Sony shooters are blessed with a number of options when it comes to 35mm primes, and Sigma's 35mm f/1.2 DG DN Art is something of a bokeh beast. Photographer Julia Trotti puts it through its paces shooting some natural light portraits.
35mm isn’t the obvious choice when it comes to shooting portraits, but with the right model and composition, it can create some great results and can make life a lot easier if you’re shooting in tight spaces, such as on someone’s porch steps where you don’t have much room to back up.
Sigma's 35mm f/1.2 doesn’t have a brilliant reputation for the speed of its autofocus, probably because it’s a massive lump of a lens with a ton of glass to move around. At $1,499, it’s not the most expensive, but most will be putting it up against Sony's Distagon T* FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA which loses a third of a stop and gains $200, but is said to be a lot snappier. Trotti shows that the autofocus, though different, isn't an obstacle once you're used to it, and some buyers might be happy to compromise here to get that super-wide maximum aperture.
If you’re pondering a 35mm lens for Sony and don’t want to break the bank, you could opt for Sigma's older 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, which has dropped in price recently from $899 to $799. And don't forget that Samyang has a 35mm f/1.4 as well. In addition, there are two f/1.8 options, one from Sony and one from Samyang, both of which have received excellent reviews. You can check out my review of the Samyang 35mm f/1.8 by clicking here.
Do you like the images produced by the Sigma? Which 35mm lens would be your choice? Let us know in the comments below.
I'm a n00b when it comes to portrait photography.
While I understand that many photographers tend to use longer primes for portraits, I don't understand the statement "35mm isn’t the obvious choice when it comes to shooting portraits..."
Is it that the 85mm/100mms are the more common choices or is there some technical reason why?
IMHO getting closer and connecting more intimately with the subject can create more emotionally dynamic images; versus being 6m away.
I'm just looking to understand; no controversy here.
It's a somewhat misleading statement because it doesn't clarify the type of portraiture it's referring to. 35mm is great for environmental portraits, where you're typically shooting wider compositions to incorporate surrounding elements. When you do that, though, you're typically standing back from your subject a little, so you're not introducing the effect that's avoided when shooting with longer focal lengths. Namely, the closer you are to a person the more you'll distort their face and features. If you try to shoot a headshot at 35mm you're going to be sticking the camera right in their face. At that point you'll be too close (unless that's the effect you're going for). Longer focal lengths allow you to stand back and still maintain tighter compositions. That distance compresses rather than elongates features which are closer to the lens (like the nose), which leads to more flattering images. Some people say this starts at 85mm... I wouldn't shoot a tight headshot at less than 100mm, and usually between 135mm and 200mm. You can get away with 85mm if you're doing a more half-length type shot.
But at the end of the day it all comes down to what exactly you're trying to accomplish.
She told she like the distorted look she get with this lens, but in most cases it’s not flattering and portrait photographers will not use wide angel lenses.
Strictly it’s not about the lens but the distance between model and camera. Some made a study about that, and concluded you needed I think 1,5 m distance to avoid distortion. So if you keep distance and have a image where person don’t fill the frame, you are good.
While many insist on a long lens and then longer distance, today many portraits are selfies and done from every short distance. So I kind of think a 50 mm lens is fine. That will force you to keep a reasonable distance, and at least I think it’s hard to se any distortion of the face.
Amazing lens but too heavy :D
At some point in the video it was said that colors were desaturated. This might happen then sharpness, lack of abbreviations are set paramount and implemented primarily via sheer mass of glass.
What do you think?