Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art DG DN – Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art DG – Sigma 40mm 1.4 DG
Sigma now offers the DSLR designs 35mm 1.4 Art and 40mm 1.4 Art and the newly designed 35mm 1.2 Art for Sony E-mount cameras. Let us find out what the differences between those 3 are and if there is a reason to get one of the bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses.
Disclaimer: I only tested one sample of each lens on only one camera. As lens and camera tolerances (sample variation) come into play, it is possible that a certain combination of lens and camera shown here may perform above or below average in certain areas, like off-center sharpness or field curvature. The Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art for example works generally better in combination with my A7III.
Furthermore no lens is perfectly symmetrical, so it is possible I picked the best corner of one lens while I picked the worst of another.
The influence on other aspects like bokeh and color correction are usually less affected by this though.
The 40mm 1.4 was kindly provided by a reader, the other two lenses I bought myself.
Specifications
Sigma Art 35mm 1.2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Sigma Art 40mm 1.4
Diameter
88mm
79mm
88mm
Length
137mm
121mm
157mm
Filter Thread
82mm
67mm
82mm
Weight
1090g
740g
1265g
Max. Magnification
1:5.1
1:5.2
1:6.5
Min. focus distance from sensor
30cm
30cm
40cm
Number of aperture blades
11 (rounded)
9 (rounded)
9 (rounded)
Elements/ Groups
17/12
13/11
16/12
The 35mm 1.2 is slightly less wide than the 35mm 1.4. This is how the field of view compares:
Being from the same manufacturer there are many similarities, so I will mainly talk about the differences.
The 35mm 1.4 Art and 40mm 1.4 Art are very similar, they both have a mechanical coupling between focus ring and internal mechanics and a physical distance scale, very rare among “native” E-mount lenses. They both share an AF/MF switch on the lens, too. The only noticeable difference is the lens hood: the 35mm 1.4’s is just a simple piece of plastic, the 40mm 1.4’s features a release button and is made from a mix of polycarbonate and rubber.
The 35mm 1.2 is a focus by wire design (without distance scale) and in addition to the AF/MF switch it features a de-clickable aperture ring and a focus hold button, just like the Sony GM lenses. Hood design is the same as that of the 40mm.
All of these are big and heavy lenses, but the 35mm 1.4 certainly is a bit easier to handle than the other two due to smaller size and less weight.
The 40mm 1.4 is certainly the worst, not only is it the heaviest but weight distribution is also worse compared to the 35mm 1.2.
Vignetting
Sigma Art 35mm 1.2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Sigma Art 40mm 1.4
f/1.2
2.9 EV
-
-
f/1.4
2.6 EV
2.9 EV
2.2 EV
f/2.0
1.9 EV
1.9 EV
1.7 EV
f/2.8
1.2 EV
1.1 EV
1.1 EV
f/8.0
0.9 EV
0.7 EV
0.8 EV
These values are for the extreme corners of the A7rII. Despite the size of these lenses the light falloff is very obvious wide open, but still slightly better compared to smaller fast lenses like the 40mm 1.2 from Voigtlander.
The Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art has the least vignetting at maximum aperture, but the difference compared to the 35mm 1.2@1.4 isn’t exactly huge.
Stopped down to f/2.8 or further the differences between these 3 lenses are within the margin of error.
Sharpness Infinity
We are looking at the following parts of the frame:
positions of crops in the frame
The camera was set on a tripod (Gitzo series 4 with Arca Swiss P0 ballhead) and 5sec self release had been used. For shutter speeds faster than 1/500s the mechanical shutter had been used, for slower ones the electronic first curtain shutter had been activated.
Focus was manually set on the red rooftop in the center. The focus has not been adjusted for midframe or corners, so you may see effects from field curvature.
It was windy, so better not use the trees for any evaluation, especially on the stopped down crops.
Differences in the center are minimal. The 40mm 1.4 might be slightly cleaner than the 35mm 1.2 at f/1.2 or f/1.4, but it will be really difficult to see these differences in the real world.
35mm 1.2 and 40mm 1.4 are extremely crisp at f/2.0, the 35mm 1.4 needs f/2.8 to look similar.
Here by a tiny margin the 35mm 1.2 looks better than the 40mm 1.4 at maximum aperture, but these differences are within the margin of sample variation.
The 35mm 1.4 exhibits a bit of field curvature, which is almost non existent in the other two lenses.
The 35mm 1.2 looks slightly cleaner at maximum aperture again. According to Sigma’s MTF the 35mm 1.2 should show some astigmatism in the corners and the 40mm 1.4 should not, these samples look the other way round. Easily possible due to sample variation.
In the very extreme corner the 35mm 1.4 does not look too great at f/1.4 and f/2.0, but at f/2.8 this is mostly resolved.
Based on this comparison I would not decide whether to buy the 35mm 1.2 or 40mm 1.4. How well one works for you depends more on the tolerances at play (flange focal distance, sample variation) than on actual differences between these two lenses. Both are the best fast wide primes I had the chance to use so far.
Sharpness portrait distance
For portraiture it isn’t so important how flat the field is, it is more interesting to see what the sharpness is like when focused at different parts of the frame to take field curvature out of the equasion.
positions of crops in the frame
This is what I did here, I refocused for every shot to get the best possible result at different locations in the frame (center, inner midframe and outer midframe).
Focus distance was roughly 1,0 m (1,2 m for the 40mm lens) and the circle of the dollar bill is more or less the size of a human eye.
Unsurprisingly all lenses look great in the center. The 35mm 1.4 Art is slightly less contrasty but this will hardly be field relevant. The differences between 35mm 1.2 and 40mm 1.4 are well within the margin of focus accuracy or sample variation.
Some fine detail on the 35mm 1.4 is lost while the other two are almost as good as in the center with moiré everywhere. Between 35mm 1.2 and 40mm 1.4 I fail to name a winner again.
This is where the 35mm 1.4 begins to struggle. The 40mm 1.4 also looks slightly clearer than the 35mm 1.2 now. But again, this difference is within the margin of focus accuracy or sample variation.
The Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art shows an amazing performance here, there is barely any coma visible at f/1.4. Surprisingly the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art is a very close follower: only one very bright light source shows some purple outlining.
The Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art needs to be stopped down to f/2.8 for a similar performance.
Bokeh
All the images from this chapter can be found in full resolution here. Sometimes I shot from the same distance, sometimes I tried to adjust the subject size to be a match between the lenses.
Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic, so I decided not to write what I think under each set. If you do care what I think: I prefer the 35mm 1.2 but the 40mm 1.4 does not lack far behind.
All lenses show only minor lateral CA which are easily corrected in camera or in post with the help of the built in profiles.
longitudinal CA
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations come in different forms. Unfortunately there are only few (if any at all) sources that give a clear differentiation. In the following comparsion we will have a look at purple fringing (it shows up close to the plane in focus) and the “bokeh-CA” or “bokeh fringing” which you will see in the out of focus areas.
The Sigma Art 40mm 1.4 shows an amazing performance here, it might be the best corrected f/1.4 lens I have seen so far.
The Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 is the worst with noticeable purple fringing and very obvious bokeh CA.
The Sigma Art 35mm 1.2 is somewhere in between. Purple fringing is really well behaved, bokeh CA are not as bad as the 35mm 1.4 but not as good as the 40mm 1.4 either.
Conclusion
Short version
Get the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art, if you want the smoothest bokeh, GM handling or the first 35mm f/1.2 lens with AF.
Get the Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art, if you are allergic to longitudinal CA or want the best lens in this focal length range for milky way panorama stitching. Or you prefer the 40mm focal length, obviously.
Get the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, if you are on a budget yet need a 35mm 1.4 lens with AF to get the job done or you mind the size and weight of the other two.
Long version
Not only Sigma has come a long way since the introduction of the first Art lens (35mm 1.4 Art in 2012) but also optical design in general. We have finer aspherical elements that mostly got rid of those dreadful onion ring patterns and prime lenses are as complex as never before. With 17 single elements the 35mm 1.2 is a very complex design and the 40mm 1.4 with its 16 elements is not much simpler.
But all this comes at a price: these lenses have grown significantly in size and weight as well, which makes them ill suited to certain tasks (e.g. travel photography).
The Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art may very well be one of the – if not the – best corrected lens(es) you can buy. Despite being an f/1.4 lens it is an almost apochromatically corrected design. Coma and astigmatism are pretty much non existent. It even shows the least vignetting at maximum aperture.
In my opinion the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art is even more impressive though: designing an f/1.2 lens is not slightly more difficult than an f/1.4 lens, it is significantly more difficult. Yet in many categories it fares no worse than the 40mm 1.4.
Some may wonder, why the color correction is slightly worse compared to the 40mm 1.4 then, but I am sure this was intentional: the apochromatic lenses we have seen so far (e.g. Voigtlander 65mm 2.0 or 110mm 2.5) never featured the most pleasing, best in class bokeh. And you can also see these differences when comparing the 35mm 1.2 to the 40mm 1.4. So in the end the 35mm 1.2 is the more desirable lens in my eyes, as its results are closer in look to those derived from the Sony GM primes (which I prefer, your mileage may vary).
Then there is the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art: it is only half the price of the other two and significantly lighter and smaller. What are you giving up when going for this one by comparison? Off center sharpness at maximum aperture, coma correction at f/1.4-f/2.0, a bit of bokeh smoothness compared to the 35mm 1.2, a bit of color correction compared to the 40mm 1.4.
How field relevant are these things? In many use cases not really, actually. Especially when you are not using one of the higher resolution cameras.
It remains my recommendation if you are looking for a 35mm f/1.4 lens with AF for your E-mount camera (unless you want to pay for and carry one of the other two lenses instead).
One very important remark: go out and shoot. Don’t look for flaws in your lenses. Don’t do stupid comparisons to find out about tiny differences – that rarely matter in the field – like I did here. Be smarter than me.
Did you find this article useful or just liked reading it? Treat us to a coffee! via Paypal
This site contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.
My name is Bastian and I am your expert here when it comes to ultra wide angle lenses, super fast portrait lenses (ranging from a 50mm f/0.95 to a 200mm f/1.8) and I also have reviewed way too many 35mm lenses.
Don't ask me anything about macro or wildlife shooting though.
I always admire your analysis, and so far I just purchase from this website recommendation. Very best information I got from here. We appreciate your analysis and FredMiranda also provides very useful information.
Wonderful, Bastian! Thanks a lot! I sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 art right before the 35mm f1.2 was announced. It was basically a lens to get the job done but I really didn’t like its rendering. After reading your review, I’m thinking seriously of getting the f1.2 to use for environmental portraits. I will keep the Loxia for travel and other applications.
I had the 35mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 Art but sold them both because I find the rendering is too modern and clinical. Sharpness wise it can’t be beaten even if you shoot at f1.4 eyelashes are pretty sharp, and all the faces pores are apparent. Still, when you look at the sterile-like sharpness and the bokeh rendering, photos tend to feel a bit soul-less in my views. This Art series has its target market, but one thing I learnt is that sharpness isn’t everything in making a photo visually appealing. But here I am with the GAS for that 1.2! Thanks for doing this review, it helps!
If you count other sensor formats: The Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm F1.2 for Micro Four Thirds has 19 elements in 14 groups.
At my first look at the lens diagram I thought I was looking at 3 lenses, not one 😉
Nope. There are several super-telephotos with more complex construction. Example: Nikkor AF-S 5.6/800 E FL ED VR with 20 elements in 13 groups. The 5.6/500 PF has 19/11.
Oh, since you’re a Sony shooter, check their 2.8/400. It clearly wins.
incredible job with this lens article, really appreciate the systematic testing and especially the multiple rendering examples comparing identical scenes.
Awesome analysis once again! Love the content on this site even though I’m no longer a Sony user. Are you considering testing stuff for other brands as well?
Regarding the article, just a suggestion: it would be nice to have something like this but with the new Sony 35 to check its IQ/size compromise compared to these faster lenses.
Another thoroughly thoughtful and enjoyable article. Trying to find enjoyment in my second attempt at the Batis 40, but the coma correction of the Sigma 40 is absolutely a revelation.
Truly appreciate your work and dedication.
Hi, thanks for this work, it is very precise, and I can learn a lot.
I have one question, looking at all scenes from 1 to 8, how sigma lenses the 1.4 and the 1.2 can be rated with the same angle of view when I can see at least 1mm of difference in focal length?
Great analysis Bastian! I currently own the Sigma 40, which I adore for both its correction and its bokeh actually, my only complaint is it seems a bit too narrow for astrophotography. Would you recommend the 35 f1.2 for this purpose? Thanks!
Astrophotography is one of the few categories where I think the 40mm 1.4 is a better choice over the 35mm 1.2.
I also highly doubt that the difference between 35 and 40mm will be actually meaningful.
I would rather have a look at a lens in the 20-24mm range to complement the 40mm.
Many of these are discussed in this guide, the latest Sigma 20mm 1.4 and 24mm 1.4 are not included yet and surely worth a look as well.
I was looking for this a comparison of these two lenses for weeks without success. Finally came across yours (excellent! Was so so helpful!)
My favourite would be a leightweight 38mm/1.0 with AF and excellent correction. I am looking for the closest thing available. Sujets: landscape, portrait, wildlife, moonlight, street
It will fill the gap between my Sigma 20mm 1.4 Dg DN and the Sigma 105mm/1.4 Art which combines already weigh more than 2,0kg.
Til now had been unsure which lens to pick:
– Voigtländer 35mm 1.2 SE – no AF, optically imperfect but light
– Sony 35mm 1.4 – perfect but bokeh seems just a tad too busy
– Sigma 40mm 1.4 – best colors and sharpness, but heavy and 2-3mm too tight for my liking
– Sigma 35mm 1.2 – so far had the impression that bokeh became busy towards the corners, but wanted too see how a crop would compare to a result from the Sigma 40mm 1.4
Your comparison did the job for me; I will pick the Sigma 35mm/1.2 over the 40mm/1.4 for its greater flexibility at lower weight.
(Given the weightsavings, the soft corners of the Voigtländer would perhaps not have bothered me too much but I really dislike the purple colour tinge from longitudinal CAs at open aperture. Do not want this in my lenses.)
In the bokeh section of my review of the VM 35mm 1.2 III there are also some direct comparisons to the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art, but they will only support your decision.
Thanks so much! I was searching for a comparison of these two lenses for weeks without success. Finally came across yours (excellent! Was so so helpful!). My favourite lens would be a leightweight 38mm/1.0 with AF and excellent correction. I am looking for the closest thing available. Sujets: landscape, portrait, wildlife, moonlight, street. It will fill the gap between my Sigma 20mm 1.4 Dg DN and the Sigma 105mm/1.4 Art which combined already weigh more than 2,0kg. Til now had been unsure which lens to pick: – Voigtländer 35mm 1.2 SE: no AF, optically imperfect but light – Sony 35mm 1.4: optically perfect but bokeh seems just a tad too busy – Sigma 40mm 1.4: best colors and sharpness, but heavy and 2-3mm too tight for my liking – Sigma 35mm 1.2: so far had the impression that bokeh became busy towards the corners, but wanted too see how a crop would compare to a result from the Sigma 40mm 1.4. Your comparison did the job for me; I will pick the Sigma 35mm/1.2 over the 40mm/1.4 for its greater flexibility at lower weight. (Given the weightsavings, the soft corners of the Voigtländer would perhaps not have bothered me too much but I really dislike the purple colour tinge from longitudinal CAs at open aperture. Do not want this in my lenses.)
Sony α | Leica M | Nikon F/Z New article every week
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
great comparison !
Scene 7: short distance (bokeh) comparison says it all in my opinion..
best bokeh goes to the 1.2 😉
You are welcome 🙂
I always admire your analysis, and so far I just purchase from this website recommendation. Very best information I got from here. We appreciate your analysis and FredMiranda also provides very useful information.
Thank you for the kind feedback!
Excellent work! Thank you!
You are welcome!
Great work !!!
Always love your work !!!
Thank you so much for the very informative comparison!
Great job.
Wonderful, Bastian! Thanks a lot! I sold my Sigma 35mm f1.4 art right before the 35mm f1.2 was announced. It was basically a lens to get the job done but I really didn’t like its rendering. After reading your review, I’m thinking seriously of getting the f1.2 to use for environmental portraits. I will keep the Loxia for travel and other applications.
I always felt the same about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art.
I will also keep the Voigtlander VM 35mm 1.7 + 5m PCX filter for travel.
Hi,
I had the 35mm f1.4 Art and 85mm f1.4 Art but sold them both because I find the rendering is too modern and clinical. Sharpness wise it can’t be beaten even if you shoot at f1.4 eyelashes are pretty sharp, and all the faces pores are apparent. Still, when you look at the sterile-like sharpness and the bokeh rendering, photos tend to feel a bit soul-less in my views. This Art series has its target market, but one thing I learnt is that sharpness isn’t everything in making a photo visually appealing. But here I am with the GAS for that 1.2! Thanks for doing this review, it helps!
If you count other sensor formats: The Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm F1.2 for Micro Four Thirds has 19 elements in 14 groups.
At my first look at the lens diagram I thought I was looking at 3 lenses, not one 😉
Hah, very interesting!
So I added a “fullframe” to my statement, then it should still be correct 🙂
Nope. There are several super-telephotos with more complex construction. Example: Nikkor AF-S 5.6/800 E FL ED VR with 20 elements in 13 groups. The 5.6/500 PF has 19/11.
Oh, since you’re a Sony shooter, check their 2.8/400. It clearly wins.
incredible job with this lens article, really appreciate the systematic testing and especially the multiple rendering examples comparing identical scenes.
Exactly the kind of comparison I was looking for, thank you!
You are welcome!
Awesome analysis once again! Love the content on this site even though I’m no longer a Sony user. Are you considering testing stuff for other brands as well?
Regarding the article, just a suggestion: it would be nice to have something like this but with the new Sony 35 to check its IQ/size compromise compared to these faster lenses.
One can always get carried away asking for too many things, but would have loved to see how it compares to the new Sigma 28/1.4 Art E as well….
Another thoroughly thoughtful and enjoyable article. Trying to find enjoyment in my second attempt at the Batis 40, but the coma correction of the Sigma 40 is absolutely a revelation.
Truly appreciate your work and dedication.
Outstanding comparison… thanks!
You are welcome!
exelent comparision.thanka a lot
Hi! great review, the type of review I think more people should do. Really in depth, helpful for making decisions.
I did find a small mistake I believe @Scene 8: city lights. Are the 40mm and 35mm 1.2 switched?
You are right, I mislabeled the files and it should be correct now.
Thanks for spotting!
After reading this article three times, i sold my 35/1.4ZA and bought a Sigma 35/1.2, very very very happy with it, thanks guys, cheers !
Glad you like it!
You guys have my favorite lens reviews on the web and I read a lot of reviews.
Hi 🙂 Thank you very much for your comparison on 35, 35 and 40 mm – I appreciate your great work!
You are welcome!
Hi, thanks for this work, it is very precise, and I can learn a lot.
I have one question, looking at all scenes from 1 to 8, how sigma lenses the 1.4 and the 1.2 can be rated with the same angle of view when I can see at least 1mm of difference in focal length?
Probably because people rather buy a lens named 35mm than 34mm or 36mm.
Great analysis Bastian! I currently own the Sigma 40, which I adore for both its correction and its bokeh actually, my only complaint is it seems a bit too narrow for astrophotography. Would you recommend the 35 f1.2 for this purpose? Thanks!
Astrophotography is one of the few categories where I think the 40mm 1.4 is a better choice over the 35mm 1.2.
I also highly doubt that the difference between 35 and 40mm will be actually meaningful.
I would rather have a look at a lens in the 20-24mm range to complement the 40mm.
Many of these are discussed in this guide, the latest Sigma 20mm 1.4 and 24mm 1.4 are not included yet and surely worth a look as well.
Thanks so much!
I was looking for this a comparison of these two lenses for weeks without success. Finally came across yours (excellent! Was so so helpful!)
My favourite would be a leightweight 38mm/1.0 with AF and excellent correction. I am looking for the closest thing available. Sujets: landscape, portrait, wildlife, moonlight, street
It will fill the gap between my Sigma 20mm 1.4 Dg DN and the Sigma 105mm/1.4 Art which combines already weigh more than 2,0kg.
Til now had been unsure which lens to pick:
– Voigtländer 35mm 1.2 SE – no AF, optically imperfect but light
– Sony 35mm 1.4 – perfect but bokeh seems just a tad too busy
– Sigma 40mm 1.4 – best colors and sharpness, but heavy and 2-3mm too tight for my liking
– Sigma 35mm 1.2 – so far had the impression that bokeh became busy towards the corners, but wanted too see how a crop would compare to a result from the Sigma 40mm 1.4
Your comparison did the job for me; I will pick the Sigma 35mm/1.2 over the 40mm/1.4 for its greater flexibility at lower weight.
(Given the weightsavings, the soft corners of the Voigtländer would perhaps not have bothered me too much but I really dislike the purple colour tinge from longitudinal CAs at open aperture. Do not want this in my lenses.)
In the bokeh section of my review of the VM 35mm 1.2 III there are also some direct comparisons to the Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art, but they will only support your decision.
Thanks so much! I was searching for a comparison of these two lenses for weeks without success. Finally came across yours (excellent! Was so so helpful!). My favourite lens would be a leightweight 38mm/1.0 with AF and excellent correction. I am looking for the closest thing available. Sujets: landscape, portrait, wildlife, moonlight, street. It will fill the gap between my Sigma 20mm 1.4 Dg DN and the Sigma 105mm/1.4 Art which combined already weigh more than 2,0kg. Til now had been unsure which lens to pick: – Voigtländer 35mm 1.2 SE: no AF, optically imperfect but light – Sony 35mm 1.4: optically perfect but bokeh seems just a tad too busy – Sigma 40mm 1.4: best colors and sharpness, but heavy and 2-3mm too tight for my liking – Sigma 35mm 1.2: so far had the impression that bokeh became busy towards the corners, but wanted too see how a crop would compare to a result from the Sigma 40mm 1.4. Your comparison did the job for me; I will pick the Sigma 35mm/1.2 over the 40mm/1.4 for its greater flexibility at lower weight. (Given the weightsavings, the soft corners of the Voigtländer would perhaps not have bothered me too much but I really dislike the purple colour tinge from longitudinal CAs at open aperture. Do not want this in my lenses.)