Announcement: Sigma 35mm F / 1.2 DG DN Art

On July 11.07.2019, 35, the Sigma 1.2mm F / XNUMX DG DN Art lens was announced.

Sigma 35mm F / 1.2 DG DN Art

Sigma 35mm F / 1.2 DG DN Art

Basic properties

  • Lens from the new Sigma line DG DN ART
  • Sigma's first f / 1.2 lens
  • For full-frame mirrorless cameras with Sony E / FE and Leica L mount
  • Relative Hole: 1: 1.2-1: 16
  • Focal Length: 35mm
  • MDF: 0.3 m
  • Maximum magnification ratio 1: 5.1
  • Optical design: 17 elements in 12 groups, with three SLD (Special Low Dispersion) elements, and three aspherical elements. The front element has a special protective enlightenment. Designed for cameras with a 50 MP sensor.
  • Aperture: 11 rounded blades
  • Focusing with the HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor) motor
  • Electronic focus ring
  • Aperture control ring, can be selected with a switch, the type of rotation - with or without clicks
  • AFL stop AF button, can be reprogrammed to other functions
  • Filter Diameter: 82 mm
  • Protected enclosure
  • Weight: 1090
  • Price: about 1.500 dollars
  • Sample Photos here

Appearance

All Sigma Art Lenses

The Sigma A (Sigma Art) lens range includes the following lenses:

For full-frame cameras (series DG) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:

  1. Sigma 14 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  2. Sigma 20 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  3. Sigma 24 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  4. Sigma 28 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  5. Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + A, + Pentax, + Cine
  6. Sigma 40 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  7. Sigma 50 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + A, + Cine
  8. Sigma 70 mm 1: 2.8 DG MACRO | | | A (Art), + L, + E
  9. Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine, scheme 14/12
  10. Sigma 105 mm 1: 1.4 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  11. Sigma 135 mm 1: 1.8 DG | A (Art), + L, + E, + Cine
  12. Sigma 12-24 mm 1: 4 DG | A (Art),
  13. Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG | A (Art)Scheme 16/11
  14. Sigma 24-35 mm 1: 2 DG | A (Art), + Cine
  15. Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG OS | A (Art)Scheme 19/14
  16. Sigma 24-105 mm 1: 4 DG OS | A (Art), + A

For full-frame mirrorless cameras (series DG DN) with Leica L mount and Sony E:

  1. Sigma 35 mm 1: 1.2 DG DN | A (Art)
  2. Sigma 85 mm 1: 1.4 DG DN | A (Art)Scheme 15/11
  3. Sigma 105 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN MACRO | A (ART)
  4. Sigma 14-24 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art)Scheme 17/11
  5. Sigma 24-70 mm 1: 2.8 DG DN | A (Art)Scheme 19/15

For cropped SLR cameras (series DC) with mount Nikon F, Canon EF, Sigma SA:

  1. Sigma 30 mm 1: 1.4 DC | A (Art) + Pentax, + A
  2. Sigma 18-35 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) + Pentax, + A, + Cine
  3. Sigma 50-100 mm 1: 1.8 DC | A (Art) + Cine

For cropped mirrorless cameras (series DN) for Micro 4/3 and Sony E:

  1. Sigma 19 mm 1: 2.8 DN | A (Art), black / silver
  2. Sigma 30 mm 1: 2.8 DN | A (Art), black / silver
  3. Sigma 60 mm 1: 2.8 DN | A (Art), black / silver

Abbreviations:

  • +L means that there is a version of the lens adapted for working on mirrorless cameras with a Leica L mount
  • +E means that there is a version of the lens adapted to work on mirrorless cameras with Sony E mount
  • + Pentax means that there is a version of the lens with a Pentax K mount (rare)
  • +A means that there is a version of the lens with Sony A mount (rarity)
  • + Cine means that there is a version of the lens adapted for video shooting, usually the CINE versions are released simultaneously for ARRI PL, Canon EF and Sony E mounts

Additionally, you can look at all lenses SIGMA CONTEMPORARY (C) и all lenses SIGMA SPORT (S). Here here there is a short video about the rulers and markings of Sigma lenses.

Comments here on the site do not require any registration. In the comments, you can ask a question on the topic, or leave your feedback, or describe your experience. For the selection of photographic equipment, I recommend E-Catalog. Many little things for the photo can be found on AliExpress.

The material was prepared by Arkady Shapoval. My Youtube channeland Radozhiva's group on Facebook и VK.

Add a comment:

 

 

Comments: 69, on the topic: Announcement: Sigma 35mm F / 1.2 DG DN Art

  • NoName

    Fix, 1.2 kilograms, and I thought 24-70 heavy.

    • NoName

      I made a mistake 1.09 kg, still dofiga

      • 1223

        And the message sigmofiksa almost does not please everyone with its mass and not fixes either (

  • Igor

    It is they who are trying so hard under the Panasonic S1.

  • anonym

    Mom dear, how huge he is.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      huge - this is Sigma 105 / 1.4 and weighing almost 1.7 kg :) I wonder how much 400 / 2.8 will weigh

      • Michael

        As their 200-500 2.8)) And the size is the same)

  • Iskander

    Maybe off topic, please explain to me what is the purpose of these deep cutouts on the petal hood?

    • Onotole

      For the corners of the image - if they were not there, the light flux would not come from these places and the corners of the frame would be darkened.

      • Iskander

        But stray side illumination rays also pass through these cutouts. It would be more logical to push the hood in these corners to the shape of a pyramid with a rectangular base. It looks like the pyramidal tube-blend has been lathe-turned to a cone shape. But beautiful and expensive! If I'm not logical, throw a stone at me!)

        • Novel

          At a wide angle, stray flares are no longer so scary. On a fisheye, the sun in the frame is one piece of cake, it's tiny, just a source of light. But unnecessary vignetting to a super-fast lens that suffers from it is a problem. Therefore, IMHO, for everything from 50 mm down the hood is not so much protection against backlighting as protection of the front element.

        • Novel

          And yes, blinds such as those used for movie lenses will be more effective, but the lens hood should be utilitarian and worn on the lens, and the lens should still be removed with the lens hood on. Therefore, this is the solution.

          • Iskander

            Then it’s better conical. A little larger in diameter than the petal, but it is guaranteed not to miss a single beam from the side. And for long focal lengths it will be almost cylindrical, so for the sake of gain in size I do not see any reason to fence such a garden. The Japanese, of course, are cunning, but not trickier than the laws of optics.

            • Vitaly N

              Is it okay that the lens is wide angle? Saw off the petals - get a cone. You can't put a long cone without vignetting - look at hoods for other lenses with this focal length. In this case, the petals are for the good, not for marketing. You think this is not a necessary refinement, but in fact the manufacturer has built up a conical hood in those places where the petals do not shade the matrix.

            • Onotole

              What other cone? Did you cross-section of volumetric figures on geometry? in this case, as a first approximation, we are dealing with a pyramid with a base in the form of a rectangular parallelepiped (frame size). When cut with a cylindrical hood, petals of this shape are obtained. And if somewhere a third-party light source does penetrate, it’s just in the place where the edge of the petal is even (the most protruding part of this lens), because if you make a hood of such a size that it doesn’t hit anything, it will stay 1,5 longer.
              Now, if we had a round frame, over the entire area of ​​the created image, then the petals would be harmful, a cylindrical (or conical, but deeper) blend would be enough.
              In general, if you almost calculate the profile of these petals, then the most negative of the effects will be unnecessary vignetting, which is not treated by any editors. An example is how the Losers did Yongnuo 14 / 2.8 (for Nikon): at infinity, the edges of the hood are visible as dark stripes along the frame.

              • Iskander

                Onotole, since geometry means geometry. Draw a 36x24mm rectangle on the paper. We will assume that this rectangle is the size of the pyramidal hood bell mouth, which is guaranteed not to vignette on this lens. Draw a circle around this rectangle with a compass. Its diameter will be equal to 43,3 mm, that is, the diagonal of our rectangle. This will be the diameter of a round (conical or cylindrical, in this case it does not matter) hood, which is also guaranteed not to be vignetting. We divide 43,3 by 36 - we get about 1,2 times in diameter (and not 1,5 in length, as you wrote). Now, from the same center, draw another circle with a compass across the width of the frame with a diameter of 36 mm. This is the diameter of the petal hood, which is also guaranteed not to vignette, but passes diagonal rays through the cut edges of the pyramid.
                Next, we go to sopromat. To ensure the same strength of the petals as that of a cone or pyramid, it is necessary to thicken the petals by at least about 1 mm. 43,3 / 38 = 1,14 times (rounded).
                Conclusion - pyramidal and cylindrical hoods are only 1,14 times larger in diameter with incomparably better strength and optical characteristics.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                I immediately remembered a quote about calculating a lens from rock crystal.

              • Vitaly N

                Iskander, you were carried to the wrong steppe. I already wrote - cut off the petals and get just your conical blend that does not give vignettes. The petals improve it, not how you think the cutouts make it worse.

              • anonym

                Iskander, notice, the petals are shorter horizontally, longer vertically. That is, a rectangular shadowing of the non-working area of ​​the lens is created. Diagonally, a circular hood would already cover the working area of ​​the glass.

              • Onotole

                Iskander, I don't even want to comment on this. You are as far from geometry as you are from resistance to material. In addition, you have completely inattentively read my post and are trying to challenge what I did not claim. And finally, try mentally (or if the fuse is enough - at least from paper) to simulate what you wrote about, and you will understand that only 2 options of the hood will simultaneously not transmit any light from the source outside the frame and will not give vignetting: this is a bulky rectangular “cinematic” and circular petal, and with a slightly different shape of the petals than on the lens under discussion. Something like the 12-24 f / 4G - without “flat” parts on wide petals, which are actually done with only one purpose - so that the object can be stably placed on the surface with the hood down.
                A lens hood in the form of an ordinary cone (without cutouts) of any shape and size cannot fundamentally satisfy these conditions.

              • Iskander

                Onotole, then I advise you to conduct an experiment - put your lens with a petal hood sideways to the sun, so that the sun's light hits the lens through the cutout. Then cover the neckline with your finger. I'm sure you'll be surprised that the beam no longer hits the lens! You say - but your finger will cut off the corner of the frame! Of course it will cut off! Now move your finger a few millimeters away from the cutout towards the sun. Again, the beam does not hit the lens! And the corner of the frame is no longer cropped! Here are miracles !!!

              • Iskander

                If this does not convince you, then do the experiment easier. Place the lens with the lens hood upright, with the lens hood facing up. Put the toothpick on the petal so that it rests on one end of the lens. Measure approximately the angle at which the toothpick lies. Then just put a toothpick in the cutout and measure the angle, it will be noticeably smaller. I think you guessed that the toothpick imitates a ray of light that hits the lens. Now imagine that instead of a petal hood there is a conical, to the same lens. As you don’t put a toothpick, its angle will be no less than in the first dimension.

              • Iskander

                According to your logic, lenses should be rectangular, not round. Why are they made round? Yes, because the whole area of ​​the lens is involved in the construction of the image, and not the area in the form of a rectangle. You can conduct an experiment - put in front of the lens a piece of paper with a rectangular cutout proportional to the size of the matrix and measure how much the aperture will drop. Just take a photo in M ​​mode without and with paper. You will be very surprised!

              • Novel

                https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/20-35mm/D3S_1532-oblique-0600.jpg - tadam!

                About why the lenses are round. What is the shape of the lens of the glasses? Anything (convenient).

                Nothing prevents you from making a rectangular lens. Only in this case:

                a) a rectangular lens must be cut out - unnecessary complexity - processing cost
                b) the rectangular lens must be rotated in the lens unit when focusing (well, or part of the lens unit)
                c) rectangular lenses exist and are sold. Where dimensions are important — weight or other criteria.

              • Onotole

                I checked it on my 20-35 / 2.8D - the sun light falls on the lens through the cutout. As soon as the finger is even a millimeter out of the hood, I immediately notice it by the darkening of the corresponding corner of the frame. And this is so at all focal points. This is probably because the hood of this lens is calculated very accurately and leaves no room for creativity in this direction.
                I’ll only be engaged in nonsense with a toothpick after you carry out the experiment I proposed.

              • Iskander

                Onotole, you did the wrong experiment. I wrote that the finger should not be moved forward, but sideways, towards the sun, that is, towards the light source. You moved your finger parallel to the optical axis of the lens forward, and naturally, you got a darkening of this angle, and you had to tear your finger from the notch to the side, that is, perpendicular to the optical axis, towards the sun. Experiment with a toothpick. It just simulates the side light beam. What is the optical axis of the lens explain? Lest you think that this is the axis of the tripod screw ...

          • Iskander

            Roman, especially for you, is not a curtain, but an example of a monolithic pyramidal hood. It can also be turned over. https://vk.com/id265207666?z=photo265207666_457241884%2Fphotos265207666

            • Novel

              Well, let's start with the fact that this lens is easier to manufacture and more versatile - it certainly fits a large number of filters with a thread of a certain size, regardless of the focal length.

            • Novel

              * this hood

              • Iskander

                Roman, well, I would argue about the simplicity of making a petal hood. Pyramidal, and even more conical, is much simpler and cheaper.

              • Novel

                I'm just talking about the pyramidal (or conical). Scoop could not in the petal hoods.

              • Vitaly N

                The difficulty of manufacturing? Iskander, you are really far from technology. The form of 2 parts and the press in both cases, absolutely no difference.

        • Vitaly N

          Remember that light does not only pass through the center of the lens. Therefore, the shape will not correspond to the pyramid. And the base should be round, and dress with the reverse side ... A lot of nuances. But no one forbids using a cinema lens hood until you get tired of carrying it.

  • Dima

    Oh, when will Sigma finally release its FF camera? (((

  • Iskander

    Arkady, what a quote, I do not know?

  • Iskander

    Vitaly N, I did not suggest trimming the petals, but quite the opposite - to increase the notches to the state of a cone. If you know what I mean.

    • Vitaly N

      And get the dark corners in the photo. Lens manufacturers are no fools. Arkady accurately remembered the crystal lens. Buy this one and close the cutouts yourself, and then throw it out.

      • Iskander

        If you read my calculation, you would understand that the gain in the size of the petal hood over the conical one is in theory only minus 20% in diameter, but in practice - minus 14% in diameter, so lens manufacturers are certainly not fools sell fools a beautiful trick that breaks faster, and the fool buys another one of the same, without realizing what the joke is - and so on ad infinitum. Quirks about resistance to materials and electrical tape are past the checkout, since any mechanic will tell you that a monolithic cone, cylinder or pyramid is in any case stronger than a cantilever petal, and Anonymous tape should be used not black, but blue.

        • Vitaly N

          You are going to hammer a bunch of nails? I have not yet broken a single petal. Sopromat goes by the forest, the hood has a different purpose.
          About the lens something like this - there are a lot of clever guys who in words calculated a lens with lenses made of rock crystal with zero distortion, but they all remained pi $$$.

          • Iskander

            No, I just agreed with the post above that the hood should also protect the front lens in case of accidental impact, from which no one is immune. And to those who send strength materials in the forest - just in the forest a tree can fall on its head in windy weather - just because of the moment of inertia and resonance. I don’t know about rock crystal, I don’t think its optical characteristics are very different from glass.

    • anonym

      Black electrical tape to help you!

    • Michael

      If you increase the notches, you will have to enlarge the base of the "cone" - otherwise there will be vignetting. And if you increase the base, then additional ones will appear. stray flares, which are cut off by more compressed petals. And these flares will already be in the frame, in contrast to flares through the cutouts.

      • Iskander

        That is, illumination through the cutouts is impossible, but through the base of the cone increased by 14% - is it mandatory? Explain, please, what do you think is called "more compressed petals"? And how do they “cut off”?

        • anonym

          You have nothing to do, except x .. with a finger to compare? Then calculate the plastic consumption for the product.

          • Iskander

            No, it's better to compare the consumption of Chinese-hours per thousand copies and estimate the price-quality ratio.

        • Michael

          Through the cutouts, the illumination will be, but behind the scenes, on an unused area matrix. Roughly, if you attach a crop lens with a lens hood to ff, then on the frame it will be visible that the hood forms a rectangle in the frame size. If you make the lens hood round, there will be a circle in the frame. It’s necessary to increase its size and on the long side of the frame the cropping of the image will be less than with the petals, respectively, there is a higher probability of exposure. I hope it is clear, although it turned out clumsily, sorry)

          • Iskander

            I disagree. Any side beam hitting the front lens, including through the cutout, is inevitably scattered in the lens and inevitably hits the matrix, ultimately in the form of a stray light. If that weren't the case, the hood wouldn't be needed at all, right? I prove that the pyramid hood is ideal because it has no cutouts and is only 20% wider than the petal hood in width for the same length. The petal one, obtained by cutting off the edges (corners) of the pyramid, is imperfect and even harmful (since it generates a false feeling of tranquility). The conical has the same dimensions as the pyramidal, and also has no cutouts, but also perfectly protects the lens from side exposure.

            • Vitaly N

              Iskander, do you take photographs at all, or do you only count on crystal lenses? At this focal length, no lens hood will help if the sun is in the frame. And it will be in the frame if the ray hits the glass. And only a hand is better than a petal hood, but not a conical hood. Go on, we remember the end of the quote ...

              • Iskander

                Vitaly N, if you scroll the mouse wheel away from you, you will suddenly find that it was not I who mentioned the calculation of crystal glasses, but Arkady Shapoval. It's trolling on his part, or not - it doesn't matter, I answered him that I don't know about such glasses, well, perhaps only as a container for vodka and hanging chandeliers. And I have been photographing for a long time, older than many of the local visitors, since I graduated from school in 1990.

              • Novel

                Iskander, if I put on 8-15 on a full frame with a hood and unscrew it to the 8 mm position, on which it is supposed to take off the hood to get a 180-degree panorama, then the hood (this characteristic, petal one) gives the corresponding figure. Moreover, if I twist the focus so that the hood disappears (this is somewhere 11-12 mm), then even the edge of the finger placed in the neckline becomes visible in this neckline. In such a simple way, we see that the cutouts allow you to avoid vignetting in the corners, but at the same time maintain a sufficient hood size to protect from flare to the maximum and save the front element from damage.

              • Novel

                There we get two flattened petals along the long side of the frame and two rounded ones along the short side. Here are those that are flattened, they can theoretically be as rounded and not fall into the frame (protecting from flare), but then, as noted above, a lens placed on a lens hood will not be stable.

                You can make the hood simpler, rounded, as on 18-55 (there is a petal option, but there is a regular cone), but it will be minimal in height and ineffective. The hood for a narrow angle can be simply huge (like 400-600 mm) and theoretically it can also be made petal, but it makes no sense - the cone is easier to operate.

                This design has been around for decades, the choice is always between efficiency and usability, I don’t know what the argument is.

              • Iskander

                Again about the sun in the frame! Enlightenment and lens construction save from bunnies, but not a hood! If the photographer has placed the sun in the frame, then it is also the subject of the photograph along with the sky, clouds and other trees and birds. No hood will cover it, because you don't need to close it - it is an object! The hood is useless here, and it will not save you from bunnies. It's clear? I'm talking about a situation when the sun is not in the frame, is not the subject of photography, but its rays hit the lens of the lens, scattering in the lenses and eventually reducing the contrast (there are such angles, even I know about it, although I “do not photograph” ). The lens hood is designed to shade side light from the sun (or other unwanted light sources that are not part of the composition). The pyramidal and conical blends fully correspond to this purpose, and partly the petal ones.

              • Novel

                Damn ... Iskander, this design allows you to minimize the size of the hood, taking into account the parameters of a particular lens. The hood should be compact and fit over the lens in the reverse position as well. Operators use rectangular curtains, but they have a lot of body kit, it's easier for them. The photographer cannot afford this, the hood, at best, unfolds before packing in a bag and is put back on when shooting.

                "Sun in the frame" is a common term that includes parasitic flare with loss of contrast. Not a very accurate term, I agree, but they say so.

        • Leonid

          Iskander, do you really think that all the developers are so stupid and have not thought of what you are offering?

          • Iskander

            No, they are not stupid, they are cunning. "Give me an advertisement and I will sell a lead bullet as a headache remedy" (C)

  • anonym

    Do not feed the Iskander troll anymore! Let him go back to the forest.)

    • Iskander

      Anonymous, these are the stupid and uneducated people who will leave, and the smart ones will think about it. That is exactly what I am seeking. I give food for thought, understand?

      • anonym

        Woe from wit. There is nothing to think about, everything has already been thought out for you! You are looking for a black cat in a dark room ... and she is not there!

        • Iskander

          And if I find it?

          • Vitaly N

            Let's go back to crystal again. Have you made or patented at least one “calculated” blend for yourself, or is it still empty chatter, as everyone already understood?

            • Iskander

              Yes, even in the Stone Age! I do not develop and do not intend to develop a hood, I just point out the disadvantages of a petal hood. In my opinion, the 20% gain in the compactness of the petal hood is more than offset by the better protection against side illumination of the conical, and even more so - the pyramidal hood. And they can also be changed backwards. Roman, there are monolithic pyramidal hoods, and not just four shutters like cinema lenses. And they roll over too. For example, this https://vk.com/id265207666?z=photo265207666_457241884%2Falbum265207666_00%2Frev https://vk.com/id265207666?z=photo265207666_457241883%2Fphotos265207666
              It could be turned to a petal state in order to reduce the size by 10 mm and show all the flaws of this idea, but I'm not a pervert)

  • Iskander

    Novel
    18.07.2019 in 20: 13
    I agree, but a pyramidal or conical lens hood can handle it no worse

  • Vitaly N

    Now I'm wondering - the disputes about the EGF and the invariability of the focal length from the size of the matrix are considered flood and offtopic, but the calculation of the "crystal" superblend is not?

    • Iskander

      But I'm also interested ... I'm interested in everything!)

  • Vitaly P

    Interestingly, the notched hood is reflected in the front lens as a flat rectangle)

Add a comment

christening photographer price Photography for lovers

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2021

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2019/07/sigma-35mm-f1-2-dg-dn-art/