Lol crazy story.... So I just bought the Sigma 35mm f1.4 exactly 13 days ago from local camera store. The camera store only allows returns or exchanges up to 14 days. So after seeing this video last night, I went back today and swapped the Sigma for the Sony and I like it 3x as much already and it’s literally only $50 more. No brained on this choice at this point in time. If anyone is interested in the sigma I highly suggest swapping your interest for the Sony.
I'm sorry you made the mistake of swapping, the sony has really bad chromatic aberration, and the sigma doesn't, is not easily corrected in post so SMH for you, anyways enjoy, check for chromatic aberrations it's a known issue
I went for the 35 Distagon over the Sony 1.8. It's over twice the price but I haven't regretted my decision for a second; It's an epic lens. I am considering the 1.8 as a walkaround lens due to it being much lighter and smaller.
@@dennis2559 I did look into that before purchase (as it was an expensive purchase) and can only conclude that it, like a lot of things on the internet, was blown out of proportion. From what I gleaned it appeared to be a number of the lens manufactured over a few months period, quite a while ago. All I can tell you is that my lens is absolutely fine, I thoroughly tested it within the return period. I have zero regrets.
I’ve heard great things about the Tamron 35mm f1.4... have you had a chance to use it yet? If so what did you think? I can’t make up my mind on which to get, the tamron or the sigma.
You can't test an adapted lense to native. Repeat your tests with the native sigma Fe mount. The sigma received a firmware update a few months back that greatly improved it's focus. The sigma also has smoother falloff
That's why I emphasized that the AF performance has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it was included more to highlight the difference for anyone considering getting a DSLR sigma to adapt However the optics remain exactly the same so the image quality comparisons are still valid, which for this type of lens is arguably the more important aspect rather than AF anyway
@@EmSixTeen I haven't found that to be the case, when I switched to Sony I tried my various lenses on both my Canon 5DIII and adapted on my Sony and found no difference in image quality - I've only ever seen cheap adapters affect image quality and only when shot at very wide apertures
@@DaveMcKeegan WIll take your word for it for now, can't say I've had both in my hand anyway. Have you considered the mount conversion service Sigma offer? Considering it myself, but still not 100% on switching fully to Sony. Use one of the Viltrox adapters (EF-NEX IV) personally and it's great but still focus hunts a bit, compared to the literally unusable AF of the Metabones that I use at work.
@@EmSixTeen I considered it but at about £200 per lens I didn't feel it justified for me, I found lenses work sufficiently on the mc-11 and my long term goal was always to move to smaller lenses
I just purchased the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART for my Sony A7iii. I also own the Sony 85 1.8 and 50 1.8. My one disappointment with the Sigma so far has been the auto focus, although I knew this going in. I don't own the Sony 35mm 1.8 but I would imagine that any of the Sony lenses are going to beat their competitors most of the time with the 1.8 versions compared to their 1.4 counterparts in third party or even native glass. This is especially true of the Sony 85mm 1.8 - which is simply a beast at autofocus. I highly doubt there's anything much better than this one in the current E mount line up. That being said, I didn't purchase the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for the super fast autofocus, and I think this is an important point to keep in mind if you're new to these lenses. You get the Sigma for environmental portraits and for subjects which aren't always moving super fast. But I still haven't put the Sigma 35 through the paces yet on the streets and look forward to pinpointing any strengths and weaknesses going forward.
Don't get me wrong, the Sigma is still great and the lenses aren't going to be used for sports etc so AF speed isnt crucial However it could be a consideration for people using them for video or more run and gun photography like weddings/events etc
I chose the Sigma over the 1.8 too. I have seen a review and comparison on a site and the bokeh of the 1.8 was way too harsh looking compared to the Sigma. The 1.8 is way too contrasty for my taste.
@@MrCoffis I didn't really choose the Sigma over the Sony because I was really looking for a 35 1.4 regardless. But I don't doubt the Sony 1.8 is a great "budget" lens - in quotes because it's about as "cheap" as Sony goes - and would be perfect for street photography and just about anything else requiring a compact lens and decent auto-focus capabilities. But I believe you and I perhaps chose the Sigma for other reasons, including the bokeh quality inherent with the ART series lineup. On another note, I'm very happy with the Sony 50mm 1.8 and extremely thrilled with the Sony 85mm 1.8 - a lens I would choose any day over the 1.4 Gmaster version because of the superior auto-focusing and overall value. On yet another note, did you hear about the arrival of Sigma's new 35mm 1.2??? About $1400 USD I believe - but twice what I paid for the 1.4.
When using a Sigma lens, does the camera battery run out quickly? because when I use a lens adapter for Nikon to Sony, I have problems with the battery draining quickly even though the camera is not turned on.
Can't say as I've noticed this too be the case to be honest, I suppose there could be some extra power draw because of the adapter but if it does then it must be fractional
5 лет назад
I was thinking of selling my Batis 40mm for the Sony 35mm but now looking at the downsides of that lens I'm not very sure. What would you suggest?
Both are good lenses, I've not personally tried the Zeiss 40mm to give a direct comparison, however seeing the reviews of it there aren't many reasons to sell the Zeiss in favour of the Sony if you already have it unless either 1) The focal length is wrong, 2) The size of the Zeiss is a problem or 3) You want to free up some money
Great review ! do you have some shots comparing the boken / background blur between those too ? I'd like to see how much of a difference is there between 1.4 and 1.8 ... thanks !
I would personally say the Sony. Despite the different aperture values, both lenses have the same light transmission values so there is no real benefit to the Sigma over the Sony in terms of low light shooting, and the Sony has better auto focus compatibility with the cameras so should be able to focus better in low light than the Sigma.
@davemckeegan Hi mate! I still confused... Because i have another choice... between Canon 35mm F2, Sony 35mm F1.8 or Sigma 35mm F1.4? And I have also a Sigma MC-11...
I wouldn't personally opt for the Canon 35mm, I've generally found Canon lenses on the Sigma adapter aren't particularly reliable - safer to either go with the Sigma lens + adapter or go straight native lens
@@DaveMcKeegan I have already a canon 85mm and i feel reliable hummm... The money overpay about the Sigma is better than the native sony 35mm? (About the performance, forget the weight and size...)
The Sigma is arguably an optically better lens than the Sony however the Sony is still very good. Weather the differences are worth the cost though is entirely your call
Hi ! Beautiful review I've always seen your videos and if I can ask you a question I am undecided between the 35mm 1.8 from Sony and the Sigma 1.2 I'd like to know your advice Thanks
Honestly it comes down to personal choice I haven't tried the f1.2 to give a direct comparison but from what I have seen from other people its an extremely impressive lens, however the size & weight is what put me off considering it
Hey Dave :) I sold my native sigma 35 for the 1.8 sony :D as much as I loved the 1.4 in some low light situations, I never regret my 1.8 sony. Oh and btw, what microphone are you using to record your videos? :D thanks
Alex Pasarelu - Vorbim Fotografie , nu regreți ca ai vândut sigma? Am mers si eu pe Sony in detrimentul sigma, dar din ce observ sigma e mai Sharp decât Sony si are mai putine cromatii aberatice. Acum ca dețin Sony de cand a apărut pe piața, deși e mai mic si mai ușor, îmi lipsește acel 1.4 pe care îl am pe un sigma 50. De asemenea, Sony are un bokeh ceva mai nervos fata de sigma... Care este părerea ta fata de sigma?
@@Super01041994 salut! Nu regret deloc, prefer un kit mai mic la 1.8 decat 1.4. Si sincer nu mi se pare ca sigma era mai sharp, ba chiar cred ca sony e ceva mai bun. Apoi cand vorbim de focus speed sony e din alta liga. Sigma era cam lent in low light sau cand erau lumini de scena turbate incat nu mai intelegea nimic din ce trebuie sa focuseze. Overall consider ca Sony e net superior. Parerea mea 😁
Dave, I own the Zony 35 2.8 lens for my a7iii - would I see a big leap/ is there a good reason to add the 35 1.8 ? I just have bought but not had a chance to try out the Sony 24 1.4 ( can't wait!) and I also have the Tamron 28-75 so I do have the 35 focal range covered but only at 2.8. I always enjoy your reviews and style. Thanks! I am a bit of a lens junkie.....
If you're shooting a lot at 2.8 and wanting more then the f1.8 is a great choice, but if 2.8 is sufficient for you then there probably isn't much to be gained from changing
Got the sigma for 649$ for the holidays. Cheaper than the sony 1.8. If the sony was similar to the 85 1.8 around 550-600$ I would most likey have gone that route. The sigma has been good so far with the new firmware. I do have the sony 85 1.8. That thing is my bff.
When I switched from Canon to Sony, I had the sigma 35mm and purchased the MC-11. The focus was good enough, but the crunching noises it made bugged me. I sold that lens and purchased the sigma e mount and must say that not only was it much quieter, but focused a bit faster. Im very happy with the sigma and I really wish you had a chance to compare the native version. All that said, the weight can be pretty beneficial away and I would never take anything away from the Sony glass. I only know that the adapted version definitely has its shortcomings and most are fixed with the native version.
No question the native lens will work smoother than the adapted in terms of AF and I wish I had a native version for the comparison, having said that the difference is only in the autofocus, the optics will still perform the same
You get more out of focus areas of the f1.4, however due to the amount of glass and the coatings that Sigma use the actual amount of light getting through the lens is really no different to the Sony so your ISO settings for a correct exposure would still be basically the same
Dave, i need your advice: I have a7iiii + Tamron 2.8 28-75 and found it too dark in some low-light situations. Now looking for a general purpose fast prime. I'm a newbei, so my perseption might be wrong, but i think l shall get a 1.4 (2.8 + 2 stops) for low-light, so i considered Sigma 35 1.4, now i see many reviews suggesting sony 1.8 over sigma 1.4, but I worry, if it is fast enough for low-light compared to 2.8 Tamron. If the difference is not that significant I may end up using Tamron only, leaving 1.8 on the shelf, meaning i waste my money.
I personally find f1.8 to be enough of an improvement against 2.8 in low light And as the Sigma 1.4 T-stop is the same as the Sony 1.8 you won't actually gain any better low light performance from the Sigma anyway
Sigma 35 E-mount is completely dead silent as well, interestingly as EF-mount mounted on Canon - dead silent. Only through adapter (not only mc-11) EF glasses starts to rumble inside. One more notice - there is a little bit of pink tint on sigma glass. I suppose You graded them indentically, so Sigma has pinkier rendition, then very neutral Sony lens.
I have Tamron 17-28 and 28-75. I have the Sony Zeiss 55, Sony GM 24, Sony 85 1.8 and Sony GM 135. Is there any reason to get a 35 prime I wonder? I'm very impressed with the 55 and 135 (especially because of the wide opening and beautiful bokeh for that lens). I'm able to crop to about 25% of a jpeg photo from the 135 using my A7R4, hand held and still get a really good resulting photo. The Tamrons are a bit more than OK from my minimal experience and I need a little more experience with the 24 GM before I can pass comment (early photos look promising) and the 85 is yet to see action! Where in the world do you live, Dave? Love the dog.
That's quite a collection you have there 😊 Probably not much reason to add the 35mm unless you are specifically finding the 24 not long enough and the 55 too long AND the Tamron's not fast enough Most people seem to love the dog, he's the only reason they watch the videos 😂 We are currently living in Liverpool
It wasn't supposed to go live, there were some small tweaks that needed to be made, I was going to delete the original when I got back home but there was a cockup with YT that made it go live 10hours before it was supposed to
You've added an adapter, lengthening the barrel of the Sigma, and so changed the ratio of the front diameter to the focal plain. Is it really still an f/1.4?
Yes, because all the adapter does it make up for the empty space that is usually there in a DSLR where the mirrorbox usually sits Besides the aperture is a ratio of the iris opening to the focal length, not the barrel length
I like to see the comparison of more subtle areas like sigma @1.8 and bokeh difference not the obvious ones. This makes me feel like sony is better in ABC and for D it is acceptable. Not helpful for decision making but just ads.
Yeah it's not brilliant, although it's worth remembering that those tests were with in body corrections switched off, with it on the vignetting becomes negligible and with the performance of Sony sensors it doesn't really bother the image quality
A little off topic but while at PhotoExpo in NYC last week I got to try the new 14-24 f2.8 Sigma zoom. This is one of the first zooms made specifically for the Sony mount. All I have to say is wow! Quiet with super fast AF and very sharp through the whole Zoom range. Surprisingly not that heavy either. The rep there said this will be the approach with all new Sony glass going forward. Sigma just keeps getting better. One thing I don’t like about the Sony glass especially the Zeiss models is how easily the paint scratches off the metal parts. I have been banging around with some Sigma ART glass and the paint stays on much better.
@@tinop414 Here is the link to download ver 2 firmware. www.sigma-global.com/en/download/lenses/firmware/a_35_14/#windows I installed it quickly just like you install firmware for a Sony lens. Everything worked great and I think that is is improved, even though it was fine with ver 1. Some folks complained. enjoy.
@@AEROXPROD The E-mount version of the Sigma Art lenses are updated the same way you update Sony lenses. You update firmware with the lens and camera body and a USB cable.
R u serious? U compared an adaptive lense to a native? Spend the money and then give us the comparison!!!! Otherwise don’t do it. This is doing a review of an iphone 8 comparing it to a samsung galaxy 7 but using an iphone 7 specs.
Except as I pointed out in the video, the only aspect that an adapter affects is the autofocus, the optics and thus image quality remains exactly the same There are numerous comparison videos online comparing adapted Sigma Vs native Sigma and the image quality is identical and the autofocus is marginally improved with the biggest improvement being the AF noise This video is mainly a review of the Sony, just with the Sigma included to provide a reference, it's easy to work out from there where an E-mount Sigma would lie in comparison, but if you'd like to donate the £200 for the mount conversion just for a direct comparison then I'll be happy to do it for you
I understand the point you make but think from this perspective ( i apologize if i keep using the phone analogy): if the previous generation phone is updated by software to make it operate as the new release phone. Does it mean they are both the same? If u compare two 2019 cars but you used one model from the 2018 and saying the specs are the same so the driving is the same. I understand that other channels may be doing it also, that still doesn’t make it a fair or good review. Don’t get me wrong. I bought the sigma and returned it bc of the weight. Saving to purchase the sony bc you said sony does the aperture more correctly then sigma so the sigma 1.4 maybe a 1.8 anyway.
@@liemsters in respect of the phone analogy I would say if there was a release that claimed to bring last year's phone up to the performance of the new phone (which is obviously never going to happen) and you compared them together and found that was true, then you could arguably use still use the old phone as a benchmark to compare against other phones - which I did by researching the difference between native to adapted before the review I agree it would have been misleading if hadn't have mentioned it or tried to pass the Sigma off as identical in everyway to the native.
Thanks Dave for your reply - for some reason it just doesn't excite me - probably because I have just bought my most expensive lens ever with the Sony 24 prime, ha,ha!
I do all my shoots with my 35 1.8 and 55 1.8 now. I still carry the 85 1.8 and my 105 1.4 art around but rarely break them out unless i need that extra bokeh. I also just picked up the 17-28 tamron and it's pretty amazing and light. Perfect travel camera :D Im now lusting after the 135 GM haha sigh. Slowly my EF mounted lenses are disapearing.
I know what you mean, my EF lens selection is slowly dwindling as well to the Sigma 20mm and a trio of Irix lenses I also have my eye on the Tamron 17-28 😉
Hi Dave, Great review ! BTW - I just got my copy today and noticed some minor specs on the glass ( which are not dust - couldn't remove them with lens pen ) Attached in the picture drive.google.com/file/d/1WwWbwJcXFChLo5TafNYjnErgY2iyIIff/view?usp=sharing Do you think I should ask for a replacement or is it common to have minor blemishes as such ? I took some shots with it and couldn't notice anything in the photos. Thanks for your advise !
I hope you took it back. That lens has been used. No way in hell that that lens passed inspection at the factory. "Minor blemishes" are never acceptable on the front element of a new lens.
Vignetting is horrible. Why is that? Is that just something physics demands or is it poor engineering? I was almost set to buy the Sigma f1.4, but if it is truly not 2/3s faster, I'm at a crossroads again. Shitty vignetting vs fake 1.4? What to do?
It's a limitation of the design which is a trade-off for the small size However it's worth noting that those shots are with in camera corrections off, with it turned on the vignette is pretty much non existent
WAKE UP DAVE !!!!! How can You pretend to ignore the Sigma f1.2 and just not mention it - or just as bad : Do us all the insult to not check the situation before lecturing us ? Always sickening the lack of discipline here on RUclips.
I didn't mention the 35mm f1.4 Distagon or Samyang either ... The Sigma 35 isn't really a fair comparison given that it's double the price of these. The video is supposed to be more a review of the F1.8 with the Sigma more used as a reference.
@@DaveMcKeegan "we are OBVIOUSALLY going to compare it..." that's how You tinted Your film right from the start. Yourr replay to my critique is not honest.
@@AR-vf7vg It isn't an "Obvious" comparison, they are completely different, it would be like comparing up the Canon 85 1.2's to their 85 1.8's - The Sigma 1.2 is double the price of the 1.8, the only remote connection between them is that they were released around the same time ... the 'obvious' comparison for the Sigma would be the Sony Distagon 35mm f1.4
I’ve recently picked up the Sony 35mm and never regretted it. The size and weight is a huge plus.
Hey i got the 35mm 1.8 - Sony . You have the moving element inside also? only when not mounted or camera off?
Do you regret it now?
Seems like Sony hit a home run with this 35 1.8, which actually became what everyone hoped for. I guess it was worth the loooong wait!
What about the bad CA on the sony?
Is Sony 35 are good for vlogs and some video from home ?
Lol crazy story....
So I just bought the Sigma 35mm f1.4 exactly 13 days ago from local camera store. The camera store only allows returns or exchanges up to 14 days. So after seeing this video last night, I went back today and swapped the Sigma for the Sony and I like it 3x as much already and it’s literally only $50 more. No brained on this choice at this point in time. If anyone is interested in the sigma I highly suggest swapping your interest for the Sony.
Haha that was very fortunate 😊
I'm sorry you made the mistake of swapping, the sony has really bad chromatic aberration, and the sigma doesn't, is not easily corrected in post so SMH for you, anyways enjoy, check for chromatic aberrations it's a known issue
I went for the 35 Distagon over the Sony 1.8. It's over twice the price but I haven't regretted my decision for a second; It's an epic lens. I am considering the 1.8 as a walkaround lens due to it being much lighter and smaller.
Dale Buxton how about the decentering issues? the distagon 35mm is known for the bad quality control from sony.
@@dennis2559 I did look into that before purchase (as it was an expensive purchase) and can only conclude that it, like a lot of things on the internet, was blown out of proportion. From what I gleaned it appeared to be a number of the lens manufactured over a few months period, quite a while ago. All I can tell you is that my lens is absolutely fine, I thoroughly tested it within the return period. I have zero regrets.
Dale Buxton glad to hear that mate, enjoy your lens!
I’ve heard great things about the Tamron 35mm f1.4... have you had a chance to use it yet? If so what did you think? I can’t make up my mind on which to get, the tamron or the sigma.
The Wanderer do you think the Tamron would work well with a Sony? I’ve also been considering that lens?
AF I’m actually renting a couple tamron lenses tomorrow, including the 35mm. so I will let you know how it works and the results I get.
You can't test an adapted lense to native. Repeat your tests with the native sigma Fe mount. The sigma received a firmware update a few months back that greatly improved it's focus. The sigma also has smoother falloff
That's why I emphasized that the AF performance has to be taken with a pinch of salt, it was included more to highlight the difference for anyone considering getting a DSLR sigma to adapt
However the optics remain exactly the same so the image quality comparisons are still valid, which for this type of lens is arguably the more important aspect rather than AF anyway
The adapter not only ruins AF but also gives more vignetting fwiw.
@@EmSixTeen I haven't found that to be the case, when I switched to Sony I tried my various lenses on both my Canon 5DIII and adapted on my Sony and found no difference in image quality - I've only ever seen cheap adapters affect image quality and only when shot at very wide apertures
@@DaveMcKeegan WIll take your word for it for now, can't say I've had both in my hand anyway. Have you considered the mount conversion service Sigma offer? Considering it myself, but still not 100% on switching fully to Sony. Use one of the Viltrox adapters (EF-NEX IV) personally and it's great but still focus hunts a bit, compared to the literally unusable AF of the Metabones that I use at work.
@@EmSixTeen I considered it but at about £200 per lens I didn't feel it justified for me, I found lenses work sufficiently on the mc-11 and my long term goal was always to move to smaller lenses
I just purchased the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART for my Sony A7iii. I also own the Sony 85 1.8 and 50 1.8. My one disappointment with the Sigma so far has been the auto focus, although I knew this going in. I don't own the Sony 35mm 1.8 but I would imagine that any of the Sony lenses are going to beat their competitors most of the time with the 1.8 versions compared to their 1.4 counterparts in third party or even native glass. This is especially true of the Sony 85mm 1.8 - which is simply a beast at autofocus. I highly doubt there's anything much better than this one in the current E mount line up.
That being said, I didn't purchase the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for the super fast autofocus, and I think this is an important point to keep in mind if you're new to these lenses. You get the Sigma for environmental portraits and for subjects which aren't always moving super fast. But I still haven't put the Sigma 35 through the paces yet on the streets and look forward to pinpointing any strengths and weaknesses going forward.
Have you downloaded the recent firmware update?
Don't get me wrong, the Sigma is still great and the lenses aren't going to be used for sports etc so AF speed isnt crucial
However it could be a consideration for people using them for video or more run and gun photography like weddings/events etc
@@roboHare73 Yes.
I chose the Sigma over the 1.8 too. I have seen a review and comparison on a site and the bokeh of the 1.8 was way too harsh looking compared to the Sigma. The 1.8 is way too contrasty for my taste.
@@MrCoffis I didn't really choose the Sigma over the Sony because I was really looking for a 35 1.4 regardless. But I don't doubt the Sony 1.8 is a great "budget" lens - in quotes because it's about as "cheap" as Sony goes - and would be perfect for street photography and just about anything else requiring a compact lens and decent auto-focus capabilities. But I believe you and I perhaps chose the Sigma for other reasons, including the bokeh quality inherent with the ART series lineup. On another note, I'm very happy with the Sony 50mm 1.8 and extremely thrilled with the Sony 85mm 1.8 - a lens I would choose any day over the 1.4 Gmaster version because of the superior auto-focusing and overall value.
On yet another note, did you hear about the arrival of Sigma's new 35mm 1.2??? About $1400 USD I believe - but twice what I paid for the 1.4.
When using a Sigma lens, does the camera battery run out quickly? because when I use a lens adapter for Nikon to Sony, I have problems with the battery draining quickly even though the camera is not turned on.
Can't say as I've noticed this too be the case to be honest, I suppose there could be some extra power draw because of the adapter but if it does then it must be fractional
I was thinking of selling my Batis 40mm for the Sony 35mm but now looking at the downsides of that lens I'm not very sure. What would you suggest?
Both are good lenses, I've not personally tried the Zeiss 40mm to give a direct comparison, however seeing the reviews of it there aren't many reasons to sell the Zeiss in favour of the Sony if you already have it unless either 1) The focal length is wrong, 2) The size of the Zeiss is a problem or 3) You want to free up some money
Great review ! do you have some shots comparing the boken / background blur between those too ? I'd like to see how much of a difference is there between 1.4 and 1.8 ... thanks !
Can you do another video with a longer comparison of bokeh between the two lenses in different conditions?
which is better in extrem low light?
I would personally say the Sony. Despite the different aperture values, both lenses have the same light transmission values so there is no real benefit to the Sigma over the Sony in terms of low light shooting, and the Sony has better auto focus compatibility with the cameras so should be able to focus better in low light than the Sigma.
@davemckeegan
Hi mate! I still confused... Because i have another choice... between Canon 35mm F2, Sony 35mm F1.8 or Sigma 35mm F1.4? And I have also a Sigma MC-11...
I wouldn't personally opt for the Canon 35mm, I've generally found Canon lenses on the Sigma adapter aren't particularly reliable - safer to either go with the Sigma lens + adapter or go straight native lens
@@DaveMcKeegan I have already a canon 85mm and i feel reliable hummm...
The money overpay about the Sigma is better than the native sony 35mm? (About the performance, forget the weight and size...)
@@DaveMcKeegan Help me :(
The Sigma is arguably an optically better lens than the Sony however the Sony is still very good.
Weather the differences are worth the cost though is entirely your call
Hi !
Beautiful review
I've always seen your videos and if I can ask you a question
I am undecided between the 35mm 1.8 from Sony and the Sigma 1.2 I'd like to know your advice
Thanks
Honestly it comes down to personal choice
I haven't tried the f1.2 to give a direct comparison but from what I have seen from other people its an extremely impressive lens, however the size & weight is what put me off considering it
Hey Dave :) I sold my native sigma 35 for the 1.8 sony :D as much as I loved the 1.4 in some low light situations, I never regret my 1.8 sony. Oh and btw, what microphone are you using to record your videos? :D thanks
I'm currently using a Rode Videomic Go
Dave McKeegan thanks! 🤘🏻 keep it up with the good work!!! 🤗
Alex Pasarelu - Vorbim Fotografie , nu regreți ca ai vândut sigma? Am mers si eu pe Sony in detrimentul sigma, dar din ce observ sigma e mai Sharp decât Sony si are mai putine cromatii aberatice. Acum ca dețin Sony de cand a apărut pe piața, deși e mai mic si mai ușor, îmi lipsește acel 1.4 pe care îl am pe un sigma 50. De asemenea, Sony are un bokeh ceva mai nervos fata de sigma... Care este părerea ta fata de sigma?
@@Super01041994 salut! Nu regret deloc, prefer un kit mai mic la 1.8 decat 1.4. Si sincer nu mi se pare ca sigma era mai sharp, ba chiar cred ca sony e ceva mai bun. Apoi cand vorbim de focus speed sony e din alta liga. Sigma era cam lent in low light sau cand erau lumini de scena turbate incat nu mai intelegea nimic din ce trebuie sa focuseze. Overall consider ca Sony e net superior. Parerea mea 😁
Dave, I own the Zony 35 2.8 lens for my a7iii - would I see a big leap/ is there a good reason to add the 35 1.8 ? I just have bought but not had a chance to try out the Sony 24 1.4 ( can't wait!) and I also have the Tamron 28-75 so I do have the 35 focal range covered but only at 2.8. I always enjoy your reviews and style. Thanks! I am a bit of a lens junkie.....
If you're shooting a lot at 2.8 and wanting more then the f1.8 is a great choice, but if 2.8 is sufficient for you then there probably isn't much to be gained from changing
Got the sigma for 649$ for the holidays. Cheaper than the sony 1.8. If the sony was similar to the 85 1.8 around 550-600$ I would most likey have gone that route. The sigma has been good so far with the new firmware. I do have the sony 85 1.8. That thing is my bff.
Thanks, & what breed of dog do you you have?
He's a Springer spaniel
When I switched from Canon to Sony, I had the sigma 35mm and purchased the MC-11. The focus was good enough, but the crunching noises it made bugged me. I sold that lens and purchased the sigma e mount and must say that not only was it much quieter, but focused a bit faster. Im very happy with the sigma and I really wish you had a chance to compare the native version.
All that said, the weight can be pretty beneficial away and I would never take anything away from the Sony glass. I only know that the adapted version definitely has its shortcomings and most are fixed with the native version.
No question the native lens will work smoother than the adapted in terms of AF and I wish I had a native version for the comparison, having said that the difference is only in the autofocus, the optics will still perform the same
Wait what? I picked up the sigma because i really needed the extra light of a 1.4, so it's actually darker than the sony at 1.8???
You get more out of focus areas of the f1.4, however due to the amount of glass and the coatings that Sigma use the actual amount of light getting through the lens is really no different to the Sony so your ISO settings for a correct exposure would still be basically the same
Dave, i need your advice: I have a7iiii + Tamron 2.8 28-75 and found it too dark in some low-light situations. Now looking for a general purpose fast prime. I'm a newbei, so my perseption might be wrong, but i think l shall get a 1.4 (2.8 + 2 stops) for low-light, so i considered Sigma 35 1.4, now i see many reviews suggesting sony 1.8 over sigma 1.4, but I worry, if it is fast enough for low-light compared to 2.8 Tamron. If the difference is not that significant I may end up using Tamron only, leaving 1.8 on the shelf, meaning i waste my money.
I personally find f1.8 to be enough of an improvement against 2.8 in low light
And as the Sigma 1.4 T-stop is the same as the Sony 1.8 you won't actually gain any better low light performance from the Sigma anyway
@@DaveMcKeegan thanks a ton!
shouldnt the angle of view specs determine how close its focal length is to the gmaster?
Sigma 35 E-mount is completely dead silent as well, interestingly as EF-mount mounted on Canon - dead silent. Only through adapter (not only mc-11) EF glasses starts to rumble inside.
One more notice - there is a little bit of pink tint on sigma glass. I suppose You graded them indentically, so Sigma has pinkier rendition, then very neutral Sony lens.
The direct comparison images were untouched straight out of camera so as to not screw up the results
I have Tamron 17-28 and 28-75. I have the Sony Zeiss 55, Sony GM 24, Sony 85 1.8 and Sony GM 135. Is there any reason to get a 35 prime I wonder? I'm very impressed with the 55 and 135 (especially because of the wide opening and beautiful bokeh for that lens). I'm able to crop to about 25% of a jpeg photo from the 135 using my A7R4, hand held and still get a really good resulting photo. The Tamrons are a bit more than OK from my minimal experience and I need a little more experience with the 24 GM before I can pass comment (early photos look promising) and the 85 is yet to see action!
Where in the world do you live, Dave?
Love the dog.
That's quite a collection you have there 😊
Probably not much reason to add the 35mm unless you are specifically finding the 24 not long enough and the 55 too long AND the Tamron's not fast enough
Most people seem to love the dog, he's the only reason they watch the videos 😂
We are currently living in Liverpool
What happened to the previous video?
It wasn't supposed to go live, there were some small tweaks that needed to be made, I was going to delete the original when I got back home but there was a cockup with YT that made it go live 10hours before it was supposed to
Thanks for including the noise test!
You've added an adapter, lengthening the barrel of the Sigma, and so changed the ratio of the front diameter to the focal plain. Is it really still an f/1.4?
Yes, because all the adapter does it make up for the empty space that is usually there in a DSLR where the mirrorbox usually sits
Besides the aperture is a ratio of the iris opening to the focal length, not the barrel length
I sold my 35mm f1.4 emount sigma for the sony 35mm f1.8 and so far I'm more than happy with the lens, great review! 📷😉
Thank you 😊
I’m thinking about the same!
Just got mine and love it. When not mounted to the camera or Camera off. Does your elements inside the lens Move?
@@reflectionrecon yes they do, there are a few different lens designs that do this, it's nothing to worry about! 📷😉
I like to see the comparison of more subtle areas like sigma @1.8 and bokeh difference not the obvious ones. This makes me feel like sony is better in ABC and for D it is acceptable. Not helpful for decision making but just ads.
... thx, great video. 👍🏻 I would prefer the Sony 35/1.8, but: It isn‘t a battle if the battle is without the Sigma 35/1.2. 🙈 🙉 🙊
These two together is a battle ... Throw in the 1.2 and you've got yourself a war 🤣
Dave McKeegan 😄😄😄 ... there you are damn right!
pretty deep comparison, especially the point about actual light transmission, thanks a lot!
Woah, that vignetting is horrendous. I was considering this for a medium length astro lens, but maybe I'll need to reconsider...
Yeah it's not brilliant, although it's worth remembering that those tests were with in body corrections switched off, with it on the vignetting becomes negligible and with the performance of Sony sensors it doesn't really bother the image quality
A little off topic but while at PhotoExpo in NYC last week I got to try the new 14-24 f2.8 Sigma zoom. This is one of the first zooms made specifically for the Sony mount. All I have to say is wow! Quiet with super fast AF and very sharp through the whole Zoom range. Surprisingly not that heavy either. The rep there said this will be the approach with all new Sony glass going forward. Sigma just keeps getting better. One thing I don’t like about the Sony glass especially the Zeiss models is how easily the paint scratches off the metal parts. I have been banging around with some Sigma ART glass and the paint stays on much better.
I wonder if he had the version 2 firmware. I found it to be improved.
Cant find any vids on the native ver 2 35 1.4. Looking to possibly pick one up.
@@tinop414 Here is the link to download ver 2 firmware. www.sigma-global.com/en/download/lenses/firmware/a_35_14/#windows
I installed it quickly just like you install firmware for a Sony lens. Everything worked great and I think that is is improved, even though it was fine with ver 1. Some folks complained. enjoy.
David Wallace sorry to bother you, don’t you need the base station sto do the update?
@@AEROXPROD The E-mount version of the Sigma Art lenses are updated the same way you update Sony lenses. You update firmware with the lens and camera body and a USB cable.
Our English Springers were always way too big to carry around. LOL
Rusty doesn't care if he's too big or not 🤣
Sold my Sigma 35 + MC-11 for the Sony 1.8 as well. Size was definitely a deciding factor for me.
I have the sigma 35mm 1.4 and its sharp as hell. Lol cons used with a mc-11???
Is the sigma too heavy to carry around all day? Idk I’m torn between these two lenses. Sony is lighter, but there’s something magical about the sigma.
R u serious? U compared an adaptive lense to a native? Spend the money and then give us the comparison!!!! Otherwise don’t do it. This is doing a review of an iphone 8 comparing it to a samsung galaxy 7 but using an iphone 7 specs.
Except as I pointed out in the video, the only aspect that an adapter affects is the autofocus, the optics and thus image quality remains exactly the same
There are numerous comparison videos online comparing adapted Sigma Vs native Sigma and the image quality is identical and the autofocus is marginally improved with the biggest improvement being the AF noise
This video is mainly a review of the Sony, just with the Sigma included to provide a reference, it's easy to work out from there where an E-mount Sigma would lie in comparison, but if you'd like to donate the £200 for the mount conversion just for a direct comparison then I'll be happy to do it for you
I understand the point you make but think from this perspective ( i apologize if i keep using the phone analogy): if the previous generation phone is updated by software to make it operate as the new release phone. Does it mean they are both the same? If u compare two 2019 cars but you used one model from the 2018 and saying the specs are the same so the driving is the same. I understand that other channels may be doing it also, that still doesn’t make it a fair or good review. Don’t get me wrong. I bought the sigma and returned it bc of the weight. Saving to purchase the sony bc you said sony does the aperture more correctly then sigma so the sigma 1.4 maybe a 1.8 anyway.
Thank you for replying. I subscribed.
@@liemsters in respect of the phone analogy I would say if there was a release that claimed to bring last year's phone up to the performance of the new phone (which is obviously never going to happen) and you compared them together and found that was true, then you could arguably use still use the old phone as a benchmark to compare against other phones - which I did by researching the difference between native to adapted before the review
I agree it would have been misleading if hadn't have mentioned it or tried to pass the Sigma off as identical in everyway to the native.
Very nice review, thank you and greetings from France!
My wife said, "that's it! Where does Dave live? I'm sending him my lint-roller tomorrow for that shirt of his!" Keep up the good work my friend!
Haha, thanks for the offer however I already have lint rollers and they are pointless ... The moment I sit down anyway Rusty is straight onto of me 😁
Outstanding review, thanks !
Thank you Robert 😊
Thanks Dave for your reply - for some reason it just doesn't excite me - probably because I have just bought my most expensive lens ever with the Sony 24 prime, ha,ha!
Chryseas S. Put it in apsc mode and u have sony 35mm f2:) especially if u have A7r
So you decided to do it.... I did too... glad you are happy!
thanks man. been waiting for this comparsion :)) Sony won for me.
I do all my shoots with my 35 1.8 and 55 1.8 now. I still carry the 85 1.8 and my 105 1.4 art around but rarely break them out unless i need that extra bokeh. I also just picked up the 17-28 tamron and it's pretty amazing and light. Perfect travel camera :D Im now lusting after the 135 GM haha sigh. Slowly my EF mounted lenses are disapearing.
I know what you mean, my EF lens selection is slowly dwindling as well to the Sigma 20mm and a trio of Irix lenses
I also have my eye on the Tamron 17-28 😉
@@DaveMcKeegan im happy you picked up the 35 1.8! :)
So much CA on the Sony 35. I will never buy it. Sigma all the way
Hi Dave,
Great review !
BTW - I just got my copy today and noticed some minor specs on the glass ( which are not dust - couldn't remove them with lens pen )
Attached in the picture drive.google.com/file/d/1WwWbwJcXFChLo5TafNYjnErgY2iyIIff/view?usp=sharing
Do you think I should ask for a replacement or is it common to have minor blemishes as such ?
I took some shots with it and couldn't notice anything in the photos.
Thanks for your advise !
I hope you took it back. That lens has been used. No way in hell that that lens passed inspection at the factory. "Minor blemishes" are never acceptable on the front element of a new lens.
@@trouwfotomakerij Took it back. Ye - thanks :)
@@pianoman1973 Good! Did they replace it by an actual *new* lens? :-)
@@trouwfotomakerij Yep, they gave me another copy :)
gerald already did it! :p why music so loud :(
Yeah I had the lens on pre-order waiting to do the review when he posted his video ... Bloody Gerald! 😁
Apologies about the volume
Vignetting is horrible. Why is that? Is that just something physics demands or is it poor engineering? I was almost set to buy the Sigma f1.4, but if it is truly not 2/3s faster, I'm at a crossroads again. Shitty vignetting vs fake 1.4? What to do?
It's a limitation of the design which is a trade-off for the small size
However it's worth noting that those shots are with in camera corrections off, with it turned on the vignette is pretty much non existent
@@DaveMcKeegan I understand. Sony should have made it a bit bigger, it still would be small, and not have so much vignetting.
6:25 what!!!!
121 cm ;)
Imagine that adrenaline rush...
Your lack of eyepiece disturbs me
Rusty 😍😍😍. Seeing you after a long time...
WAKE UP DAVE !!!!!
How can You pretend to ignore the Sigma f1.2 and just not mention it - or just as bad : Do us all the insult to not check the situation before lecturing us ?
Always sickening the lack of discipline here on RUclips.
I didn't mention the 35mm f1.4 Distagon or Samyang either ... The Sigma 35 isn't really a fair comparison given that it's double the price of these.
The video is supposed to be more a review of the F1.8 with the Sigma more used as a reference.
@@DaveMcKeegan "we are OBVIOUSALLY going to compare it..." that's how You tinted Your film right from the start. Yourr replay to my critique is not honest.
@@AR-vf7vg It isn't an "Obvious" comparison, they are completely different, it would be like comparing up the Canon 85 1.2's to their 85 1.8's - The Sigma 1.2 is double the price of the 1.8, the only remote connection between them is that they were released around the same time ... the 'obvious' comparison for the Sigma would be the Sony Distagon 35mm f1.4
@@DaveMcKeegan (I was quoting Your introduction. But it's not worth it to me to convince you as much than just call it out. So long.)
@@AR-vf7vg I said "obviously" because that's the lens I had in my hand at the time - I'll edit that line out if it'll save on the confusion
You can't really talk about the 'best 35mm for sony' without talking about the sigma 35mm 1.2
And Zeiss 1.4
Right Mark! I agree with You and I will(...) make that point even more angrily..
7:30 ...damn, someone is scratching my inner side of skull with fingernails.
Lol dang u still have that mc11! Get rid of that thing, no need for it anymore
Haha I still have a couple of EF lenses 😁
i got my sigma last month for 400
Great deal !!!! From where ???
SUDHEESH SRIDHAR offer up
35mm 1.4 sigma
Hows the lens? Is it difficult to use? Is it really heavy?
doggo :)
Music too loud..
My apologies
Accepted good sir 😄 keep going
Lisbon!
Yes indeed, a very beautiful city 😊
I own one Sony 35mm 1.8 too by the way, very happy so far!
Sony 1.8 light and compact. Sigma 1.4 a heavy brick that will smash everything xD
I love my sigma