Comparison: Sigma Art 35mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4 and 40mm 1.4


comparison sigma art 35mm 1.2 1.4 40mm hsm dg dn review sharpness contrast bokeh infinity portrait coma
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.


Sigma Art 35mm 1.2Sigma Art 35mm 1.4Sigma Art 40mm 1.4
Filter Thread82mm67mm82mm
Max. Magnification1:5.11:5.21:6.5
Min. focus distance from sensor30cm30cm40cm
Number of aperture blades11 (rounded)9 (rounded)9 (rounded)
Elements/ Groups17/1213/1116/12

The 35mm 1.2 is slightly less wide than the 35mm 1.4. This is how the field of view compares:

Sigma 35mm 1.4 -> Sigma 35mm 1.2 -> Sigma 40mm 1.4 (from bigger to smaller)

Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art, $1499/1529€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, $739/730€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art, $1399/1150€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Build quality/Handling

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.


Sigma Art 35mm 1.2Sigma Art 35mm 1.4Sigma Art 40mm 1.4
f/1.22.9 EV--
f/1.42.6 EV2.9 EV2.2 EV
f/2.01.9 EV1.9 EV1.7 EV
f/2.81.2 EV1.1 EV1.1 EV
f/8.00.9 EV0.7 EV0.8 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:

comparison sigma art 35mm 1.2 1.4 40mm hsm dg dn review sharpness contrast resolution 42mp 61mp high infinity
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.


100% crops from center, A7rII

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.


100% crops from midframe, A7rII

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.


100% crops from corner, A7rII

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.


100% crops from center, A7rII

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.

inner midframe

100% crops from inner midframe, A7rII

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.

outer midframe

100% crops from outer midframe, A7rII

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.


100% crops from extreme corner, A7rII

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.


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.

Scene 1: plasticity

Scene 2: long distance (1)

Scene 3: long distance (2)

Scene 4: transition (1)

Scene 5: transition (2)

Scene 6: medium distance

Scene 7: short distance

Scene 8: city lights

Scene 9: light circles

Chromatic aberrations

lateral CA

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.


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.

Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art, $1499/1529€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, $739/730€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art, $1399/1150€, | B&H | | (affiliate links)

Other Articles

The following two tabs change content below.
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.

Latest posts by BastianK (see all)

32 thoughts on “Comparison: Sigma Art 35mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4 and 40mm 1.4”

  1. great comparison !

    Scene 7: short distance (bokeh) comparison says it all in my opinion..

    best bokeh goes to the 1.2 😉

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. 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!

  4. 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 😉

      1. 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.

  5. incredible job with this lens article, really appreciate the systematic testing and especially the multiple rendering examples comparing identical scenes.

  6. 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.

  7. 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….

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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 !

  11. 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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.