we can also talk a little bit
about the bokeh while I’m in here.
So at 1.4, it looks great, and I’ve already mentioned
that I really like how it transitions out of focus.
If we look here in the corner, it’s even pretty good--
this is at 1.4. Not really much going on there.
And if we stop down to-- this is at 1.8--
they’re pretty much perfectly round,
even almost in the corner now,
and then by f/2, they’re solid, and that’s f/2.8.
And, you know, we’re getting really nice results here.
And wide open, if we actually examine it,
the texture and the quality of the bokeh is excellent.
There’s maybe a slight, faint ring around it,
but it’s great. So, no real complaints there.
And we’re seeing that here in this shot, at 1.4 as well.
But this is the shot where if I punch in here,
I’m not happy with the sharpness on this VW symbol,
which is where I focused.
Now, if we move through and stop down here,
this is at 1.8, a little bit better.
This is at 2.8, which is now significantly sharper.
If we switch between the 2.8 and the 1.4,
you can see a huge difference.
And then this is f/4, I just wanted to see
if it got any better, and it does a little bit.
f/4 maybe is a little better than 2.8,
but diminishing returns, I would say.
2.8 is as far as you need to go.
And here’s another comparison of the Sigma against itself,
1.4 versus 2.8, and you can see a huge difference here.
So not only can you see aberration
around the “P” at 1.4, which is basically gone at 2.8,
but also the 2.8 is so much sharper.
And you can even see aberration
around these down here at 1.4, and it’s crystal-clear at 2.8.
Now, interestingly too is if we do go back to the 1.8 version
and we compare it to the Sony f/1.8 lens,
this is as close as you can focus on the Sigma,
and this is as close as you can focus on the Sony f/1.8.
And if you look at the details here when they’re both
at f/1.8, aside from the Sony
being a little bit darker on the right like we talked about,
I’d say you're getting pretty similar results.
So that means that the Sigma at f/1.8 performs
almost identically to the Sony at f/1.8.
Which isn’t a bad thing, because I like the Sony f/1.8,
and you can see even in the bokeh here--
let me pull back out a little bit--
that we’re getting very similar results as well.
However, you will still notice that the Sigma
has worse chromatic aberration than the Sony does.
So if you stop the Sigma 35mm down to f/1.8 and compare it
to the Sony f/1.8 lens, you get nearly identical images
with only small trade-offs between them.
The Sony can focus closer and has a bit better control
over chromatic aberration,
but the Sigma has better transmittance at f/1.8
and a more functional build, you know,
with the buttons, and the switches, and stuff like that.
But the Sony f/1.8 also has almost no focus breathing,
and costs between $100 and $150 less than the Sigma,
and the Sony 1.8 stops down to f/22 instead of just f/16
on the Sigma, if that’s something that you could use.
Especially if you’re into sunstars,
which weren’t very crisp or impressive on the new Sigma,
which also doesn’t have that great control over flare.
I observed massive reductions in contrast
across the entire frame,
with visible shafts of glare and ghosting.
So overall, I wouldn’t say that I’m optically blown away
by this lens, but I have to wonder
if I would have felt the same way
if it wasn’t for the G Master release earlier this year.
Have we been spoiled by all these near-perfect
Sony lenses lately?
When the 35mm Art first came to Sony E back in 2018,
I loved the lens.
Sure, it was big and heavy, and the autofocus wasn’t the best,
but the image quality was great, and it was a good option
for the money compared to the Zeiss Distagon.
Well, now Sigma has taken that lens, made it smaller,
lighter, added features, improved the autofocus,
and kept the price virtually the same.
So yes, it is a nice upgrade over their 2018 lens,
but it doesn’t quite compete with Sony’s best offerings
from 2021. I think that’s why
the Sigma 24-70 for Sony was so impressive.
It was competing with one of Sony’s oldest G Masters.
So, yes, I do think my perspective
on this new Sigma lens has been heavily affected
by the recent Sony lens,
but I also can’t ignore that the G Master exists.
So which do you buy?
Well, if you’ve got the money for the G Master
and you don’t mind the focus breathing, buy that.
It’s the best optically without question.
If you’re on a tighter budget and you like to close focus,
or want a better option for video and don’t want
any focus breathing, I’d still probably recommend
the Sony 35mm f/1.8. And to be honest,
I’m not completely sure this new Sigma lens has a place.
I still feel like the choice is between
the Sony f/1.8 and the G Master.
This new Sigma fits somewhere in between those two,
but I’m not exactly sure how.
I suppose if you need a faster lens
with better transmittance
and you tend to shoot from farther away
for a more environmental style or street-style shots,
or if you tend to frequently stop down when shooting,
the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 can accomplish all that
as long as you’re aware of its limitations.
I would be careful around scenes
with a lot of specular highlights
and glints at different depths, though,
like a shimmering beach scene shot wide open,
as I think you might find
the chromatic aberration distracting.
But perhaps we should pass the next few minutes off
to another creator to get a second opinion on this lens,
and who better to do that than a veritable OG of this camera gear
reviewing scene, and a man whose elegant criticism
is only matched by his objectivity:
Gordon Laing of Cameralabs.
Thanks, Gerald!
I always like to directly compare lenses side-by-side,
and as luck would have it, I had the Sony 35mm f/1.4
G Master on loan at the same time as the new Sigma.
Oh, and do bear in mind that Sigma described
my own loaner as a “pre-production sample,”
so the quality and performance may vary with final models.
Before even looking at the optical quality,
it’s interesting to note the new Sigma on the left is 14mm longer
and 120g heavier than the Sony on the right.
I also preferred the damping of the Sony focusing ring,
which felt less stiff than the Sigma,
and for me it was easier to manually focus.
I also preferred the Sony in terms of autofocus,
at least for stills, where as you can see here
it proved quick, accurate,
and also more consistent than the Sigma.
Compared to the Sigma here in AF-S mode on the Alpha 1,
where it’s visibly slower
and more obviously hunts at each end.
Now, to be fair, the focusing is faster in Continuous AF-C mode,
but in my test, the Alpha 1 only achieved burst speeds
between 12 and 14 fps, whereas the Sony lens
achieved the maximum of 30 fps on that body.
Video autofocus was equally good on both lenses, though,
so not complaints there.
The Sony 35 G Master, however,
is notoriously bad for focus breathing.
You can see how much the field of view reduces
as you focus from infinity to the closest distance,
and it looks almost like a zoom lens.
But while the new Sigma may not be quite as bad
in this regard, it’s sadly pretty close.
You can see here the Sigma is actually capturing
a slightly broader field of view to start with,
but when you measure the amount that’s cropped due to breathing,
it’s almost as bad.
Right, now for a condensed set of optical tests
from my own review, starting with a portrait
taken with the Sigma 35 1.4 at f/1.4, of course,
on an Alpha 1, using eye detection.
And looking closely, the details seem fine,
and the background is nicely rendered.
But place the Sony 35 1.4 next to it on the right,
and you see the Sigma just isn’t as crisp at f/1.4.
Now, I repeated this test multiple times,
and this was my best result with the Sigma,
whereas the Sony was consistently good.
Next, for a distant landscape, again,
shot with the Sigma 35 1.4 wide open,
and a view angled so that details run into the corners--
don’t worry, I wasn’t drunk. Looking closely in the middle,
again, reveals a little softness to the Sigma at f/1.4
that improves a lot if you can close the aperture
to even just f/2. But wide open at f/1.4,
it just can’t match the crispness
and contrast of the Sony. And finally, some bokeh balls.
Here’s the Sigma 35 1.4 from 30cm,
showing off what’s arguably the highlight of the lens.
Attractive rendering with minimal outlining
and barely no textures within, certainly an improvement
over the often busier bokeh of the old DSLR version.
Bring in the Sony on the right from the same distance,
and you’ll see they’re fairly similar,
and while the Sony has less outlining,
it’s really just a personal choice here.
Oh, and those dots in the Sony blobs
were from dust on my lens. Sorry!
But, the Sony can focus a bit closer from the Sigma,
and that will give you bigger, smoother balls--
er, without sounding too much like a manscape promotion.
So overall, the Sigma lacked the biting sharpness
and contrast of the Sony G Master,
and it didn't focus as consistently either.
But then it is $500 cheaper,
and if you are able to stop it down even just to f/2,
the quality improves greatly.
Plus, again, mine was a pre-production loaner.
Now, Sigma can match the quality of the Sony 35 G Master,
but using its f/1.2 model,
which costs roughly the same as the Sony.
So perhaps a fairer rival for the new Sigma 35 1.4 Art
would be Sony’s 35mm f/1.8 G.
I’ve expanded on all these tests in my own review,
including extra comparisons
against the Sigma 1.2 and f/2 models.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Gordon, and make sure
you guys check out his video and his full article on this lens.
Links will be in the description below.
But that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found
this video entertaining, or at least helpful.
And if you did, make sure you leave it the old thumbs-up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already.
But if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
try setting the playback speed to 75%.
Alright, I'm done.