I very rarely comment on reviews but that was probably the best lens review I have seen. Great content, clearly explained and high production values. Fantastic work.
I finally bought the 35mm SIGMA two and a half months ago and never regretted it. It's my favorite lens at weddings now and I'm using it at 75% of the time! :-)
I just rented it this weekend before I buy it because I've heard so many mixed reviews about the focusing. It does miss focus looking thru the VF, but in LV I had no issues. I'm using a Canon T8i
Matthew, thank you for your videos (especially the comparison vids) You present information beautifully and in a way that is clear, comprehensive and useful. DON'T STOP PRODUCING! You are great at it.
Thank you for doing my homework for me, and clarifying which lens I need to get. I JUST ordered it. Great and clear video, with time and care taken into the edits. Must have taken forever! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Hi Matthew, I have a question pertaining the colour.I test both lens myself with 5dmark 3 and I find the sigma has cooler colour while canon version is warmer and more vibrant. However,I see your image comparison looks very similar.How you do it?
Hi Ronnie, I don't find there to be any significant color differences. I shoot RAW, and when I set them to the same color temperature for comparison, they look virtually identical. More importantly, when I'm doing color critical work, I use a color checker ( goo.gl/GJkK52 ) and create a custom profile for each lens so that the colors always come out as accurate as possible, and I've never had a problem.
Hello, The answer there is that the lenses are not fixed at f/1.4. F/1.4 is their maximum aperture available, but not the only aperture available. When you see a lens like a 24-70 f/2.8, people may say that it has a fixed f/2.8 aperture, but what they mean is that it has an f/2.8 aperture available across the entire zoom range... unlike a lens like the 55-250 f/3.5-5.6, where the f/3.5 is only available at the 55mm end of the zoom range, but when you zoom it out to 200mm, only f/5.6 will be available as the maximum aperture.... it's not fixed. Hope that helps.
Yes, they are prime lenses, which so the f/1.4 is available all the time. But it's AVAILABLE the whole time, not fixed. The focal length is fixed (35mm)... that's what makes it prime. The 1.4 is always AVAILABLE as part of the aperture range, but you can always set it to f/2.8 or f/16 , etc. With some zoom lenses, the largest aperture at the near end of the zoom range is NOT available at the other end of the zoom range (so the aperture range is variable, not fixed).
Montague Films, my gosh did he save me lots of money as well. I shoot with a Canon and I’ve always bought Canon everything, but I’m definitely buying this lens.
not IMO, the Leica 35 ASPH 1.4 summilux is very old and come close or even perform better than this two, the colors in the Leica lens are to me just awesome and the size and weight is incredible on the Leica for such a high performance, anyway i don´t want to argue all the three lens are the best 35 f/1.4 a viable, to me Sigma wins cause the price, i owned the Leica for a long time and i have a collection of amazing photos, but that said the Sigma is a temptation now
I bought this lens because of this video. tested the lens yesterday on my Canon 70D, and I was amazed how it shot outdoor. tested it out during low light at my friends party and boy! the lens was struggling focusing on my subject. the tone it produces is more on the warmer side compare to cooler image from the Canon 50mm f/1.8. For some weird reason the Canon 50mm f/1.8 images are way sharper that this lens. I tried to like this lens but the focusing is driving me nuts during low light. I will be returning this lens tomorrow. very disappointed. maybe my lens is defective?
L BS Hmm... that's interesting. I don't really shoot much video, and rarely use autofocus for it, so I can't say whether this is typical for the lens, or whether you just happened to be in a situation that your camera struggled with. It is very surprising to hear that the 50 1.8 is sharper... that just shouldn't be the case, so perhaps it is defective. It's also possible that it requires calibration. If you get a new one, I'd be interested to hear you results.
+Matthew Gore I'm not talking about using it as a video. I'm talking about image quality and focus. the focus was so inconsistent shooting indoor. it was pretty much a shoot or miss deal with me during my friends partay. I couldn't even upload it to show the the picture cause of the image quality is not even as good as the 50mm 1.8
L BS Got it. Just reread your post... not sure why I thought you were shooting video :) Anyway, it certainly sounds like there's something wrong with your lens; it should be significantly sharper than the 50 1.8, and I can at least say that I didn't have any trouble focusing with it in low light with the 5D III, though I didn't test it with an APS-C camera.
Matthew Gore I wouldn't be so sure. I am surprised as well, but my Canon 50mm 1.8 STM is incredibly sharp. So much so that it doesn't seem possible. At 2.8 the Canon 50mm is sharper than most L primes at F/3.2. I am not sure what they do to cause the 50mm to be pretty much perfect in a cheap case. I am testing via a full frame as well. It has become apparent to me that the L series zooms are worth it, but the L series primes do not seem worth it. Neither do the more expensive sigmas over the regular Canon USM primes. Except for durability of course. A good example of this, look at the 100mm F/2 USM, the 500 dollar one. Then look at the 100mm F/2.8. I've owned both. You can even compare the 135mm F/2L to the 100mm F/2. I would give the L series the win on the 135mm, but it's not by as much as I think people would assume. I am starting to realize that the L series is more about build quality, sometimes you get more sharpness, sometimes you don't. When you do, it's not as much as one would think. Canon somehow has done really well with their non L series USM primes. It's hard to justify the L series primes if one doesn't need weather sealing and build quality. The only L series lenses I would get at this point would be the 24-70 2.8 and the 135 F/2. I don't shoot longer than 135 so I can't comment on that. Any prime under 135 I would just get the Canon USM one.
I shot with both sigma and canon copies for weddings . I have to say that sigma 35mm does struggle focusing in low light. It has slight hesitation before locking in the focus. The canon version locks in subjects much better in low light settings
Matthew, this is one of the best lens review videos I've seen in the three to four years that I've been pursuing photography. I bought the Sigma 35mm 1.4 "Art" lens a few months ago but just saw your video now. Well done, please keep up the good work and post more!
Only if you've run into resolution-related problems with the Canon for the type of work you do. The Canon will be just fine for a lot of people and types of photography.
Hellow, Congrats for your reviews. What would you recommend for an entry level camera like Nikon D3300 ? Sigma 18-35 mm 35 mm 1.8 or Sigma 35 mm 1.4. Thanks a lot.
That's a tricky question, because I always recommend getting the best lens that you can afford... but the Sigma lenses might be overkill for a beginner. I'd probably go with the Nikon 35mm 1.8G amzn.to/2gkwALi , since it's less than $200, compared to nearly $1000 for the others. But if you're confident that you're serious enough about photography to buy serious lenses, I'd probably opt for one of the Sigmas... probably the 18-35 for me (I'd want the flexibility) but its hard to go wrong either way.
Thanks Matthew for doing these detailed reviews! I am in the market for the Sigma 24mm 1.4, can't wait to see your video about this lens. Greetings from the rooftop of the world (Nepal)
Does the lens suffer from BF/FF issues like the other Art series lenses? I was planning to get the 18-35 F1.8 or this lens, but the auto focus issue is holding me back from purchasing it, since I do street and low light photography. Could anyone advise me?
No, I've pretty much just been a photographer for over 20 years. I have been getting interested in video over the past few years, but I don't consider myself a pro yet.
Matthew Gore i got it well if in future i am looking for model photography i will contact you and i live in us dc I subscribed you and .. nice to meet you ..
Great to meet you too :-) I'm in Seattle, so it's a bit of a distance, but I'm always happy to travel for a good shoot. Best of luck with your channel!
Matthew, what portrait lens is best for my canon t4i camera? I'm currently own a 50mm 1.4. I think I need a better one. Honestly, it doesn't have to be a canon brand as long as it works & fits. Thank you and I love your voice. Subscribed!!!!
Hi! This is an excellent comparison! Just what I was looking for. I have a question.. I saw you used a CANON 5D MARKIII but maybe you know the answer; I´m interested on buying the CANON 6d (not the 5d markiii because of the budget), and 2 sigma art lenses, one is the 35mm f/1.4 . I just read so many different opinions, most bad reviews about the autofocus... At your review I saw It actually worked OK (not perfect, but ok) Do you know if maybe there´s something wrong when using it at the canon6d? Thanks! Great video!
I don't know if there's any special problem with autofocus and the 6D. With all large aperture primes, AF is tricky and takes some practice, since the depth of field is so shallow, so it's very easy to blame the lens. I don't know if that has anything to do with it in this case, but it's possible.
Hello sir, I confused about 2 lens.... Sigma 35mm 1.4 art DG HSM & tamron SP 35 1.4 Di Please suggest me which one should I buy !! My priority better sharpness, better bokeh, better color reproduction... I'm Nikon D750 user. Please help me🙏🙏🙏
Both of these lenses are excellent. The Tamron is probably the highest resolution 35mm lens that I've ever used, but the Sigma is also quite good, as you can see in the video here. Unfortunately, I haven't used the Tamron enough to have compared the two side by side, so I can't say which is better for bokeh or color reproduction (they can both be perfect if you shoot raw and create a custom color profile). By the time the Tamron lens was released, I had already switched to Sony, so I just don't have a ton of experience with it.
I've seen so many photographer comparing lenses. Nobody did what you do. Your way of comparing lenses side by side is the best ever in TH-cam videos. I subscribed. Keep up the good work.
By far the best comparison video I've seen. The somewhat monotone voice helped vs most canon fan boys who yelled and screamed about a canon and then poopoos over other lenses. This was as objective in my mind as it got. That said, Canon fanboys will still buy the L lens, because it's not about the images to them, it's about the red ring... So... Those of you who buy a sigma, here's a tip, buy a sigma and put a red rubber band on your lens. There you go. Great job on the video, look forward to others.
I'd be hard pressed to say that you NEED any lens. If you like shooting at the 35mm end of your zoom and want more light or shallower depth of field, then yes, you do need it to achieve those goals. If you just want something with a 35mm angle of view, then no... you've got it covered. Ultimately, it comes down to what kind of photographer you are, and what your goals are.
Im confused on something .If I have a crop senson .Add 35mm will I esentaly have a 50mm focal length and how would depth of field compare between a APSC with a 35 1.4 and a Full frame with a 50mm 1.4 .
I liked the review but I really can't understand something...What's the point to do this kind of tests on a landscape photo???? I think it doesn't make sense at all :/ Expecially when you test the wide apertures, what's the sense of analyzing sharpness and contrast in the corner, which I'm sure are not on the focus plane? This makes confusion between the "softness" due to the out of focus area and the effective loss of sharpness at the corners! If you use those lenses at wide apertures you'd probably never shoot landscape photos but you'll have a main subject and a blurry background, and in this case the sharpness in the corners is not so important. For lower apertures you test makes more sense intstead
I have got some focus problems with my 35mm art.. and was thinking of selling and getting the 35L... really confused right now. shoud investing in the dock solve my focus problem? Or better go with the 35L?
+Matthew Gore hi Maathew. Thanks for you fast reply. I use AL servo on my 5d mk2 and center focus point... sometime its tack sharp and spot on and sometimes it looks like its back focusing. I had a shoot last month and missed a couple of great shots because of that. hope you can give me some advice. I can buy a used 35mm L for 560 euro!
Hey Johnny, It doesn't sound like this is a problem with the lens' micro adjustment; if it were, you'd get back-focusing every time, or very nearly... nobody gets focus right every time. If there's some other kind of issue that the dock could fix (updated firmware for the lens, for example) that might help, I don't know. Before buying new equipment, though, I think it's worth remembering a few things, and asking yourself a few questions: 1. No autofocus system is perfect. You're going to miss some shots now and then, regardless of camera and lens. 2. The larger the aperture you use, the more glaring that fact will be, due to the shallow depth of field. 3. The AF point markers in your camera's viewfinder are only rough estimates, especially on cameras (like the mark II) that only have a single AF point in the center area. You should test your camera to see where the AF point actually begins and ends, like so: get a clean, smooth piece of paper and tape it to a well lit wall. Get close the paper so that it's filling most of your camera's viewfinder, if possible. Choose only your center point and verify that your camera can't focus on the center of the paper (it shouldn't be able to). Now use a dark pen to draw a square in the middle of that paper. Verify that you center point can now focus on the square. Now, move your AF point to the blank white space to the left of the square, and try to focus again (it shouldn't be able to), and keep moving back to the right until your camera CAN focus on that square you've drawn. You'll notice that the edge of your AF point box might not line up with the square you've drawn. Do that from the top, bottom, left and right. I hope that makes sense. You'll get a better idea of where your AF point actually is in your frame that way. 4. No photographer is perfect. Even if your equipment is working as it should, sometimes we just make mistakes. So... taking all of that into account, you'll have to judge whether you're getting results that are unusually bad, or whether you're blaming your lens for something that is not its fault :-) If you're still not sure, feel free to email me the pictures where you missed focus, along with some from the same shoot where you didn't miss focus, and it may help be determine whether the lens is to blame. Sorry for the messy answer.
+Matthew Gore thankd for your time to answer and helping me out with my focus problem. what is your email adres (or you can reply my email) then I send you some of the pictures. Best Johnny_armani@hotmail.com
I have problen with my sigma 35 it's not sharp at all when i and im usin canon 650d or t4i. When i watch the ved its impressive but the real result with me is totally the opposite. Can you plezez tell me what the solution??
Unfortunately, there are a lot of possibilities, and it's hard to say without seeing some of your images (but take a look at my article about blurry images, here: www.lightandmatter.org/2013/learn-photography/four-reasons-your-photos-are-blurry-and-how-to-avoid-them/) It's also possible that there's a problem with the lens; it could have an element that's out of alignment or you may need to adjust the focus with Sigma's USB lens dock ( goo.gl/2TQNN3 ).
might need to have firmware updated and/or have the focusing tuned. there are 2 ways of doing this. either send the lens to sigma OR you can get the sigma lens USB dock (costs $60 USD), download sigma's lens tuning software and update/tune the lens yourself.
subscribed! Awesome review brother! I just came back home from a camera store with two awesome SIGMA Prime lenses. 35mm and 85mm and Im so freaking impressed with the design and ESPECIALLY the price!!! I saved my self $1800 MASSIVE SAVINGS.
You probably dont give a damn but does anybody know of a trick to log back into an instagram account..? I somehow lost my password. I appreciate any tips you can give me
@Andy Chance I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im in the hacking process now. I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
I'm afraid that I didn't test the lens with a 5D Mark II. For me, with the Mark III, I didn't have any trouble with autofocus at all (and of course, there's always the Sigma focus dock).
hello please help ive been trying to figure out if there both wide angled or not i cannot tell dureing video testing could somone please tell me if there both wide angle
Both lenses have the same angle of view, roughly.. Whether you consider it wide depends on the camera sensor you're using, and what you consider "wide", but most will consider 35mm wide on a full-frame sensor. On an APS-C sensor, they're more like a 50mm lens, which is not really wide... it's a mid-range or "normal" lens.
Nice review. Do you have any idea what settings you were using when shooting the skateboarding photos? They looked really nice. Do have the raw files for them?
c0pyimitati0n Yes, for the skateboarding pictures, I was shooting at f/2 and between 1/1000th and 1/5000th of a second, depending on the light, at ISO 100. For the shots against the sky, that generally includes +2 stops of exposure compensation. These were all shot as RAW files, and the images in the video have some post-processing to bring up the shadows or bring down the highlights. I do still have the RAW files, but they're not going to be publicly available.
Matthew Gore ok thank you very much. Those pictures looked very crisp. My skate pics i think i tend to add to much contrast because the skin tones get yellowy. There are almost no shadows in those pics, it's almost like you used flash.
c0pyimitati0n Yep, instead of using flash, I over-exposed. If you're curious, I've just posted some before and after pictures of my post-processing on one of those skate pics on the site... just scroll down to it: wp.me/p1qGtv-1ZZ
Matthew Gore I shoot in raw as well, but i tend to shoot around f/5.6 or so, so that i can get the whole skater in focus. I feel like it would be pretty hard to do at f/2, but it looks like you didn't have too much of a hard time. Thanks for the good tips!
I was wondering if/when you'd continue making new videos. Love this new video. (Already have the 35mm f/2.0 IS, so I'm all set, but interesting comparison. Excited to see your follow-up video with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4)
Sounds like you may have already seen my recent Tamron 35mm vs Canon f/2 video, but the Tamron vs Sigma video is on the way. Probably will publish it on Monday, if not sooner.
Of course, the answer there is that I didn't have any focusing problems. I understand that some people say they have them, but I can only assume that it's a problem that crops up with particular cameras with the lens, or with certain samples of the lens. I had no problems, so I can't report any.
Thanks for the suggestion; I've been thinking about that one... or the Canon vs the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, which is also a pretty worthy lens. I'll keep it in mind.
The CA you do not expect to see at f/8 is of the lateral type, and as such it is not reduced by a smaller aperture. Correcting lateral CA is easy and improves resolution.
In my experience, even lateral CAs are usually improved by stopping down a lens. For a good example of this, take a look at my most recent video and the Tamron 35mm f/1.8. It has strong(ish) lateral CA at larger apertures, easily visible in the video, and they disappear after I stop down a few stops. As for correcting lateral chromatic aberration, it's true that it can be handled pretty easily in post processing, but not without image degradation, and never completely. I won't get into all the details here, but I'll cut and paste the Wiki bullet points: - Rescaling is only applicable to lateral chromatic aberration but there is also longitudinal chromatic aberration - Rescaling individual color channels result in a loss of resolution from the original image - Most camera sensors only capture a few and discrete (e.g., RGB) color channels but chromatic aberration is not discrete and occurs across the light spectrum - The dyes used in the digital camera sensors for capturing color are not very efficient so cross-channel color contamination is unavoidable and causes, for example, the chromatic aberration in the red channel to also be blended into the green channel along with any green chromatic aberration.
I'm planning on doing a few tests with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I may do it with the Canon 1.2 or 1.4, but I also want to test it against the Zeiss Otus 55mm.
A good review/comparison. Just remember the Canon was released in 1998, the Sigma in 2012, lens design has come a long way in 14yrs. Many are waiting for a Mark II update, hoping it is as dramatic of an update like the 24mm f1.4 Mark II was. The Sigma look stunning, visually and IQ wise, the price is fantastic!
TeK RaVeN There's really no right answer there... it's a matter of artistic choice and personal taste. Personally, I prefer the 24mm, but I'm sure many people would also prefer the 35mm, especially those who shoot street photography. The best thing to do is borrow or rent the pair of lenses and see which one fits with your own style the best. (Or, buy both from a place that has a good return policy, and return the one that you don't like as much :-) )
COPY THIS; Very rarely comment on reviews but that was probably the best lens review I have seen. Great content, clearly explained and high production values. Fantastic work. ;) ....
I have a Canon 17-40mm f/4L and I now want to by a new lens. The 2 Im looking at right now are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art". Witch one would be of more use if taking in consideration that i have the 17-40mm? Im mostly taking photos of open landscapes and buildings, but I would like some faster lens and some bokeh too :)
Unfortunately, you're the only person who can choose which focal length is best for you... it's a completely a matter of personal taste. The 35mm will give you a wider field of view (if you want it for landscapes) and the 50mm will give you better bokeh most of the time... though the 35mm is not bad when you're shooting close-ups. You might think about sorting through your favorite photos and looking at what focal length you shot them with, and decide that way. Good luck!
Thank you for your reply. I found that my favorite photos were taken between 20-40mm. So I guess I might go with the 35mm even though I have 35mm in the range of my 17-40. I think that the faster aperture will help me when I travel and take photos in low light situations :) f4 is not so bright :)
Yes! instagram.com/matthew.lightandmatter/ I'm on 500px too, but never use it anymore. You can find the rest of my social media through the website: www.lightandmatter.org
I can write 5-6 comments with full 500 characters to express how much I appreciate your detailed and "no-one done that before " work. (Because this comparisons of lenses means a lot to us who live in poor country where the borrowing lens for one day cost almost 1/10 of the price of the new) But I'll gonna just say: Tnx. FOREVER SUBSCRIBER.
Your reviews are brilliant mate. Accurate, no BS, unbiased... can rely upon. very well done! It would be very helpful if you could get a chance to review the latest Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2.
I have the baby Sigma. My go-to lenses are the baby Sigma and a Zeiss 45mm 2.8 pancake, which is still head and shoulders above the Sigma in terms of richness whenever I can use it but the Sigma is amazing compared to the price point of the Canon right --- just make sure you have it dialed in perfectly because the focus can be a real mother. Don't know if I need to calibrate it or just be more careful.
hey matthew how you're doing my brother it's so good to talk to somebody who also have the same camera as me. i have the 16-35 mark 2 lens and the 50mm lens i want to get the sigma 18-35 but should i get that even though i have the 16-35 L series lens? i want the 55-250 and the 15-85 lens i was told they are some good lens and they're cheap ya see. i want another good prime len like the 35 for portraits. i want the 1. 15-85 2. 55-250 3. 24mm 4. 24-105 5.35mm 6. 18-35 i think having 8 lens should be good and i don't have to go with full frame if i don't want to right i think camera is good enough
Just so we're on the same page, I do have a Canon 60D, but all of the photos in this video were shot with the 5D Mark III full frame :-) In general, my advice is always the same for photographers... buy the least expensive camera that will meet your needs, and buy the best lenses that you can afford. Lenses make the most difference in your work. That said, just buy lenses that cover your specific needs as a photographer... I wouldn't buy a prime 24mm lens for the kind of work that I do, but other photographers use them all the time. The one advantage to the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is that f/1.8 aperture... it will let in twice as much light as an f/2.8 lens like the 16-35. So, if you need more light, that's a reason to go that direction. It's also designed for a smaller sensor, so you might get better image quality, but I'm not positive... I've never looked at them side by side. Personally, I'd get an f/2.8 lens in the 16-50mm range (or 24-70) and get a 70-200 f/2.8. Although the 55-250 is pretty good, optically, it's still not going to let in much light... at 200mm, the best you'll get is f5.6, so about a quarter of the light that you'd get from an f/2.8 lens. Those lenses will cover most shooting circumstances, and then you can get primes to cover specific needs.
@@MatthewGore so buy the 24-70 70-200 and 18-35 sounds good to me but matthew what would be a good speed light flash to get for my 80d and which of these lenses you recommended would be great to take pictures at night. my day time pictures are great but i want to get better at night
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 Any f/2.8 lens will be pretty good at night. Prime lenses that have larger apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, etc) will be even better. Lenses with image stabilization will also be good at night in that you won't get as much camera shake, but it won't help if your photo subject is moving... so large apertures are ideal for that. For Speedlights... most of them are great these days. Look into the Godox range: good quality and not too expensive.
@@MatthewGore well i will see about getting the 1.4 and try taking pictures at night and see what does for me. so what's soooooooooo good about full frame cameras matthew?
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 Full frame has more surface area per megapixel usually, so there's less digital noise at high ISO. The difference is usually about 2 stops, but it's getting to be less. Also, you get shallower depth of field with a full frame, assuming that the two are similarly composed. Some people like that for portraits.
Excellent review here. Since your video came on the net, sigma have released a 20mm f1.4. I would love to see a lens comparision between canon and the sigma 20mm f1.4. By the way, with all the distortion on these lens, surely the lens companies should take these problems into account when designed their products, am I correct? If so, why the continuous imperfections with high-quality glass? I am trying to get my head around why it is so expensive for good lens...then we see what you have explained... Looking forward to your next av report.
The AF Tracking not tracking fast enough when something is moving fast towards you is pretty normal.. to get around it, I do shorter bursts consecutively i.e. burst, let go for a split second, then burst again. It seems to work better. My camera is limited to 7fps, but I'm guessing a camera with 14fps shooting would do a bit better since it's not lagging. I also notice my camera lags more when I'm doing a really long burst (20+) and then the AF tracking degrades more... it also gets worse when my card is nearly full (I have a 64GB 95MB/s) as the card writes slower. So you can do things to help it.
I very rarely comment on reviews but that was probably the best lens review I have seen. Great content, clearly explained and high production values. Fantastic work.
Zebra Digital agreeeeeed! 👍🏻
I finally bought the 35mm SIGMA two and a half months ago and never regretted it. It's my favorite lens at weddings now and I'm using it at 75% of the time! :-)
I just rented it this weekend before I buy it because I've heard so many mixed reviews about the focusing. It does miss focus looking thru the VF, but in LV I had no issues. I'm using a Canon T8i
Thanks for taking the time to do this - made it easy for me to decide which lens to get
I've never seen a more informative comparison video. Awesome.
Thanks Jessie
Wow this is one of the best reviews i have seen on youtube, thanks man, great job.
Buen review!!! ya viste, rentemos los 2 y sacamos nuestras conclusiones :)
Matthew, thank you for your videos (especially the comparison vids) You present information beautifully and in a way that is clear, comprehensive and useful. DON'T STOP PRODUCING! You are great at it.
Matthew your reviews are serious and very detailed! Thankyou so much!
When Canon gives you lemons, you buy a Sigma.
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
Mandeep Kalsi it's kinda obvious, you shouldn't say it
I LoVE IT
@@69_MK Hopefully life gave you some sugar and some water as well.
Thank you for doing my homework for me, and clarifying which lens I need to get. I JUST ordered it. Great and clear video, with time and care taken into the edits. Must have taken forever! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Glad it was useful for you :-)
Hi Matthew,
I have a question pertaining the colour.I test both lens myself with 5dmark 3 and I find the sigma has cooler colour while canon version is warmer and more vibrant.
However,I see your image comparison looks very similar.How you do it?
Hi Ronnie,
I don't find there to be any significant color differences. I shoot RAW, and when I set them to the same color temperature for comparison, they look virtually identical. More importantly, when I'm doing color critical work, I use a color checker ( goo.gl/GJkK52 ) and create a custom profile for each lens so that the colors always come out as accurate as possible, and I've never had a problem.
How you get to different aperture when both lenses are fix 1.4 ?
Hello, The answer there is that the lenses are not fixed at f/1.4. F/1.4 is their maximum aperture available, but not the only aperture available. When you see a lens like a 24-70 f/2.8, people may say that it has a fixed f/2.8 aperture, but what they mean is that it has an f/2.8 aperture available across the entire zoom range... unlike a lens like the 55-250 f/3.5-5.6, where the f/3.5 is only available at the 55mm end of the zoom range, but when you zoom it out to 200mm, only f/5.6 will be available as the maximum aperture.... it's not fixed. Hope that helps.
Matthew Gore Thank u for responding and yes I know but I thought the 35mm 1.4 were prime lenses not zoom lens!
Yes, they are prime lenses, which so the f/1.4 is available all the time. But it's AVAILABLE the whole time, not fixed. The focal length is fixed (35mm)... that's what makes it prime. The 1.4 is always AVAILABLE as part of the aperture range, but you can always set it to f/2.8 or f/16 , etc. With some zoom lenses, the largest aperture at the near end of the zoom range is NOT available at the other end of the zoom range (so the aperture range is variable, not fixed).
Matthew Gore ok ok you’re right, what am I thinking 🤦🏾♂️ but thanks again! Very good and helpful channel. So I’m getting the sigma lol
thank you for this. I was 2 hours away from buying the Canon. You just saved me $400
There's actually a flash deal on this lens on Amazon today, for $699... so hopefully you saved more than that :) goo.gl/IrXxh8
Woh! Thanks Matthew!
Montague Films, my gosh did he save me lots of money as well. I shoot with a Canon and I’ve always bought Canon everything, but I’m definitely buying this lens.
@@eviem70 do u shoot video? if so, how is the stabilizaion?
Yes the sigma is better ,but the Canon 35mm 1.4L is still damn good for a lens released back in 1998.
+firstname lastname if you look for Canon Buy/Sell/Trade forums, they go for $700-$900 now. Canon 35 F1.4 is now affordable used.
+firstname lastname because why not. It's still a sharp lens.
+firstname lastname in the end it's not about the gear. You can use whatever you want. But if your pictures don't tell a story, what's the point?
+firstname lastname plus, the differences don't matter to the end client. I'm shooting with what I believe does the job.
not IMO, the Leica 35 ASPH 1.4 summilux is very old and come close or even perform better than this two, the colors in the Leica lens are to me just awesome and the size and weight is incredible on the Leica for such a high performance, anyway i don´t want to argue all the three lens are the best 35 f/1.4 a viable, to me Sigma wins cause the price, i owned the Leica for a long time and i have a collection of amazing photos, but that said the Sigma is a temptation now
I bought this lens because of this video. tested the lens yesterday on my Canon 70D, and I was amazed how it shot outdoor. tested it out during low light at my friends party and boy! the lens was struggling focusing on my subject. the tone it produces is more on the warmer side compare to cooler image from the Canon 50mm f/1.8. For some weird reason the Canon 50mm f/1.8 images are way sharper that this lens. I tried to like this lens but the focusing is driving me nuts during low light. I will be returning this lens tomorrow. very disappointed. maybe my lens is defective?
L BS Hmm... that's interesting. I don't really shoot much video, and rarely use autofocus for it, so I can't say whether this is typical for the lens, or whether you just happened to be in a situation that your camera struggled with. It is very surprising to hear that the 50 1.8 is sharper... that just shouldn't be the case, so perhaps it is defective. It's also possible that it requires calibration. If you get a new one, I'd be interested to hear you results.
+Matthew Gore I'm not talking about using it as a video. I'm talking about image quality and focus. the focus was so inconsistent shooting indoor. it was pretty much a shoot or miss deal with me during my friends partay. I couldn't even upload it to show the the picture cause of the image quality is not even as good as the 50mm 1.8
L BS Got it. Just reread your post... not sure why I thought you were shooting video :) Anyway, it certainly sounds like there's something wrong with your lens; it should be significantly sharper than the 50 1.8, and I can at least say that I didn't have any trouble focusing with it in low light with the 5D III, though I didn't test it with an APS-C camera.
Matthew Gore I wouldn't be so sure. I am surprised as well, but my Canon 50mm 1.8 STM is incredibly sharp. So much so that it doesn't seem possible. At 2.8 the Canon 50mm is sharper than most L primes at F/3.2. I am not sure what they do to cause the 50mm to be pretty much perfect in a cheap case. I am testing via a full frame as well. It has become apparent to me that the L series zooms are worth it, but the L series primes do not seem worth it. Neither do the more expensive sigmas over the regular Canon USM primes. Except for durability of course. A good example of this, look at the 100mm F/2 USM, the 500 dollar one. Then look at the 100mm F/2.8. I've owned both. You can even compare the 135mm F/2L to the 100mm F/2. I would give the L series the win on the 135mm, but it's not by as much as I think people would assume. I am starting to realize that the L series is more about build quality, sometimes you get more sharpness, sometimes you don't. When you do, it's not as much as one would think. Canon somehow has done really well with their non L series USM primes. It's hard to justify the L series primes if one doesn't need weather sealing and build quality. The only L series lenses I would get at this point would be the 24-70 2.8 and the 135 F/2. I don't shoot longer than 135 so I can't comment on that. Any prime under 135 I would just get the Canon USM one.
I shot with both sigma and canon copies for weddings . I have to say that sigma 35mm does struggle focusing in low light. It has slight hesitation before locking in the focus. The canon version locks in subjects much better in low light settings
We want more reviews, please. You're the best reviewer on TH-cam!
I'd like to see a comparison between Canon 85 F1.8 and Canon 85 F.12.
omg!!!! It's the best comparison video out there on TH-cam! Love it! It's so helpful and informative! please on continue to make more videos!
This review was so helpful!!!! Thank you so much for your hard work and clear explanations of the differences between these lenses
Glad you found it helpful, Sara :-)
Great Job! You did a very good job at showing the comparison. I really appreciate it!
Nice to see a realistic review, real world samples, rather than resolution tests.
How did you set up your focus for shooting sharp skateboard pictures ?
Those skate park images were awesome.
I like the style of your reviews. Much more practical and useful than the usual tube reviews. They put the accent on the show.
Matthew, this is one of the best lens review videos I've seen in the three to four years that I've been pursuing photography. I bought the Sigma 35mm 1.4 "Art" lens a few months ago but just saw your video now. Well done, please keep up the good work and post more!
if I already own the Canon 35mm L 1.4 do you recommend switching to the sigma 35mm 1.4 Art?
Only if you've run into resolution-related problems with the Canon for the type of work you do. The Canon will be just fine for a lot of people and types of photography.
What a nice and detailed comparison!!! Thank you for making the video! It's really helpful!!!
Hellow, Congrats for your reviews. What would you recommend for an entry level camera like Nikon D3300 ? Sigma 18-35 mm 35 mm 1.8 or Sigma 35 mm 1.4. Thanks a lot.
That's a tricky question, because I always recommend getting the best lens that you can afford... but the Sigma lenses might be overkill for a beginner. I'd probably go with the Nikon 35mm 1.8G amzn.to/2gkwALi , since it's less than $200, compared to nearly $1000 for the others. But if you're confident that you're serious enough about photography to buy serious lenses, I'd probably opt for one of the Sigmas... probably the 18-35 for me (I'd want the flexibility) but its hard to go wrong either way.
Thanks Matthew for doing these detailed reviews! I am in the market for the Sigma 24mm 1.4, can't wait to see your video about this lens. Greetings from the rooftop of the world (Nepal)
Does the lens suffer from BF/FF issues like the other Art series lenses? I was planning to get the 18-35 F1.8 or this lens, but the auto focus issue is holding me back from purchasing it, since I do street and low light photography. Could anyone advise me?
Fantastic review. Perhaps the best photography review/videos on TH-cam. Thanks.
I bought the Sigma. It is my sharpest lens I own
Now thats what i would call a review, awesome.
kudos to sigma for the lens and the materials used fot it. Canon should really avoid plastic when making L lenses, because they cost a LOT.
thats true but you trade off in weight.
Thank you. That was a very nice review. You gave me insight on both lens!
The best lens comparison ever .. you have done a great job .. respect from exclusive records
Thanks! I just bought a new turntable... I'm about to check out your channel :-)
Matthew Gore You welcome bro i am growing my channel now .. you also do videography ?
No, I've pretty much just been a photographer for over 20 years. I have been getting interested in video over the past few years, but I don't consider myself a pro yet.
Matthew Gore i got it well if in future i am looking for model photography i will contact you and i live in us dc I subscribed you and .. nice to meet you ..
Great to meet you too :-) I'm in Seattle, so it's a bit of a distance, but I'm always happy to travel for a good shoot. Best of luck with your channel!
Thanks for the informative review! Have you compare the Sigma to the latest Canon 35mm mark 2? Really curious about the result!
Your lack of dogma is refreshing both in the video and your answers to peoples questions. Keep up the good work!
Matthew, what portrait lens is best for my canon t4i camera? I'm currently own a 50mm 1.4. I think I need a better one. Honestly, it doesn't have to be a canon brand as long as it works & fits. Thank you and I love your voice. Subscribed!!!!
IMHO great review in such LONG time! You have earned a subscriber there friend. Keep up the good work! Maybe review the canon and sigma 70-200 so?
I really enjoy your reviews and nice photos. Thank you for your excellent work!
Hi! This is an excellent comparison! Just what I was looking for. I have a question.. I saw you used a CANON 5D MARKIII but maybe you know the answer; I´m interested on buying the CANON 6d (not the 5d markiii because of the budget), and 2 sigma art lenses, one is the 35mm f/1.4 . I just read so many different opinions, most bad reviews about the autofocus... At your review I saw It actually worked OK (not perfect, but ok) Do you know if maybe there´s something wrong when using it at the canon6d? Thanks! Great video!
I don't know if there's any special problem with autofocus and the 6D. With all large aperture primes, AF is tricky and takes some practice, since the depth of field is so shallow, so it's very easy to blame the lens. I don't know if that has anything to do with it in this case, but it's possible.
Great Matthew, thanks a lot! You're very kind for taking the time to answer me. I'll keep tat in mind :) ps: great videos!
One of the best reviews I've seen in a long time
Would this Sigman lens be great to record videos for TH-cam in my room?
These comparison videos are pretty amazing! How do we get you to do more??
I'm actually working on more... it's just been a busy year! Expect another one this month.
Should i buy the sigma 35mm f1.4 lens for my canon 70D?
Hello sir,
I confused about 2 lens.... Sigma 35mm 1.4 art DG HSM & tamron SP 35 1.4 Di
Please suggest me which one should I buy !!
My priority
better sharpness, better bokeh, better color reproduction...
I'm Nikon D750 user.
Please help me🙏🙏🙏
Both of these lenses are excellent. The Tamron is probably the highest resolution 35mm lens that I've ever used, but the Sigma is also quite good, as you can see in the video here. Unfortunately, I haven't used the Tamron enough to have compared the two side by side, so I can't say which is better for bokeh or color reproduction (they can both be perfect if you shoot raw and create a custom color profile). By the time the Tamron lens was released, I had already switched to Sony, so I just don't have a ton of experience with it.
I've seen so many photographer comparing lenses. Nobody did what you do. Your way of comparing lenses side by side is the best ever in TH-cam videos. I subscribed. Keep up the good work.
Great review from a great photographer! Subscribed can't wait to see more! Do the 50mm art and 85mm 1.4 DG? If you have not already.
By far the best comparison video I've seen. The somewhat monotone voice helped vs most canon fan boys who yelled and screamed about a canon and then poopoos over other lenses. This was as objective in my mind as it got. That said, Canon fanboys will still buy the L lens, because it's not about the images to them, it's about the red ring... So... Those of you who buy a sigma, here's a tip, buy a sigma and put a red rubber band on your lens. There you go. Great job on the video, look forward to others.
Hello... congratulations.... I have a Canon 24mm 1.4 and Canon 16-35 2.8....Do I need of this lens, or no? Thanks!
I'd be hard pressed to say that you NEED any lens. If you like shooting at the 35mm end of your zoom and want more light or shallower depth of field, then yes, you do need it to achieve those goals. If you just want something with a 35mm angle of view, then no... you've got it covered. Ultimately, it comes down to what kind of photographer you are, and what your goals are.
Thanks so much! You are very good!!
Im confused on something .If I have a crop senson .Add 35mm will I esentaly have a 50mm focal length and how would depth of field compare between a APSC with a 35 1.4 and a Full frame with a 50mm 1.4 .
alot the f1.4 will become more around f2-2.5
When the lens gives you lemons.......
Very nice and helpful review! One of the best I've seen so far. Keep up the great work :)
Thank you for sharing! This is the most comprehensive and practical review I've seen on sigma lens. Helped me a lot.
Please keep doing these lens comparisons. they are truly great! I'd love to see one between the Nikon, Tamron and Canon 70mm-200mm 2.8 lenses.
this is exactly how a comparison of this kind should be done. great video.
I liked the review but I really can't understand something...What's the point to do this kind of tests on a landscape photo???? I think it doesn't make sense at all :/ Expecially when you test the wide apertures, what's the sense of analyzing sharpness and contrast in the corner, which I'm sure are not on the focus plane? This makes confusion between the "softness" due to the out of focus area and the effective loss of sharpness at the corners! If you use those lenses at wide apertures you'd probably never shoot landscape photos but you'll have a main subject and a blurry background, and in this case the sharpness in the corners is not so important. For lower apertures you test makes more sense intstead
Thank you for this simple but extensive video! Love the non biased review too
Good review with the needed basics covered! 👏🏻👏🏻 Thank you sir
Very good review. Good information made clear and concise. Subscribed.
I have got some focus problems with my 35mm art.. and was thinking of selling and getting the 35L... really confused right now. shoud investing in the dock solve my focus problem? Or better go with the 35L?
I don't know... what are the focus problems? Are they consistent? What camera body are you using, and what focus mode and AF points?
+Matthew Gore hi Maathew. Thanks for you fast reply. I use AL servo on my 5d mk2 and center focus point... sometime its tack sharp and spot on and sometimes it looks like its back focusing. I had a shoot last month and missed a couple of great shots because of that. hope you can give me some advice. I can buy a used 35mm L for 560 euro!
+Matthew Gore hope you can aswer me
Hey Johnny,
It doesn't sound like this is a problem with the lens' micro adjustment; if it were, you'd get back-focusing every time, or very nearly... nobody gets focus right every time. If there's some other kind of issue that the dock could fix (updated firmware for the lens, for example) that might help, I don't know.
Before buying new equipment, though, I think it's worth remembering a few things, and asking yourself a few questions:
1. No autofocus system is perfect. You're going to miss some shots now and then, regardless of camera and lens.
2. The larger the aperture you use, the more glaring that fact will be, due to the shallow depth of field.
3. The AF point markers in your camera's viewfinder are only rough estimates, especially on cameras (like the mark II) that only have a single AF point in the center area. You should test your camera to see where the AF point actually begins and ends, like so: get a clean, smooth piece of paper and tape it to a well lit wall. Get close the paper so that it's filling most of your camera's viewfinder, if possible. Choose only your center point and verify that your camera can't focus on the center of the paper (it shouldn't be able to). Now use a dark pen to draw a square in the middle of that paper. Verify that you center point can now focus on the square. Now, move your AF point to the blank white space to the left of the square, and try to focus again (it shouldn't be able to), and keep moving back to the right until your camera CAN focus on that square you've drawn. You'll notice that the edge of your AF point box might not line up with the square you've drawn. Do that from the top, bottom, left and right.
I hope that makes sense. You'll get a better idea of where your AF point actually is in your frame that way.
4. No photographer is perfect. Even if your equipment is working as it should, sometimes we just make mistakes.
So... taking all of that into account, you'll have to judge whether you're getting results that are unusually bad, or whether you're blaming your lens for something that is not its fault :-)
If you're still not sure, feel free to email me the pictures where you missed focus, along with some from the same shoot where you didn't miss focus, and it may help be determine whether the lens is to blame.
Sorry for the messy answer.
+Matthew Gore thankd for your time to answer and helping me out with my focus problem. what is your email adres (or you can reply my email) then I send you some of the pictures. Best Johnny_armani@hotmail.com
I have problen with my sigma 35 it's not sharp at all when i and im usin canon 650d or t4i.
When i watch the ved its impressive but the real result with me is totally the opposite.
Can you plezez tell me what the solution??
Unfortunately, there are a lot of possibilities, and it's hard to say without seeing some of your images (but take a look at my article about blurry images, here: www.lightandmatter.org/2013/learn-photography/four-reasons-your-photos-are-blurry-and-how-to-avoid-them/)
It's also possible that there's a problem with the lens; it could have an element that's out of alignment or you may need to adjust the focus with Sigma's USB lens dock ( goo.gl/2TQNN3 ).
might need to have firmware updated and/or have the focusing tuned. there are 2 ways of doing this. either send the lens to sigma OR you can get the sigma lens USB dock (costs $60 USD), download sigma's lens tuning software and update/tune the lens yourself.
This is a very professional review. Thank you for taking the time to do this
Best Comparison Video I have seen on the web very Pro Matthew, well done.
subscribed! Awesome review brother! I just came back home from a camera store with two awesome SIGMA Prime lenses. 35mm and 85mm and Im so freaking impressed with the design and ESPECIALLY the price!!! I saved my self $1800 MASSIVE SAVINGS.
Great pickups. I have the 35 & 50 1.4 art
You probably dont give a damn but does anybody know of a trick to log back into an instagram account..?
I somehow lost my password. I appreciate any tips you can give me
@Alejandro Armando Instablaster :)
@Andy Chance I really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im in the hacking process now.
I see it takes quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Andy Chance It did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D
Thanks so much you saved my ass!
I'm stumble between canon and sigma. I want sigma for it's optical quality for old 5Dmark ii but would it focus accurate?
I'm afraid that I didn't test the lens with a 5D Mark II. For me, with the Mark III, I didn't have any trouble with autofocus at all (and of course, there's always the Sigma focus dock).
hello please help ive been trying to figure out if there both wide angled or not i cannot tell dureing video testing could somone please tell me if there both wide angle
Both lenses have the same angle of view, roughly.. Whether you consider it wide depends on the camera sensor you're using, and what you consider "wide", but most will consider 35mm wide on a full-frame sensor. On an APS-C sensor, they're more like a 50mm lens, which is not really wide... it's a mid-range or "normal" lens.
Nice review. Do you have any idea what settings you were using when shooting the skateboarding photos? They looked really nice. Do have the raw files for them?
c0pyimitati0n Yes, for the skateboarding pictures, I was shooting at f/2 and between 1/1000th and 1/5000th of a second, depending on the light, at ISO 100. For the shots against the sky, that generally includes +2 stops of exposure compensation. These were all shot as RAW files, and the images in the video have some post-processing to bring up the shadows or bring down the highlights. I do still have the RAW files, but they're not going to be publicly available.
Matthew Gore ok thank you very much. Those pictures looked very crisp. My skate pics i think i tend to add to much contrast because the skin tones get yellowy. There are almost no shadows in those pics, it's almost like you used flash.
c0pyimitati0n Yep, instead of using flash, I over-exposed. If you're curious, I've just posted some before and after pictures of my post-processing on one of those skate pics on the site... just scroll down to it: wp.me/p1qGtv-1ZZ
Matthew Gore I shoot in raw as well, but i tend to shoot around f/5.6 or so, so that i can get the whole skater in focus. I feel like it would be pretty hard to do at f/2, but it looks like you didn't have too much of a hard time. Thanks for the good tips!
I was wondering if/when you'd continue making new videos. Love this new video. (Already have the 35mm f/2.0 IS, so I'm all set, but interesting comparison. Excited to see your follow-up video with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4)
Sounds like you may have already seen my recent Tamron 35mm vs Canon f/2 video, but the Tamron vs Sigma video is on the way. Probably will publish it on Monday, if not sooner.
Thanks for these great reviews! I found these extremely well made and the comparisons very helpfull! Thank You and hope to see some more!
Why no mention of massive auto focusing problems on sigmas side?
Of course, the answer there is that I didn't have any focusing problems. I understand that some people say they have them, but I can only assume that it's a problem that crops up with particular cameras with the lens, or with certain samples of the lens. I had no problems, so I can't report any.
Best review I have ever seen of this Sigma lens
Shantanu Biswas Thanks!
Welcome
Heard about this lens and now you have convinced me that is the way to go...thanks
Thanks for the suggestion; I've been thinking about that one... or the Canon vs the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, which is also a pretty worthy lens. I'll keep it in mind.
The CA you do not expect to see at f/8 is of the lateral type, and as such it is not reduced by a smaller aperture. Correcting lateral CA is easy and improves resolution.
In my experience, even lateral CAs are usually improved by stopping down a lens. For a good example of this, take a look at my most recent video and the Tamron 35mm f/1.8. It has strong(ish) lateral CA at larger apertures, easily visible in the video, and they disappear after I stop down a few stops.
As for correcting lateral chromatic aberration, it's true that it can be handled pretty easily in post processing, but not without image degradation, and never completely. I won't get into all the details here, but I'll cut and paste the Wiki bullet points:
- Rescaling is only applicable to lateral chromatic aberration but there is also longitudinal chromatic aberration
- Rescaling individual color channels result in a loss of resolution from the original image
- Most camera sensors only capture a few and discrete (e.g., RGB) color channels but chromatic aberration is not discrete and occurs across the light spectrum
- The dyes used in the digital camera sensors for capturing color are not very efficient so cross-channel color contamination is unavoidable and causes, for example, the chromatic aberration in the red channel to also be blended into the green channel along with any green chromatic aberration.
This is how a review should be done!
Will you do a comparison of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and the Canon 50mm f/1.2L? I'm looking at either the 50mm or the 35mm.
I'm planning on doing a few tests with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I may do it with the Canon 1.2 or 1.4, but I also want to test it against the Zeiss Otus 55mm.
A good review/comparison. Just remember the Canon was released in 1998, the Sigma in 2012, lens design has come a long way in 14yrs. Many are waiting for a Mark II update, hoping it is as dramatic of an update like the 24mm f1.4 Mark II was. The Sigma look stunning, visually and IQ wise, the price is fantastic!
What what is the best focal length for a lens to use especially if you live in cityscape state (New York City) Sigma 24mm or the 35mm?
TeK RaVeN There's really no right answer there... it's a matter of artistic choice and personal taste. Personally, I prefer the 24mm, but I'm sure many people would also prefer the 35mm, especially those who shoot street photography. The best thing to do is borrow or rent the pair of lenses and see which one fits with your own style the best. (Or, buy both from a place that has a good return policy, and return the one that you don't like as much :-) )
+Matthew Gore thank you very much, for being so hopeful cheers....
It depends on crop or full frame a bit though too
COPY THIS; Very rarely comment on reviews but that was probably the best lens review I have seen. Great content, clearly explained and high production values. Fantastic work. ;) ....
flawless Comparison, keep it up Matt !
I have a Canon 17-40mm f/4L and I now want to by a new lens. The 2 Im looking at right now are the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 "Art". Witch one would be of more use if taking in consideration that i have the 17-40mm? Im mostly taking photos of open landscapes and buildings, but I would like some faster lens and some bokeh too :)
Unfortunately, you're the only person who can choose which focal length is best for you... it's a completely a matter of personal taste. The 35mm will give you a wider field of view (if you want it for landscapes) and the 50mm will give you better bokeh most of the time... though the 35mm is not bad when you're shooting close-ups. You might think about sorting through your favorite photos and looking at what focal length you shot them with, and decide that way. Good luck!
Thank you for your reply. I found that my favorite photos were taken between 20-40mm. So I guess I might go with the 35mm even though I have 35mm in the range of my 17-40. I think that the faster aperture will help me when I travel and take photos in low light situations :) f4 is not so bright :)
As someone who likes to study before they buy, your reviews honestly blow your online peers out of the water (digital rev, jared polin ect.)
Leo Nguyen Thanks, Leo :-)
Any chance that you will do a comparison with the 135mm sigma art with the 135mm canon in the future? or the 85mm
Very likely. I'm working on 24-70mm videos now, with the Sigma, the Tamron, and Canon II, and I shot for one telephoto zoom set.
Yo Matt you on 500px or Instagram? I want to drop a follow :) already subbed and belled up to your channel. looking forward to more content.
Yes! instagram.com/matthew.lightandmatter/ I'm on 500px too, but never use it anymore. You can find the rest of my social media through the website: www.lightandmatter.org
Hi Matthew, would you reviewed 50mm f/1.4 lenses?
I'll certainly put it on my list!
Very well explained and comapred. Thank you.
btw, you got a really pleasant voice. Thumb up
Perfect review. Thank you so much, Sigma should thank you again you just got them another buyer
I can write 5-6 comments with full 500 characters to express how much I appreciate your detailed and "no-one done that before " work.
(Because this comparisons of lenses means a lot to us who live in poor country where the borrowing lens for one day cost almost 1/10 of the price of the new)
But I'll gonna just say:
Tnx. FOREVER SUBSCRIBER.
Your reviews are brilliant mate. Accurate, no BS, unbiased... can rely upon. very well done! It would be very helpful if you could get a chance to review the latest Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 G2.
Thanks! The new Tamron G2 is on my list... but I'm having trouble finding time to make these videos. Hopefully by this summer.
Excellent comparison. So many of these videos have irritations but this was balanced, methodical and free from gimmicks. Very useful.
Super review! It would be great to see the same with the 24 1.4 L vs Art.
I have the baby Sigma. My go-to lenses are the baby Sigma and a Zeiss 45mm 2.8 pancake, which is still head and shoulders above the Sigma in terms of richness whenever I can use it but the Sigma is amazing compared to the price point of the Canon right --- just make sure you have it dialed in perfectly because the focus can be a real mother. Don't know if I need to calibrate it or just be more careful.
Thanks for review. I have a questions: what do you think about Canon 5D mark II + Sigma 35mm f/1.4?
Your video sure cleared many of my enquires.
I'm definitely going for Sigma...
Thank you
Excellent review...i would have loved to see low light performance for both. Thanks
I really enjoy your lens comparisons! Chocked full of very useful information, and I learned a fair bit as well. Please do more!! Simply superb!
Nicely done the review , very concrete not much talking and straight to the pictures , im gonna see you now on!
Your video was educative and not bias. Good job
hey matthew how you're doing my brother it's so good to talk to somebody who also have the same camera as me. i have the 16-35 mark 2 lens and the 50mm lens i want to get the sigma 18-35 but should i get that even though i have the 16-35 L series lens? i want the 55-250 and the 15-85 lens i was told they are some good lens and they're cheap ya see. i want another good prime len like the 35 for portraits. i want the
1. 15-85
2. 55-250
3. 24mm
4. 24-105
5.35mm
6. 18-35
i think having 8 lens should be good and i don't have to go with full frame if i don't want to right i think camera is good enough
Just so we're on the same page, I do have a Canon 60D, but all of the photos in this video were shot with the 5D Mark III full frame :-) In general, my advice is always the same for photographers... buy the least expensive camera that will meet your needs, and buy the best lenses that you can afford. Lenses make the most difference in your work. That said, just buy lenses that cover your specific needs as a photographer... I wouldn't buy a prime 24mm lens for the kind of work that I do, but other photographers use them all the time.
The one advantage to the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is that f/1.8 aperture... it will let in twice as much light as an f/2.8 lens like the 16-35. So, if you need more light, that's a reason to go that direction. It's also designed for a smaller sensor, so you might get better image quality, but I'm not positive... I've never looked at them side by side.
Personally, I'd get an f/2.8 lens in the 16-50mm range (or 24-70) and get a 70-200 f/2.8. Although the 55-250 is pretty good, optically, it's still not going to let in much light... at 200mm, the best you'll get is f5.6, so about a quarter of the light that you'd get from an f/2.8 lens. Those lenses will cover most shooting circumstances, and then you can get primes to cover specific needs.
@@MatthewGore so buy the 24-70 70-200 and 18-35 sounds good to me but matthew what would be a good speed light flash to get for my 80d and which of these lenses you recommended would be great to take pictures at night. my day time pictures are great but i want to get better at night
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 Any f/2.8 lens will be pretty good at night. Prime lenses that have larger apertures (f/1.8, f/1.4, f/1.2, etc) will be even better. Lenses with image stabilization will also be good at night in that you won't get as much camera shake, but it won't help if your photo subject is moving... so large apertures are ideal for that. For Speedlights... most of them are great these days. Look into the Godox range: good quality and not too expensive.
@@MatthewGore well i will see about getting the 1.4 and try taking pictures at night and see what does for me. so what's soooooooooo good about full frame cameras matthew?
@@crayshaunhenderson1265 Full frame has more surface area per megapixel usually, so there's less digital noise at high ISO. The difference is usually about 2 stops, but it's getting to be less. Also, you get shallower depth of field with a full frame, assuming that the two are similarly composed. Some people like that for portraits.
Excellent review here. Since your video came on the net, sigma have released a 20mm f1.4. I would love to see a lens comparision between canon and the sigma 20mm f1.4.
By the way, with all the distortion on these lens, surely the lens companies should take these problems into account when designed their products, am I correct?
If so, why the continuous imperfections with high-quality glass?
I am trying to get my head around why it is so expensive for good lens...then we see what you have explained...
Looking forward to your next av report.
The AF Tracking not tracking fast enough when something is moving fast towards you is pretty normal.. to get around it, I do shorter bursts consecutively i.e. burst, let go for a split second, then burst again. It seems to work better. My camera is limited to 7fps, but I'm guessing a camera with 14fps shooting would do a bit better since it's not lagging. I also notice my camera lags more when I'm doing a really long burst (20+) and then the AF tracking degrades more... it also gets worse when my card is nearly full (I have a 64GB 95MB/s) as the card writes slower. So you can do things to help it.
It's a very good job I like this comparison.keep up the works like that...