I finally got my hands on the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art Lens
for the Sony E-mount, and I can't wait to tell you about it.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What is happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone,
and today I finally got my hands on two lenses
that I've been waiting for ever since
they were announced. The first is the re-release
of Sigma's classic 70mm Macro 2.8,
and the other is the 35mm that I was talking about
how excited I was in the previous video
that I made on the new Sigma lenses
that were coming up. I love the 35mm focal length.
In fact, I'm shooting this video on a 35mm equivalent
on my GH5 right now, so I'm super pumped to find out
that 35 from Sigma came in,
because I haven't really been that excited about
the value propositions from the 35mm lenses
that are in the current lineup of native Sony lenses.
So let's do a super quick unboxing,
and then I will tell you the results of some of the tests
I already did on this lens and we'll do some tests
that I know that you guys want me to do
because you mentioned them in the last video.
Let's go do that now.
[airy electronic music]
♪
I want to take a quick second to thank Camera Canada
for supplying me with this lens.
They knew that I was eager to get my hands on
one of these, so they put one aside for me
even though they are in high demand.
But that being said, this is not a sponsored video.
I paid full price for this lens, and I'm happy to report
that it not only reaches my expectations,
but surpasses them. OK, so first up, let's talk about
the decentering issue right away.
The closest lens that I think compares to this one
is the Distagon, the Sony 35mm f/1.4 ZEISS-coated
Distagon lens that has a bit of a unicorn status
because it is an excellent, excellent lens,
but has big issues with quality variants
that you don't always get a good one--
you don't often get a good one, but when you do get
a good one, the people who have them be like:
-My...precious! -[snarling]
But everybody else seems to suffer from
a strong decentering problem.
Now, the Distagon is great. It has really good
weather sealing, it has a really cool aperture ring
that you can de-click so you can use it for video,
and it's really smooth and fun to play with,
and it has really, really great rendering
and image quality. But it's $1600 USD, or $2200 CAD
for a lens that will likely give you quality control issues
unless you're very lucky...
I've gone through three personally, and I have still not
found a "good one." Now, I have noticed a little bit
of the same problem with the Sigma,
but I'm happy to report that it is nowhere near
as severe as the Distagons that I've tested.
The right side of the frame does appear to be
a little bit softer than the left side of the frame,
just like with the Distagon, although not as noticeable.
And even the Distagon wasn't really that noticeable
unless you were taking pictures of things
that had a solid patterned background, you know,
like a brick wall, or even if you got up close
with the pegboard that I have in the background.
But if you were doing something where there's,
like, a center-weighted object,
you're not really gonna notice the decentering
that badly. So a lot of people are still happy
with the Distagon even though it has a decentering problem,
but people who were doing background-based shots
were noticing that it was getting softer off to the edges,
which I guess can be annoying if you pay that much
for a premium lens. But if your main question
about the Sigma was gonna be, "Does it fix
the decentering problem that the Distagon has?"
The answer is... yeah, pretty much, mostly, but--
but not completely. While we're on the topic
of the Distagon, I want to make a quick note
about the size and weight comparisons.
The Distagon is a little bit longer,
but the Sigma is a little bit thicker,
and the Sigma weighs about 30 grams more.
I mean, they're pretty negligible differences.
At the end of the day, it's gonna have the same kind
of impact on your arms, and I think if you had
your eyes closed, you'd be like, "Yeah, they're about
the same." The Sigma does have a focusing distance
window that the Distagon does not,
but the Distagon has that aperture ring
that the Sigma does not. They both have
the same aperture range, though, from f/1.4 to f/16,
but the filter diameter is a little bit smaller
on the Sigma at 67mm to the Distagon's 72mm.
So, they're very similar, and optically,
they're both great and really sharp, with the Art lenses
being known for being really contrasty and sharp.
But the big difference comes in at the price,
with the Sigma being almost half the price,
at about $900 USD or $1200 CAD.
Now, there's two other lenses worth mentioning
in this 35mm round up for sort of what's available there
natively on the Sony right now. You've got the Sonnar,
the 35mm Sony ZEISS f/2.8,
which is a really capable little lens and it's great,
but I mean, it's a full two stops slower
than the two lenses we've mentioned already,
so it's not really in the same ballpark.
But price-wise, it's actually quite close to the Sigma.
It's $800 USD, or $1000 CAD. So, I mean,
you would look at that and you'd say,
"I don't really I think I'm getting the same value
that I am getting out of the Sigma,"
but there is something to be said about the fact
that the Sonnar is very light and compact,
and would probably make for a really great sort of
travel lens. And then lastly, you've got the Samyang,
or Rokinon, 35mm f/1.4, which, you know,
visually looks very similar to the Distagon.
And if you remember in my previous video
where I talked about Samyang and Rokinon--
if you haven't seen that video, check that out.
I mention this lens and I kind of talk about
these companies. If you don't know much about
these third-party providers, it'd be worth
you checking out. But basically, you have to be careful
when you buy lenses from Rokinon
because their build quality and construction
and the parts that they use-- or the materials they use,
is a little bit lower grade. So, you know,
that might affect the longevity of the lens.
And there's also been some issues--
and if you read the reviews-- of people who have
some performance consistency problems, so.
But it's a great price. It's $580 USD, or $980 CAD.
But there's definitely some arguments to be made
about "you get what you pay for"
in that really low sort of price bracket.
And something else to be aware of is that
for many suppliers, the Rokinons are considered
"special order," so you may not be able to return them.
But if you get one that works great for you, then,
I mean, that's the best value that you possibly could get.
Which brings us around to the Sigma again, which--
if you can combine sort of the pros
of the more expensive lenses without getting any
of the cons of the cheaper lenses,
then you kind of have the ultimate lens, right?
Well, I think so, and that's why I was so excited about it.
Now, in the video I did earlier on the 50mm lens,
you guys said that you wanted to know more about
the video focusing performance,
so let's jump into focusing stuff now.
♪
Now, with regard to the photo focusing,
I wanted to test the consistency of the lens,
because one of the things that plagued the Sigmas
in their earlier, you know, lifespan of the Art lenses
was that the focus would either be sort of just in front
or just behind where you wanted it to be,
and that sometimes it wasn't consistently focusing on
the same point that you were expecting it to.
Now, this is something that Sigma's been getting better
at year over year, but I figured I'd go ahead
and test it anyway, so I did strings of 15 shots.
So what I would do is I would focus on,
something then focus away, then focus on,
then focus away, then focus on,
back and forth to the same spot 15 times,
and see how many of them had the same focus,
and also if the focus was correct, right?
And then I would do it for people, I would use the eyeAF.
So focus away, then eyeAF, then focus away, then eyeAF,
and keep going like that. And in the strings of 15 shots
that I did in, in almost each case,
14 minimum of the 15 were in focus.
So that's like 93% of exactly perfect, what you want
it to be. So like in the eyeAF, when I'd zoom in,
the eye was, like, perfect. Now, in the one shot
that wasn't perfect, it was still usable,
it's just that you'd be like, "Oh, it's kind of hit
the eyelash, or maybe a little bit too much
on the eyebrow." Now, for me, this percentage
is very acceptable when you take into account
how fast I was actually conducting the test.
I was essentially just like, focused, focused, focused,
focused, foc--and each time pressing the shutter,
and it was on, like, so, so much. Like I said,
like 93% of the time from just that instant. If you--
I'm sure that if I had an extra second to like, you know,
really line it up well, it would be probably perfect
all the time, but 93% with that fast is...I mean,
for what I use it for, I'm incredibly pleased with that.
And I'm sure some of it has to do with the fact
that I'm shooting this on an a7 III, which is incredible,
but I definitely think the lens played a big part in that.
Now lastly, as I was saying in the previous video,
you guys wanted to know a little bit more
about the video focusing, so let's go ahead and set up
a test for that now, but I'll just take a quick peek here
and see what my video focusing settings are
so that you guys are aware of that.
So for video autofocus, I have the AF Drive Speed
set to "Normal," which is the medium option
between "Slow," "Normal," and "Fast."
And the AF Tracking Sensitivity I have set to "Standard,"
when there's "Responsive", another level above that.
I've been finding that "Normal" and "Standard"
is pretty quick for what I like.
You know, it's kind of a smooth transition.
I'm sure that you could ramp these things up
if you wanted something a little bit more responsive,
a little bit faster.
But, of course it'll be a little bit jitterier.
But that's up to your personal taste.
Let's have a look and see how it performs.
♪
OK, so I have the Sony set up over here,
and I have it set to "Autofocus Continuous,"
and I have the focusing mode on
the "Expanded Flexible Spot," so that's the square
with the little squares around it. And I'm just gonna look
over here and I'm gonna hold up an object...
and back to my face. And then back to the object...
and back to my face. And one more time
for good measure... and back.
Now, obviously, like I said, you can set this
a little bit faster or more responsive if you want.
I have it kind of in the medium settings
because I like a little bit of a slower transition
when I use it practically. Obviously I don't just hold
things up and then put them back down
when I'm trying to shoot something for real,
so if you're actually trying to use
the Autofocus Continuous for a real purpose,
you'd probably want it to be a little bit smoother,
but there are faster settings if you want it that way.
So for a little bit of a tracking test,
I'm just gonna do a little bit of, like, getting closer
to the camera, and getting further away
from the camera to see how it keeps up with me.
Let's do this a couple times...
...And then we'll give it a moving object
and see how it performs that way.
♪
So that's pretty much it. Basically, it's an Art Lens
adapted natively for Sony E. So it's hefty, but it performs
brilliantly optically, and focus performance is really,
really great too. And it's only $900 USD or $1200 CAD.
So that makes it a pretty excellent value
and probably the best bang
for the buck 35mm available for Sony E right now,
unless you want to take a chance
on one of the Rokinon lenses. I had the Distagon
until yesterday, and I had the Sonnar before that,
and to be honest, I don't see any reduced quality
or performance sort of "stepping down"
from the Distagon to the Sigma.
I love the Distagon, but I think that this is basically
the same thing but with a reduced price tag.
And no aperture ring. I love that aperture ring
on the Distagon. But I love this lens,
and I think it's probably the ultimate value lens
for the Sony E in the 35mm space available right now.
Anyway, that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found
this video helpful, or at least entertaining.
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,
feel free to hit the dislike button twice.
Alright... I'm done.
♪