Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sigma 20 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.4 ART with Epic Dragon 6K

S

Sergio Perez

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
16
Points
38
Location
Macau
Hey everyone,

I ordered this set of lenses to complement my personal still lens collection, mostly made of Canon L primes. I plan to use this for Dragon Photography and occasionally indie, lower budget productions- the rest I can rent. Anyone has these, and how are they working for you? Results compared to other good still glass?

Preliminary test on a Canon DSLR (1D X Mark I) produced a bit disappointing colors on jpegs vs similar offerings from canon and a Zeiss (50 1.2L, 35mm 1.4 and 21 2.8 Zeiss) , but this difference was not so visible on the RAW files, which means that the color science applied for processing jpegs created some of the differences.

Anyone tried this on an Epic Dragon? How does the image looks to you? I'll be going to test some subjects soon, natural light or with minimal lighting.
 
I own the 50 and the 18-35 Art and the images turn out lovely on Dragon. So far I've only tested the 35 and haven't tried the 20 yet.
I'm going to get these as well, but right now I'm holding out a bit for the next two months to see if SIGMA comes out with cine versions of these. There are rumors that it will happen and that it won't be too far out. (But still just rumors)

I believe that the 18-35 is one of the most hyped still lenses on reduser atm and the primes aren't any less exciting (for still lenses) only being beat by the Zeiss Otus' IMHO.
 
Patrick Grossien said:
I own the 50 and the 18-35 Art and the images turn out lovely on Dragon. So far I've only tested the 35 and haven't tried the 20 yet.
I'm going to get these as well, but right now I'm holding out a bit for the next two months to see if SIGMA comes out with cine versions of these. There are rumors that it will happen and that it won't be too far out. (But still just rumors)

I believe that the 18-35 is one of the most hyped still lenses on reduser atm and the primes aren't any less exciting (for still lenses) only being beat by the Zeiss Otus' IMHO.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Patrick. I've always liked Red's Color Science with Canon lenses, which created lovely skin tones and also the bokeh, specially on the 135L 2.0 and 85 1.2L, where just Superior.

I got the 50, 35 and 20 because I don't own any of these focal distances in Canon counterparts- I do have access to them, but do not own them- and would like to have them as a kit.

Researched a hell about these lenses, and with all said and done, the Sigmas are very well regarded, but with criticism towards Bokeh and Colors.

In still glass land, specially for Human subjects, nothing beats Canon and Leica to my eyes. But since the price of these Sigmas is so cheap- these 3 lenses costed me actually less then the 11-24L Zoom (Which is absolutely the best still wide zoom I've ever used by the way, highly recommended) that I decided to take the plunge. Would be great to hear and see everyone's results with these Sigmas- Stills, r3d frames?
 
I use Sigma Art 18-35/1.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4. I've been waiting for them to make a 85/1.4 Art.

I shoot stills all the time on Epic Dragon, using the 35/1.4 for medium shots.
You can check my Instagram page to see a bunch of portraits using that combo. My website has higher quality versions of those shots.
 
Canon 35 1.4 and 50 1.4 (they don't make a 20mm) can't compete with the Sigma ART lenses. The biggest difference in my book is the ART lenses are actually usable at 1.4, in fact they are very sharp wide open, Canon not so much, stop down to say 5.6 and the differences are less noticeable.
 
Been testing the art 50/1.4 against the Otus 55/1.4 and a couple other lenses lately. Will post pics soon, but the differences I found, all at 1.4:

Color -- Otus: perfect, Sigma: a touch greenish
Contrast -- Otus: more contrasty, Sigma: less contrasty
Sharpness -- amazing on both
Bokeh -- gorgeous on both. Otus maybe a tiny bit nicer
Chromatic Aberration -- Otus almost nonexistent, Sigma definitely there, less so with the green, more so with the magenta, not too bad though

Considering it's 1/3 the price, amazing value lens! If I did autofocus I'd pick it over a Canon L any day of the week.
 
Sergio Perez said:
Hey everyone,

I ordered this set of lenses to complement my personal still lens collection, mostly made of Canon L primes. I plan to use this for Dragon Photography and occasionally indie, lower budget productions- the rest I can rent. Anyone has these, and how are they working for you? Results compared to other good still glass?

Preliminary test on a Canon DSLR (1D X Mark I) produced a bit disappointing colors on jpegs vs similar offerings from canon and a Zeiss (50 1.2L, 35mm 1.4 and 21 2.8 Zeiss) , but this difference was not so visible on the RAW files, which means that the color science applied for processing jpegs created some of the differences.

Anyone tried this on an Epic Dragon? How does the image looks to you? I'll be going to test some subjects soon, natural light or with minimal lighting.
Click to expand...

Great lenses for the price. Really sharp wide open, not the best bokeh out there but OK. Low CA as well. Great lenses and AF works great together with Optitron 2 (if you need a follow focus)
 
Last edited:
We have the 24 / 35 / 50 f/1.4 Art, the 105 f/2.8 Macro, the 18-35 / 50-100 f/1.8 and the 120-300 f/2.8 - and every single one of them outperforms the closest comparisons from Canon L-series.
I have been long a huge fan (and an owner) of the L-series, but have now "disposed" of all of them and switched completely to Sigma.
The no.1 reason for me is the sharpness of these lenses when they are wide open - this is why we buy the fast lenses in the first place...

To add to that - the 18-35 and 50-100 also outperform the UltraPrimes in sharpness when wide open and with those two zooms you are basically covering your basic 6-lens UltraPrime set (18, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100).
Ditto for the RPP's - which themselves out-sharpen the UP's. And these two zooms cost $2K together! Amazing value indeed...

:sifone: Peter
 
Peter Majtan said:
We have the 24 / 35 / 50 f/1.4 Art, the 105 f/2.8 Macro, the 18-35 / 50-100 f/1.8 and the 120-300 f/2.8 - and every single one of them outperforms the closest comparisons from Canon L-series.
I have been long a huge fan (and an owner) of the L-series, but have now "disposed" of all of them and switched completely to Sigma.
The no.1 reason for me is the sharpness of these lenses when they are wide open - this is why we buy the fast lenses in the first place...

To add to that - the 18-35 and 50-100 also outperform the UltraPrimes in sharpness when wide open and with those two zooms you are basically covering your basic 6-lens UltraPrime set (18, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100).
Ditto for the RPP's - which themselves out-sharpen the UP's. And these two zooms cost $2K together! Amazing value indeed...

:sifone: Peter
Click to expand...


Hey Peter, how would you say the 18-35 holds up against the wide primes? CA, Sharpness, etc.
 
I have the Sigma 20mm f1.4 on test. Canon mount. Very impressed. Its usable wide open and a little improved at about f2.8 in ca but Id not worry about it for most practical work. Build quality is very good, fells very solid, its a heavy lens and large. For the money I dont think they can be beaten. Yes the Otis is said to be a better lens but it isnt incrementaly better perhaps a very few precent.
 
Peter, have you seen the new Canon 35 f1.4 II ? Seems to be at least on par or even outperform the Sigma. They are playing the catch up game it seems.

BTW any news on the Cine Sigma front???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top