Thanks to Alexey L. from St. Petersburg for this lens, as well as for tasty coffee and other lenses (next articles are still ahead)!
The Sigma device also has a device for a lens hood focus setup (Sigma USB Dock), but I didn’t use it yet. In my opinion, the lens is quite precisely gets to focus (on my camera) and special adjustment can demand only for tests.
I had an opportunity to compare this Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG A HSM to two lenses alternatives: Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II and Carl Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE.
I compared them to a test pattern and simply walking with it, and made some pictures, alternately by different lenses.
Of course, such architecture deserves the gimbal camera, but something can be shooted on normal 35mm a lens (as well as all our remaining favourite brands: Nikon, Sawney, Pentaks, etc.) Canon (in this case Canon 5D mark II).
Below I will lay out some pictures with Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM, and at the end, in outputs, I will tell about the impressions.
This frame with branches — simply trouble… The left part of branches are violet, and at the right they are green. I am not sure that such HA can be corrected in the RAW converter in couple of clicks of a mouse.
And here I “suddenly” passed to Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE to which two following articles will be devoted.
Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM is a remarkable lens (And I tell it about Sigma?? Yes… How changed Sigma over the last 10 years .. Huge break in quality.), which shows high sharpness on diaphragms above F2. Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM is capable on focal to compete with such monsters of the industry as Canon 16-35/2.8L II and Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE.
I added the experience of communication with this lens to the review by Vyacheslav:
There is an information about Sigma which it is necessary to add to the review. The matter is that some copies of this lens “since the birth” have one not really good sore, it is back/frontfokus which changes with distance to the object. I.e. (an example): at distance to 10 m you have a bad frontfocus, from 10 to 15 m it leaves and generally hits “the nail”, and after 15 m it changes on completely antisupposed, i.e. on backfocus (here are all values in meters for an example and on different copies they can be different). I had some lenses with this problem. So before purchase it is necessary to be very accurate and to check back and front and do not think: “… nonsense, I will correct it .”, and carefully to check on the close and remote objects not to get “an incurable illness”. Also it concerns 50/1,4 Arth. Guys from service tried to write about it on Sigma — those who are silent and pretend that anything of that isn’t present. It is necessary to consider that upon purchase of such a lens it can be refused to be changed in shop or suggested to be sent to repair and it isn’t under repair really, i.e. they will make all not to change it or not to return money. So be more careful upon purchase.
Actually Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM even more sharp at the edges of a frame, than Canon 16-35/2.8L II. But what to take from the old man 16-35? Only God knows how old is it. Maybe they will issue the 3rd version soon. By the way, a motor in Canon 16-35/2.8L II is much quicker and blur (bokeh) is more pleasant, but a bokeh is very subjective so I simply express my opinion.
When comparing with Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE everything isn’t so single-digit. Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM considerably concedes to Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE on contrast range. Also Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM bends verticals at the edges of a frame, and Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE does not do that. This is an important advantage of Zeiss. Its pictures can be straightened completely in a photoshop, but it is impossible to do with Sigma (to clean distortion).
The profiles which are applied to these lenses pleased and disappointed me at the same time. I waspleased with Zeiss profile. It isn’t necessary to correct anything manually — only to connect a profile. And the Sigma profile seemed to me that doesn’t correspond to a lens. Both are in standard library of profiles from Adobe Camera Raw.
And still — if concedes in center of a frame of Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM to Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZE, it is insignificant, and it can be considered very important achievement for Sigma! Edges of a frame at Zeiss aren’t ideal, but after all it is much better, than at Sigma 35mm 1:1.4 DG Art HSM.