They have clearly taken a huge leap forwards. The Sigma also performs better than the Canon 35mm F1.4L. It’s unlikely I have a bad copy of the Leica Summicron-R 35mm F2.0 but to be sure I’d love for others to repeat the same real-world test if they have this lens. Purple fringing is a little less on the Sigma at F2.0 than on the Leica at F2.0.īut it is of a harsher and more saturated look on the Sigma.īokeh is more uniform on the Sigma lens though artistically I prefer the more characterful Leica bokeh with the half-creasents at the sides of the frame.ĪF is very good for stills through the optical viewfinder on the 5D Mark III with the new Sigma lens. The following are roughly quarter crops, not 1:1 – pay attention to the shading of the sky towards the top right… The edges of the image are much brighter on the Sigma. Vignetting is significantly less on the Sigma when both lenses are shot with wide open. To prove this isn’t an especially abnormally bad performance on my copy of the lens, there’s also an example from Andrew Wonder’s fully serviced / collimated Leica-R 35mm F2.0 above. It seems there’s a rapid muddy drop off only in the very last small part of the corner, and it is doubtful one would see such a problem if shooting with the same lens on a Leica R body as the manufacturer intended. Leica-R glass does vary in the very far corners on the 5D Mark III – depending on what condition your lens is in and how old it is. The Sigma lens is significantly sharper in the corners too… With both lenses shot wide open the Sigma is a little sharper at F1.4 than the Leica is at F2.0!īut a stop brighter of course, and less money. I had a hands on with the new Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM ART today, and compared it to my Leica Summicron-R 35mm F2.0, a $1200 lens.įirst 1:1 crop shots taken on the 5D Mark III are revealing…