{"id":20276,"date":"2019-08-10T22:49:12","date_gmt":"2019-08-10T21:49:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=20276"},"modified":"2026-03-24T13:16:24","modified_gmt":"2026-03-24T12:16:24","slug":"comparison-sigma-art-35mm-1-2-35mm-1-4-and-40mm-1-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/comparison-sigma-art-35mm-1-2-35mm-1-4-and-40mm-1-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparison: Sigma Art 35mm 1.2, 35mm 1.4 and 40mm 1.4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/h2>\n
\n
\"comparison
Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art DG DN – Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art DG – Sigma 40mm 1.4 DG<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n\n

Disclaimer: <\/strong>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.
\nFurthermore no lens is perfectly symmetrical, so it is possible I picked the best corner of one lens while I picked the worst of another.
\nThe influence on other aspects like bokeh and color correction are usually less affected by this though.
\nThe 40mm 1.4 was kindly provided by a reader, the other two lenses I bought myself.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Specifications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>Sigma Art 35mm 1.2<\/td>Sigma Art 35mm 1.4<\/td>Sigma Art 40mm 1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Diameter<\/td>88mm<\/td>79mm<\/td>88mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Length<\/td>137mm<\/td>121mm<\/td>157mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter Thread<\/td>82mm<\/td>67mm<\/td>82mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight<\/td>1090g<\/td>740g<\/td>1265g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max. Magnification<\/td>1:5.1<\/td>1:5.2<\/td>1:6.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Min. focus distance from sensor<\/td>30cm<\/td>30cm<\/td>40cm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Number of aperture blades<\/td>11 (rounded)<\/td>9 (rounded)<\/td>9 (rounded)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elements\/ Groups<\/td>17\/12<\/td>13\/11<\/td>16\/12<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

The 35mm 1.2 is slightly less wide than the 35mm 1.4. This is how the field of view compares:<\/p>\n

\"\"
Sigma 35mm 1.4 -> Sigma 35mm 1.2 -> Sigma 40mm 1.4 (from bigger to smaller)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art<\/strong><\/a>, $1499\/<\/strong>1529\u20ac,<\/em><\/i> amazon.com<\/a> | B&H<\/a> | ebay.com<\/a> | ebay.de<\/a><\/em> (advertisement\/affiliate links)<\/em><\/p>\n

Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art<\/strong><\/a>, $739\/730\u20ac, amazon.com<\/a> | amazon.de<\/a> | B&H<\/a> | ebay.com<\/a> | ebay.de<\/a><\/em> (advertisement\/affiliate links)<\/em><\/p>\n

Sigma 40mm 1.4 Art<\/strong><\/a>, $1399\/1150\u20ac, amzon.com<\/a> | amazon.de<\/a> | B&H<\/a> | ebay.com<\/a> | ebay.de<\/a><\/em> (advertisement\/affiliate links)<\/em><\/p>\n

Build quality\/Handling<\/h2>\n

Being from the same manufacturer there are many similarities, so I will mainly talk about the differences.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.
\nThe 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.<\/p>\n

Vignetting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>Sigma Art 35mm 1.2<\/td>Sigma Art 35mm 1.4<\/td>Sigma Art 40mm 1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
f\/1.2<\/td>2.9 EV<\/td>-<\/td>-<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
f\/1.4<\/td>2.6 EV<\/td>2.9 EV<\/td>2.2 EV<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
f\/2.0<\/td>1.9 EV<\/td>1.9 EV<\/td>1.7 EV<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
f\/2.8<\/td>1.2 EV<\/td>1.1 EV<\/td>1.1 EV<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
f\/8.0<\/td>0.9 EV<\/td>0.7 EV<\/td>0.8 EV<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

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<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.
\nStopped down to f\/2.8 or further the differences between these 3 lenses are within the margin of error.<\/p>\n

Sharpness Infinity<\/h2>\n

We are looking at the following parts of the frame:<\/p>\n

\"comparison
positions of crops in the frame<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The camera was set on a tripod (Gitzo series 4 with Arca Swiss P0 ballhead<\/a>) 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.
\nFocus 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.
\nIt was windy, so better not use the trees for any evaluation, especially on the stopped down crops.<\/p>\n

Center<\/em><\/h3>\n