Sigma 35mm 1.4 DN L Mount

[Peters]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone - was wondering if anyone has had experience with using a sigma 35mm DN 1.4 (mirrorless version) recently on a Leica SL2 or SL2-S. I am most interested in autofocus performance - I understand that it was a little slow when it first came out but firmware updates since then may have improved things. 

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Simone_DF]

 

[RBB]

I use the 35mm DN f/1.4 on the SL2 and Sl2s, I do mostly landscape, travelling and use it when there is limited light, I never noticed that the autofocus system is too slow, it's not a lens you use for sports or birds in flight. Where do you want to use the lens for?

ps wide open it's pretty good

[Peters]

Street mostly, and at night. Sounds like it's good enough?

[FrankX]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Peters:

Street mostly, and at night. Sounds like it's good enough?

Not sure... The AF is quite snappy in good light, but slower than the Panasonic 50 1.8 by a significant margin. For street photography I would clearly prefer the lighter, smaller and probably much faster Panasonic 35 1.8.

However, the 35 1.4 DG DN is definitely not a slow focusing lens. At least, it was able to track a bride and a groom walking slowly up the stairs against a very bright background. Almost 100% tack sharp photos. See example below.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[SJH]

I think this lens is pretty good AF wise now and with the Eye AF update my SL2s is pretty snappy, no it's not A1 35mm GM fast but for most things it's more than good enough.

My 35 SL SPO is now gone and I ended up with a Q2R and the 35mm M APO instead, I really like the Sigma and it's a 1.4 as well of course - it's easily 95% of the SL35 APO and in 99% of cases you can't tell the difference at f2.

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How much better is it than the f2?

Just thinking of the increase in size and weight and wondering if I can justify it, definitely not considering the 1.2!

[Peters]

Performance at single point AF still good? 

 

As for the 1.2 - way too big. Will be interested to see how the 50mm 1.2 fares tho... 

[Photoworks]

On 6/14/2022 at 2:40 PM, huwm said:

How much better is it than the f2?

Just thinking of the increase in size and weight and wondering if I can justify it, definitely not considering the 1.2!

I got it for a little to test next to my App SL 35.

at F2 the images where hard to tell apart .

Added bonus of 1.4. It does have little CA.

I still have the App-SL 35. it can do MF a bit better then sigma. Some sigma lenses give the battery problems on the SL2.

But the Sigma is a valid choice. 

[Peters]

how did the AF compare between the 35mm APO and the sigma art?

[SJH]

From my point of view I'd say that the 35mm APO is slightly faster but it's nosier and 'pulses' a bit more, the new eye AF feature though certainly helps.

Equally I do prefer Sigma's approach of having an aperture ring, IQ and AF wise the 35mm APO is better but not by very much now in my view. From memory they weigh about the same & really the AF speed advantage the SL lens has is marginal. I've also been impressed by the build quality.

The Leica 'magic' also seems to make their f2 APO's behave like 1.4's in some circumstances so there's not much of difference here but it goes to the Sigma for a true 1.4 but the margins are as narrow as the AF performance ones.

[Archiver]

On 6/14/2022 at 6:27 AM, FrankX said:

Not sure... The AF is quite snappy in good light, but slower than the Panasonic 50 1.8 by a significant margin. For street photography I would clearly prefer the lighter, smaller and probably much faster Panasonic 35 1.8.

However, the 35 1.4 DG DN is definitely not a slow focusing lens. At least, it was able to track a bride and a groom walking slowly up the stairs against a very bright background. Almost 100% tack sharp photos. See example below.

On the Panasonic S5, the 50mm f1.8 focuses pretty fast, but strangely, the Panasonic G9 with focuses noticeably faster with the Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro. So if the Sigma 35mm f1.4 focuses slower than the Panasonic 50, it does make me wonder about the Sigma's AF speed. I wish I could rent the Sigma for a weekend.

[Leicaboy Norway]

On 6/16/2022 at 4:28 AM, Photoworks said:

I got it for a little to test next to my App SL 35.

at F2 the images where hard to tell apart .

Added bonus of 1.4. It does have little CA.

I still have the App-SL 35. it can do MF a bit better then sigma. Some sigma lenses give the battery problems on the SL2.

But the Sigma is a valid choice. 

If it's hard to tell image apart from the best lens of the best SL Apo lenses then I feel someone has taken us for a ride.

[crf59]

I always resisted buying non-Leica lenses for my SLs or Ms. However, in recent years I have bought some Voigtlanders and Zeiss lenses for my Ms and recently a couple of Sigmas for my SL3 (the 85mm 1.4 Art is stellar).

The truth is, whether anyone wants to admit it, is that the better 3rd party lenses (Sigma Art, even some Sigma Contemporary, Voigtlander/Zeiss) are a match or at least very close to the Leicas. There, I said it. 

Specifically, I bought a Sigma 35mm DG DN Art 1.4 for my SL3 and wanted to compare it to my 35mm APO. Yes, the APO is better ultimately, but it's splitting hairs. The APO has no fringing at all that I have been able to detect. In some demanding situations the Sigma will fringe, but at 1.4. Resolution is better by a tiny margin with the APO but you really have to look at high magnification to see it. The Sigma has similar micro contrast and "pop" everyone associates with APO lenses.

On the M side, the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 is BETTER than my 35mm Summilux ASPH (FLE version) when it comes to technical performance (sharpness, contrast, distortion) and has zippier colors. Now I still like the look or rendering of the Summilux, but that's personal preference.

My point is it's a myth that Leica has better lens designs than companies like Sigma. The quality control, perhaps tolerances and sourcing of glass leads to some advantages, but Sigma is every bit as good at DESIGNING lenses as Leica is. I would expect some advantages in $5500 lenses over $900 lenses and they are there, but I'd bet very few could tell in an 11x14 print the difference between the Sigma 35mm Art and Leica APO. In the future, as AI/ML algorithms improve computer aided design of optics (and they already are) I bet the differences will be yet smaller.

I'll still buy Leica lenses whenever possible because I like the build quality, the excellent performance, and the seamless blending with my Leica bodies. But I am no longer hung up on the notion that Leica beats everyone in the optics department. It's just not true anymore. And let's face it, the SL lenses in particular are large and heavy. I now have travel options that don't compromise picture quality.

Flame spray away - but I would encourage you to prove me wrong.

[stephenmick]

19 minutes ago, crf59 said:

Specifically, I bought a Sigma 35mm DG DN Art 1.4 for my SL3 and wanted to compare it to my 35mm APO. Yes, the APO is better ultimately, but it's splitting hairs. The APO has no fringing at all that I have been able to detect. In some demanding situations the Sigma will fringe, but at 1.4. Resolution is better by a tiny margin with the APO but you really have to look at high magnification to see it. The Sigma has similar micro contrast and "pop" everyone associates with APO lenses.

…

My point is it's a myth that Leica has better lens designs than companies like Sigma. The quality control, perhaps tolerances and sourcing of glass leads to some advantages, but Sigma is every bit as good at DESIGNING lenses as Leica is. I would expect some advantages in $5500 lenses over $900 lenses and they are there, but I'd bet very few could tell in an 11x14 print the difference between the Sigma 35mm Art and Leica APO. In the future, as AI/ML algorithms improve computer aided design of optics (and they already are) I bet the differences will be yet smaller.

Flame spray away - but I would encourage you to prove me wrong.

No need to flame away or prove you wrong. You said it yourself. The 35 APO has zero fringing and as you say, slightly better resolution. Therefore it is a better lens design, and that is not a myth. The only question for anyone would be, is the difference worth the price. For some, yes…for others, maybe not. 

[thatkatmat]

23 hours ago, stephenmick said:

No need to flame away or prove you wrong. You said it yourself. The 35 APO has zero fringing and as you say, slightly better resolution. Therefore it is a better lens design, and that is not a myth. The only question for anyone would be, is the difference worth the price. For some, yes…for others, maybe not. 

This is always the answer. Are the tiny incremental benefits worth your $? 

If you think the 35 is worth considering, which it is, you should try the 50/1.2 (It's amazing) 

[pf4eva]

On 9/13/2024 at 2:34 PM, crf59 said:

I always resisted buying non-Leica lenses for my SLs or Ms. However, in recent years I have bought some Voigtlanders and Zeiss lenses for my Ms and recently a couple of Sigmas for my SL3 (the 85mm 1.4 Art is stellar).

The truth is, whether anyone wants to admit it, is that the better 3rd party lenses (Sigma Art, even some Sigma Contemporary, Voigtlander/Zeiss) are a match or at least very close to the Leicas. There, I said it. 

Specifically, I bought a Sigma 35mm DG DN Art 1.4 for my SL3 and wanted to compare it to my 35mm APO. Yes, the APO is better ultimately, but it's splitting hairs. The APO has no fringing at all that I have been able to detect. In some demanding situations the Sigma will fringe, but at 1.4. Resolution is better by a tiny margin with the APO but you really have to look at high magnification to see it. The Sigma has similar micro contrast and "pop" everyone associates with APO lenses.

On the M side, the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 is BETTER than my 35mm Summilux ASPH (FLE version) when it comes to technical performance (sharpness, contrast, distortion) and has zippier colors. Now I still like the look or rendering of the Summilux, but that's personal preference.

My point is it's a myth that Leica has better lens designs than companies like Sigma. The quality control, perhaps tolerances and sourcing of glass leads to some advantages, but Sigma is every bit as good at DESIGNING lenses as Leica is. I would expect some advantages in $5500 lenses over $900 lenses and they are there, but I'd bet very few could tell in an 11x14 print the difference between the Sigma 35mm Art and Leica APO. In the future, as AI/ML algorithms improve computer aided design of optics (and they already are) I bet the differences will be yet smaller.

I'll still buy Leica lenses whenever possible because I like the build quality, the excellent performance, and the seamless blending with my Leica bodies. But I am no longer hung up on the notion that Leica beats everyone in the optics department. It's just not true anymore. And let's face it, the SL lenses in particular are large and heavy. I now have travel options that don't compromise picture quality.

Flame spray away - but I would encourage you to prove me wrong.

You Might also try 35/1.2 from sigma, it is on a bigger side, but it is the best fast 35mm available at the moment:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/09/mtf-tests-of-the-sigma-35mm-f1-2-dg-art/