he message appears even when the software and the lens are appropriate, close the Lens System Software Updater and remove the cable and power OFF the camera. The Google Pixel 6 may not be the latest Google smartphone any more, but it might still be the best value

The wide maximum F1.4 aperture means this lens works amazingly will in lowlight conditions like photographing gigs or capturing those unforgettable moments at a wedding reception. But it can also create the most attractive shallow depth of field and blue to your images. This is a quality that a lot of photographers strive to achieve, and with this lens, it's easy. Hyper Sonic Motor There is one figure here where Sigma lags behind several competitors that I will note, and that is in minimum focus distance/maximum magnification. This has been and continues to be an area of strength for the 35mm focal length. 85mm lenses typically have very poor figures here (a maximum magnification figure of .11-.13x is common), and even 50mm lenses (where the standard used to be around .15x), but 35mm lenses have always bettered those figures. The Sigma’s ability to focus down to one foot/30cm and have a .20x magnification (1/5th life size) is useful, but not nearly as useful as the Canon 35 IS at .24x and is doubled by the Tamron’s .40x figure (one of the greatest strengths of that lens!). If it's simply beyond your budget, though, there's certainly plenty to like in the crisp results delivered by the Sigma, even when shooting wide-open. Given that the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN Art is available on two competing lens mounts, our final thoughts depend to some extent on which mount you're shooting with. The Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN Art isn't quite as compact and lightweight as we might have expected, given that it's designed specifically for mirrorless. Compared to the original DSLR-oriented 35mm F1.4, its barrel diameter is near indistinguishable and its weight has only dropped by around 20-25 grams (0.7-0.9 ounces). As noted in the previous section, the size and weight advantage versus the mirrorless variant of Sigma's older design is rather more noticeable, however.

Balance of the E-mount version on our Sony a7R IV body is fairly good. It's a little bit front-heavy, largely because while its weight hasn't fallen much, mirrorless bodies tend to be a bit lighter than DSLRs. But regardless, we didn't find the pairing uncomfortable to shoot with. With that said, it might prove a bit ungainly with smaller, lighter bodies like the original Sony a7/R. If you lean towards shooting more video than stills, the Tamron is a good choice as it has the best manual focus ring (by a good measure), longer focus throw, and adds an effective image stabilizer to the mix. Recent owner of it, very solid and sharp. I'm not sure i like the contrast of it that much over other lenses but it's a great over all lense. It’s interesting to me the very different approach that Sigma and Tamron have taken with dealing the challenge of focus with large aperture primes. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART has a large aperture and quite fast focus but at the expense of having a very small focus throw. It barely has 90 degrees of focus throw, and the distance between 6 feet and infinity is TINY on the focus ring. It makes manual focus very difficult and even makes me wonder if this doesn’t contribute to the lens’ somewhat poor focus accuracy in that range. I have never tried shooting from a moving car. All the reciprocal shutter speed rules of thumb are based on standing on foot, so perhaps they are inivalidwhen you are sitting in a vibrating machine travelling over rough pavement. Same with the stuff about wide-ish focal lengths like 35mm not needing IS when handholding.

Above: And finally the Sigma 35 1.2 at the bottom, reproducing 165mm across the frame, making all three Sigma lenses similar in this regard. The Sigma 1.2 is however sharper than the 1.4 in the middle and maintains this closer to the edges too – and remember this was shot at f1.2 as well. All four lenses improve their edge sharpness when closed, but the two most expensive models are already excellent out of the gate. It ensures compatibility with Canon’s in-camera Lens Aberration Correction function, which enables correction matching the optical characteristics of the attached lens. *Don't get me wrong - I'd buy any better, smaller and lighter lens in a heartbeat - I am completely brand agnostic - I buy whatever is best - only one sigma lens thus far and this is going to replaced soon when we'll get a GM macro from Sony - I am expecting this might beast all existing macro lenses by a good deal - given the pedigree of recent lens releases. Up front, there's a 67mm filter thread. This is both the same size used in the SLR-oriented lens from 2012, and also a common size that should prove easy to find at an affordable price. The Canon produces surprisingly strong chromatic aberration (magenta fringing), even at apertures as small as f/8 As well as being made in the usual Canon, Nikon and Sigma mounts, it’s also one of Sigma’s new lenses to be offered in E-mount for Sony users, ruling out the need for a Sigma MC-11 converter. The Sony E-mount version performs the same functions as the converter, including in-camera image stabilization and in-camera lens aberration correction, with the benefit of it also being compatible with Sony’s continuous AF modes, which are not supported by the MC-11. Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art review: Build & Handling The 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art flanked by the 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (right) and the 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (left)

If you own RF or Z mount you are likely getting a better deal since IQ is similar and the new lens is:The Sigma 24-35mm f/2 ART is also an interesting alternative. It has a slower aperture but delivers similar image quality along with a small zoom range. I reviewed it here. It retails for a hundred dollars more. What lens should I buy? - Recommendations for astrophotography and more in EF & RF Lenses 10-28-2023

I have had lenses in the past that have had a fault. When ever I have had them repaired they have always broken again. It's like the fault is produced at point of build. I had a nightmare with a Canon 1.4 lens. My ethos now is that if a lens has a fault, replace it outright. No science behind this belief mind haha. Did Sigma beat Canon on this lens? When you factor in the cost, the look, the optics and the images (that's all that matters in the end), then yes, absolutely. There is nothing that the Canon offers that would make me want the Sigma any less, especially the extra bit of cash left over after you buy it.

Above: And now for my distant landscape scene, taken with the Alpha 1 and angled as always so that details run right into the corners where the lenses struggle the most; I used the default Lens Correction settings which on the Alpha 1 has Distortion set to Off. I’m starting with the Sigma 35 1.4 at f1.4 where I had to manually focus for the best result. It's not quite the night-and-day difference we saw with the recent Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN Art, but it's still quite noticeable. Compared to the earlier versions of the 35mm F1.4 Art lens, this new model has shrunk by 8mm (0.3") in length, and shed a not insignificant 110-115g (3.9-4.1 oz) in weight. Sigma is arguably one of the more recognizable of the third party lens manufacturers. It is known for providing inexpensive alternatives to many of Canon's own zoom lens offerings, or filling niche gaps left in Canon's lineup. This applied to their limited selection of prime lenses as well; I briefly owned their 30mm f/1.4 EX DC and was happy with it on a consumer level, though the optics didn't hold up to some of the more pressing work I did and a move to full-frame (it's a “DC” lens, denoting it's for Digital Camera's only, and specifically crop sensors) meant I wouldn't be able to use it anyway. They released a 50mm f/1.4 EX DG that retailed for MORE than the Canon equivalent; their stance was that it performed better optically and had better build, both of which may very well be true. But pervasive issues of quality control, of batch variance where you never know for sure if the lens you get will be anywhere close to being as good as it can be, or as it is advertised, and a stigma (pun?) attached to owning something “inferior” than a first party “L” lens kept many consumers away.