Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART Review

Dustin Abbott

November 29th, 2019

This one has taken me a while to get to! I was scheduled to review the Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM ART months ago, but then Sigma announced and quickly released a trio of new lenses for Sony FE (and Leica L), which I prioritized covering. The first I reviewed was the little 45mm prime lens. The second of these was thenew Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN ART wide angle angle zoom, which I reviewed here. The final member of the trio is the beast – a massive optical juggernaut – the Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG DN ART lens – which in many ways is most like the 40mm F1.4 ART that I’m now finally covering. I haven’t yet released my final review of the 35mm F1.2, but I’ll update this once I have. I had an option of reviewing the Canon EF mount of the Sony FE mount version, but I elected to go with the EF version as I’ll be reviewing it not only on my Sony a7RIII and Sony a9 bodies, but also on a Canon EOS R body that I recently acquired to do RF mount lenses reviews on. I grabbed the EF to RF Control Adapter which makes using most EF mount lenses seamless of the RF body. The Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART (hereafter called the 40ART for brevity) is an optical juggernaut, with wall to wall sharpness, high contrast, and nice bokeh to match. It joins the 28mm F1.4 ART (review here) and 105mm F1.4 (review here) as examples of Sigma’s best optical work in a prime lens. It’s also very large (one of Sigma’s largest non-telephoto lenses), which is in some ways more incongruous because most 40mm lenses tend to be small (all of the previous 40mm lenses I’ve reviewed have been “pancakes” or very compact).

Sigma has been on somewhat of a roll as of late as they continue to refine their process of lens development in the ART series. Early on I found the ART series somewhat frustrating, as there was frequently a blend of very good optics, a reasonable price, but then a frustrating autofocus experience. In more recent history, however, Sigma has managed to make positive changes to the autofocus on most of their new releases, which has made it easier to give their lenses a more wholehearted recommendation. As Sigma has continued to improve their lenses, however, the “reasonable price” part of the equation has become more questionable. While it is still true that a comparative Sigma lens is still cheaper than than an equivalent first party lens (where such a lens exists), their pricing is typically now much closer to that of the first party lens than a third party alternative. Case in point: when the 35mm F1.4 ART was released (to much fanfare), it was priced at $899 USD (and is currently on sale for $649 USD at the time of this review). The 40ART release is a different story; it released at a price point of $1399, some 55% higher. Now, to be fair, I think the optical performance of the lens warrants the price tag, but it’s also fair to observe that Sigma has in effect vacated the “affordable” space and left it to others. There’s points to celebrate about this (higher quality, better lenses) and also something to lament (those on a budget have fewer new options).

Still, Sigma has a clear market strategy now, and it seems to be serving them well. The 40ART represents one of the more uncompromising lenses that I’ve reviewed (outside of the Zeiss Otus series); it makes no pretenses to moderation in its size (3.46 (W) x 5.16″ (L) / 87.8 x 131 mm) or weight (2.6 lb / 1.2 kg). This is a 40mm prime lens that weighs nearly as much as a 70-200mm F2.8 zoom (it actually outweighs Canon’s soon arriving RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS). As you can see from the photo above, it dwarfs the typically-sized Canon 35mm F1.4L II. But what the 40ART does have is a lot of Sigma’s wizardry in building high end Cine (cinematic lenses for video) that demand the very best in performance. This is also a fantastic focal length, with a slightly narrower angle of view than 35mm (good for portraits) but wider than 50mm (easier to use for general purpose). Does that outweigh the disadvantages of size, weight, and price? Read on to find out…

Prefer to watch your reviews? Here’s Parts 1 and 2 of my two-part video review:

Sigma 40ART Build and Handling

While it is true that the ART series formula is no longer as fresh and exciting as it was when Sigma unveiled their new Global Vision look, it is equally true that Sigma has been steadily refining the formula. It’s been a while since we have seen revolution in design from Sigma, but we have definitely been seeing some very positive evolution in the ART series formula to what is now a very complete package. One of the key aspects of this genesis is that Sigma has fully embraced the idea of professional-grade build including full weather sealing. The Sigma 40ART includes a robust gasket at the lens mount, internal seals, and an oil and water resistant coating on the front element.

The Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM ART comes in two different configurations for a total of five different lens mounts. The first is the DSLR configuration, which is actually the baseline design (DSLR lenses can be adapted to mirrorless, but mirrorless-designed lenses (to this point) cannot be adapted to DSLRs successfully. The DSLR mounts include Canon, Nikon, and Sigma. There is also a mirrorless conversion configuration where an additional bit of length has been added to the barrel near the lens mount to accommodate the different flange distance (there’s a different distance requirement of the final lens element from the sensor to achieve proper focus). Sigma utilizes that additional space by adding essentially a customized adapter that helps convert the focus system to work with mirrorless cameras…in this case Sony (FE) or Leica (L). As noted at the beginning, I’ve actually chosen an EF mount so that I could maximize flexibility for where I use it – on my Canon DSLR, on Canon mirrorless (via adapter), and on my Sony cameras via the MC-11.

The Sigma MC-11 mount converter has been a very clever addition to Sigma’s “Global Vision”. This is essentially an adapter for Canon EF lenses to adapt to the popular Sony mirrorless FE mount. The advantage is that it is regularly updated (via software that we’ll examine in a moment) to embrace new focus improvements and to eliminate issues. The end result is that many Sigma lenses function nearly like native Sony lenses via the MC-11 (they now have a similar MC-21 adapter for Leica L). I have yet to test any adapted lens with any adapter that functions as well as Sigma lenses via the MC-11 on Sony bodies. I got essentially flawless performance on my Sony a7RIII and a9 cameras with the 40ART. You can see a dedicated gallery in the Lens Image Gallery page. My MC-11 gets used on a near daily basis with one lens or another.

Another area that Sigma has worked to “future-proof” their lenses in the ART lineup is their USB dock. This, along with the Sigma Optimization Pro software, allows you to apply firmware updates to their lenses along with make customization tweaks to lens behavior (like autofocus). I strongly suggest that Sigma owners purchase the USB Dock and spend a little time in the Optimization Pro software to get the most out of their lenses.

Another key development (at least for Canon shooters) has been that Sigma “cracked the code” in 2018 and now offers compatibility with Canon’s Lens Aberration Corrections (LAC) in camera. This eliminates one of the key disadvantages of third party lenses in the past (a reality that still remains for every other third party, actually, from what I see) in that first party lenses could receive in-camera corrections while third party lenses could not. The 28ART receives near-full in camera support, so JPEGS can receive processing correction for distortion, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, and diffraction. While a lens like this has relatively few aberrations, the ability to have vignette and distortion corrected is certainly welcome. While LAC are not applied to RAW files (for any lenses on Canon), it’s easy to apply those type of corrections in post anyway.

I’ll explore autofocus more in the next section, but I will point out that I found that Sigma took a huge leap forward in their autofocus accuracy (at least on Canon, which is the DSLR brand that I test) about the same time as they got access to Canon’s LAC. I’ve theorized that Sigma entered into a private agreement with Canon and gained greater access to their focus algorithms at the same, though I have no proof to support that theory. What I do know is that I’ve tested essentially every ART series in the lineup, and I noted a huge uptick in focus accuracy and reliability during that same time. The 40ART was born during that period, and shows the benefits of that improved focus.

The overall look of the lens is familiar, and employs Sigma’s combination of metal bits (including a brass mount) along with some “thermal composites” (engineered plastics) that combine into a lens that is both attractive and with the feel of durability. It compares favorably to similar lenses from Canon, Sony, or Nikon, with a very robust feel. As noted, the lens is very significantly sized and utilizes a large (but common) 82mm front filter thread.

One change that Sigma has implemented in this design is the inclusion of a locking mechanism on the lens hood. I’m personally not persuaded that a lock is needed if the lens hood is well engineered, but this has been a recent trend. I will note that Sigma has done a better job of implementing this lock than most other lenses I’ve seen, as the release button is better shaped (large enough to easily depress) and the action of the button is nice and smooth. The lens hood clicks into place (and the lock engages) with a satisfying click.

Sigma’s lens hoods are always well designed, with a mix of materials that includes soft touch materials in the transition area where the hood mounts along with a thin ribbed section that allows you to have a nice grip on the hood when releasing it. Unlike the 28mm F1.4 ART, one can use a circular polarizer without it catching or jamming on the lens hood, which is a relief. Large aperture primes like this lend themselves to use with either a circular polarizer or ND filter to help shoot at wide apertures in bright conditions.

Sigma gets bonus marks for always including a very nice padded case for storing and transporting the lens in.

There is one switch on the lens barrel, and that is to switch between AF (Autofocus) and MF (Manual Focus). Full time manual override is available. The focus ring itself is nice and wide and well damped.

It can focus down to 1.31ft (40cm) and achieves a moderately useful 0.154x magnification.

This is essentially average for a 50mm lens, but not as useful as the magnification figure on most 35mm lenses.

In summation, this is a big, heavy lens (you already knew that!), but also one that is nicely made and seems ready to handle professional-grade use.

40ART Autofocus and Video Performance

As I noted above, autofocus performance has gone from being an area of weakness to an area of strength for newer Sigma lenses. While I still recommend spending some time with the USB dock and tweaking focus at different focus distances, I’ve found that “out-of-the-box” focus performance is vastly improved in recent Sigma releases. My overall focus accuracy was excellent during my review even at F1.4 at a variety of focus distances. Now, to be fair, I’m just about personally finished with DSLRs. I had hung onto them for tracking advantages, but the a9 has cured me of that (and is definitely my favorite camera to track action with right now!) I did this review essentially exclusively on a Canon EOS R and Sony full frame mirrorless cameras (a7RIII and a9) and not having to worry about calibrating focus on lenses I’m reviewing is a treat. The benefit to mirrorless focus is that I don’t recall one missed focus shot over my review no matter where in the frame I was composing. Gone are the days of “focus-and-recompose” for me.

I recognize that many of you will be using this lens on a DSLR, so I’ll have to go on my experience with recent Sigma lenses along with anecdotal feedback when I say that I think it will focus well for you there as well. A little work with the USB Dock and Sigma Optimization Pro software will help you get the best out of it.

This video episode hits on both autofocus and video performance and is worth a look:

Being able to use Eye AF on either Canon or Sony (both are now excellent!!) helps a lot. Look at how beautifully focused this shot of my dog’s eye is:

Human Eye AF worked excellent, too, with beautiful results on Canon:

…and on Sony:

I put on an ND64 filter and a polarizer and tested focus during my review and was able to successfully focus even in lower light conditions (twilight) with either filter in place. There’s a minor slowdown for major focus changes, but nothing significant. The lens utilizes Sigma’s HSM (HyperSonic Motor) focus system, and it focuses quickly and reasonably quietly (there’s a faint scratching and whirring that is most noticeable during Servo/Continuous focus). When shooting video the focus pulls are smooth and accurate, though in a quiet environment the on-board mic will pick up a light clicking sound as focus changes occur.

I didn’t test the autofocus for sports, but I feel confident that the lens will serve well for the more typical purposes of weddings, events, portraits, general purpose, or street. Autofocus is fast, quiet, and confident: a great combination!

Video is somewhat harder to demonstrate in a text review. There’s a weird dichotomy that exists in our camera world right now. Mirrorless lenses typically employ focus systems that are much better for autofocus during video. They are quieter and smoother when doing focus pulls or changes. But if you want to manually focus, their focus-by-wire systems are frankly awful, without hard stops, tactile feedback, or the ability to make consistent, repeatably focus throws. The primary design of the 40ART is for DSLRs, so its focus is not completely silent during autofocus focus pulls. You’ll hear a light clicking sound that will be picked up if you recording audio on camera. Focus pulls are otherwise fairly smooth, though with a little lag while the focus motor spools up inertia.

When adapted to mirrorless, I found that I preferred the behavior of the lens on the EOS R, where it focused more smoothly and quietly. This shouldn’t be surprising, as while the EOS R is a mirrorless camera, it is still using Canon focus algorithms and the lens mount I had was a Canon EF. On Sony the focus pulls were more sluggish and there was more obvious clicking sounds as the focus motor tried to adjust.

The footage on either camera was excellent, however, as the lens is extremely sharp and provides excellent detail. Another potential plus is that the manual focus is not focus-by-wire. The focus ring is broad, nicely ribbed, and moves along with good damping. You can produce more precise focus throws because there is a mechanical coupling to the lens elements rather than being routed through the focus system. There are pros and cons to both approaches; just decide which works better for you.

Sigma 40ART Image Quality

There’s one principle reason that people are interested in this lens, and it isn’t because of the autofocus, the build, or the price. People want the razor-sharp image quality that this lens is capable of. This is an optically complex lens with 16 elements in 12 groups (about the same as some 24-70mm F2.8 zoom lenses!). This includes three F Low Dispersion (FLD) and three Special Low Dispersion (SLD) elements along with one aspherical element. You can see the optical breakdown in the the latter half of this video episode. Let’s start with a look at distortion and vignette.

As you can see, distortion is basically a non-factor. The uncorrected image (on the left) looks essentially the same as the corrected image on the right. A close look shows a very slightly amount of barrel distortion, but it is negligible even with a brick wall test designed to expose distortion. This is definitely better than what an equivalent 35mm lens would be. What you can also see is that there is a fair amount of vignette that moves towards the center of the frame in a fairly linear pattern.

A quick diversion on vignette: when I was reviewing the Zeiss Otus 100mm F1.4 (an AMAZING lens!) I had a conversation with a Zeiss exec about vignette. He said something interesting to me regarding vignette, in that the quality of the vignette in certain lenses should be considered part of the design rather than a defect. I thought about that, and realized that while this isn’t true in all situations (there are definitely some settings like snowy scenes where vignette is a negative), it is certainly true in many situations. I think this may be true of the 40ART as well. Here’s a case in point: look at this image.

The uncorrected image just works. The natural vignette focuses the eye toward the point of focus. It lends some mystery to the image, and, though the scene itself isn’t breathtaking, the image itself has a certainly moody appeal. Here’s a look at a version where I’ve added a little color pop to it.

I noticed this to be the case in a number of such images. Here’s a few more:

But, as noted, I’m far less entranced by vignette where the corners should be white, like with snow here:

The good news is that the vignette is easy to correct either by enabling corrections in camera (JPEGs) or by applying the standard profile in post (RAW). You can choose the look you like best, but don’t be afraid to experiment with leaving the vignette uncorrected in some situations, as the nicely linear nature of the vignette on the 40ART can be a feature rather than a bug.

Moving on to sharpness. As expected for an extreme optical instrument like this, sharpness is extremely high at F1.4 in the center of the frame and not far behind in the edges. You have pretty much corner to corner sharpness from wide open:

If we go out to the real world, we will find the same truths. Incredible detail and contrast even at F1.4:

Here’s a tight crop of a photo of my dog at F1.4. Look at the microcontrast and acutance (rendering of the fine details) here:

Both of the shots above are from the high resolution Sony a7RIII (42MP). It also resolved fantastically on my EOS R at a variety of focus distances at F1.4. From portraits to landscapes to close-up work, the 40ART is very real-world sharp at F1.4 in a variety of lighting conditions.

Part of the reason for the excellent contrast is highlighted in this shot:

We’ve got a primarily darker scene with a bright white statue. There are a number of transition areas around that statue from bright to dark, and yet there is no evidence of longitudinal chromatic aberrations around the edges. Low CA (particularly LoCA) results in superior contrast, which the 40ART delivers in spades.

This is definitely a lens that performs extremely well at F1.4 in a way that we simply hadn’t seen until the Zeiss Otus lenses arrived (lenses that were equally huge).

F2 shows a general improvement in vignette and slightly more contrast in the center of the frame. Midframe and corner performance shows slightly more resolution and contrast.

There’s a similar improvement from F2 to F2.8. I see a bit more center contrast improvement at F4, with F5.6 being the peak landscape aperture in terms of across-the-frame sharpness and contrast. Here’s a few landscape shots:

I liked the lens for portraits as well, with a lot of resolution and contrast but also nice looking skintones.

Sigma has done a good job of designing a lens with both high sharpness and contrast along with nice bokeh rendering. This image shows that there is some of the typical geometric deformation along the edges (lemon shaped bokeh “circles”).

Stop down to F2 and get nicely even bokeh circles across the frame. In every situation I used the lens in, however, I found the rendering of the out-of-focus to be very nice. I think the lens is particularly strong for shooting medium distant shots with nice delineation of the subject and a nicely diffused background. Here’s some general examples at a variety of focus distances.

Let me share another portrait shot to further illustrate this. At F1.4 there is a nice cutout of the subjects while the background is nicely soft.

The lens elements have a special multi-coating to help with flare, and I would say the lens does fairly good for a large-aperture prime in terms of flare resistance. Very little veiling (loss of contrast), and little ghosting at large apertures. The stopped down shot (middle one below) shares a more clearly defined flare/ghosting pattern, but not a particularly destructive one.

All in all, there isn’t really any glaring optical flaw for me to point to. This is a very strong lens optically…as expected. There are few wide-to-normal prime lenses that can compete at any price point. You can find many more great photos in the Image Gallery…check them out!

Conclusion

I’ll be honest: I was initially put off by the whole concept of the Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM ART lens. I’ve spent time with a number of 40mm and 45mm lenses, and the largest of those had been the Tamron SP 45mm F1.8 VC, which is less than half the weight of the 40ART. The Sigma is some 640% heavier than the Samyang AF 45mm F1.8 that I recently reviewed. I’m not a fan (personally) of what seems like a persistent shift towards ever larger and heavier lenses. I find that smaller or even moderately sized lenses are far more likely to go into my bag when I’m planning for an event or shooting outing, and often I don’t want to take along a full backpack. I like carrying a camera along in, say, my Cecilia Tharp 8L bag. A lens the size of the 40ART essentially fills the whole bag, meaning that I have no other focal lengths to choose from if I pack it in there. My point is that large, heavy lenses fundamentally change the way that you use them because of their size, and I think it is a valid point to raise. The 40ART is the kind of lens that you need to be intentional about bringing along, and so don’t buy if it your priority is to travel light.

But what I have found across my review period is that this lens certainly does have a purpose, and the number of people that requested I do this review indicates that it also has an audience. People buy lenses for different reasons, and there isn’t a “right” way to do photography or lens design; it really comes down to preference. If you preference is absolute performance, and the idea of getting Zeiss Otus levels of resolution in a more reasonably-priced, autofocusing package, then the 40ART might be incredibly appealing. No, I’m not arguing that the lens is Otus levels of special in its color or overall rendering, but it isn’t far off. This is a fabulous focal length, and the lens is fantastically sharp and contrasty at all tested apertures (there’s a little loss of contrast at F16 due to diffraction). There isn’t really any optical weakness, and images look great.

So, if your shooting style involved either shooting in a studio (where you aren’t packing a lot of gear), or if you like to use one or two focal lengths and can afford to take on some extra size as a tradeoff, then the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART joins the 28mm F1.4 and 100mm F1.4 ART lenses as an unconventional trinity of some of Sigma’s most exceptional lens. I would personally choose this trio over their 35/50/85mm trio any day of the week for sheer optical performance. Sigma seems to have unlocked some extra “specialness” in these lenses that sets them apart, though, to be fair, they are also more expensive than the other trio. Deservedly so, though, as these are fantastic lenses and have been among my favorite lenses that Sigma has ever made…despite their size.

Pros:

Extremely sharp across the frame
Excellent contrast
Fast, quiet autofocus
Excellent chromatic aberration control
Low distortion
Fairly good flare control for a wide aperture prime
Nice bokeh
Good build quality and weather sealing
Works well on mirrorless cameras tested on

Cons:

No other 40mm lens comes close to the size and weight of this lens
Sigma’s prices are creeping up
Expect a little clicking and whirring if using video AF

Purchase the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART from B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Sony a9 Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Canon EOS R @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Canon EF to RF Control Ring Adapter: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany
Sony a7RIV Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Sony a7R III Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK | Ebay
Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Visit my Amazon page for some of my gear of choice! Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52018DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Keywords: Sigma, 40mm, Sigma 40mm Review, Sigma 40mm ART, 40mm ART, 40mm 1.4 ART, Sigma 40mm F1.4 Review, Canon EF, Sony FE, Nikon F, 40mm, F1.4, 1.4, FE, DG, ART, Sony FE, Sigma ART, F1.4, Dustin Abbott, Review, Autofocus, Sony a7RIII, Sony A7RIV, Sony a7R IV, Sony a9, Canon EOS R, Canon 5D Mark IV, Hands On, Video Test, Portrait, Video, Coma, Real World, Comparison, VS

DISCLAIMER: This article and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

November 17th, 2019

This one has taken me a while to get to! I was scheduled to review the Sigma 40mm F1.4 DG HSM ART months ago, but then Sigma announced and quickly released a trio of new lenses for Sony FE (and Leica L), which I prioritized covering. The first I reviewed was the little 45mm prime lens. The second of these was thenew Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN ART wide angle angle zoom, which I reviewed here. The final member of the trio is the beast – a massive optical jugernaut – the Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG DN ART lens – which in many ways is most like the 40mm F1.4 ART that I’m now finally covering. I haven’t yet released my final review of the 35mm F1.2, but I’ll update this once I have. I had an option of reviewing the Canon EF mount of the Sony FE mount version, but I elected to go with the EF version as I’ll be reviewing it not only on my Sony a7RIII and Sony a9 bodies, but also on a Canon EOS R body that I recently acquired to do RF mount lenses reviews on. I grabbed the EF to RF Control Adapter which makes using most EF mount lenses seamless of the RF body. You can get a sense of the lens’ performance from the images below, and stay tuned for my ongoing coverage.

Images of the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART

Images taken with the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART (Canon)

Images Taken with the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART (Sony)

Purchase the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART from B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Sony a9 Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Canon EOS R @ B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Purchase the Canon EF to RF Control Ring Adapter: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany
Sony a7RIV Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay
Sony a7R III Camera: B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK | Ebay
Peak Design Slide Lite: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
Peak Design Leash Strap: Peak Design Store | B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK
BenQ SW271 4K Photo Editing Monitor – B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon.ca | Amazon UK
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Exposure Software X5 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)
Visit Dustin’s Amazon Storefront and see his favorite gear

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II Review

Dustin Abbott

May 22nd, 2017

My Quiet Rebellion

We live in a day of ever-larger lenses. High resolution, pixel dense camera bodies like the Nikon D800, then the Sony A7R II, and then the even more pixel dense Canon EOS 5Ds/R have a tendency to expose optical flaws in lenses. The Zeiss Otus 1.4/55mm came on the scene a few years as a completely revolutionary kind of 50mm(ish) prime. Standard lenses had mostly trended toward what is euphemistically called “dreamy” rendering wide open. Others might just call them soft. Not the Otus 55mm f/1.4; at f/1.4 it was already sharp and contrasty from corner to corner. The floodgate was opened, and when the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART arrived it too was larger and heavier than previous 50mm lenses, and it seems like many of the full frame prime lenses I now review are decidedly more massive than anything from previous generations. But I have to confess that while I love testing the optical behemoths because of their performance, I’m a bit less interested in owning them for very practical reasons. I find that I often rely on primes, which means that I end up bringing three or four lenses along, but if they were all a kilo+ in weight my backpack starts to get really heavy really fast. Part of the reason that we all used to use primes was not just the wider apertures but the more compact size…but that’s not really true anymore, and I’ve reviewed any number of primes in the past two years that were as large or larger than a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom. So consider my flirting with the Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II my own quiet rebellion. The Voigtländer 40mm is many things, but large is certainly not one of them. Does a compact, manual focus only 40mm lens still have a place in a world of optically corrected behemoths? Read on to find out…

Prefer to watch your reviews? Check out my full video review of the Voigtländer 40mm here:

Build, Design, and Handling

Voigtländer is an Austrian brand, but modern Voigtländer lenses (like Zeiss) are built in Japan. In this case they are specifically built by the Cosina manufacturing company. The end result is that Voigtländer lenses essentially feel like classic Zeiss lenses in almost every detail. The Voigtländer 40mm has that same feeling of well made density that Zeiss lenses have. If you aren’t accustomed to these type lenses you will be surprised by the weight, which, although not heavy in an absolute sense (7 oz/198g), feels heavier and denser than what you would expect from the very compact size (less than an inch long at 0.96”/24mm). The body is all metal and glass, built on a metal bayonet mount. It is a very handsome little lens, with white focus distances etched into the black barrel. Here’s a video breakdown of the features and design of the Voigtländer 40mm:

The focus ring is not particularly wide (for obvious reasons), but it has a tightly ribbed, rubberized surface that is very easy to find and grip. The focus action is perfectly damped, and moves with a buttery smoothness that will spoil you for all inferior focus rings. The focus “throw” is similarly excellent with about 120 degrees of focus throw that allows for both precision and focus speed. This is not an internally focusing lens, so as you focus towards minimum focus you will find the lens extends about a half inch (a little over a centimeter). The lens remains extremely compact, obviously, so this won’t really negatively impact you. The front element does not rotate during focus, so there are no issues using circular polarizers on the lens. The lens is 2.48” around, or 63mm. It looks pretty sweet mounted on a camera and doesn’t take up much more space than putting a cap on on the camera mount.

Also like Zeiss is the fact that the Voigtländer 40mm has a full electronic coupling that makes it behave essentially like any other lens save autofocus. The Canon EF version I’m testing has no manual aperture ring (unlike the Nikon F mount), so the aperture is fully electromagnetically controlled, which allows you to use the lens even in camera modes where the camera chooses the aperture value. It also means that the Voigtländer 40mm meters perfectly. The overall handling of the lens is excellent, and I have zero complaints about the functionality of the lens.

Included in the electronic package is a focus confirmation chip that seems well calibrated. My preferred body for this lens is my Canon EOS 6D body that I have set up with an EG-S Precision Matte Focus screen. This allows me to visually watch focus occur and aids focus accuracy (particularly at close to medium distances). That being said, I have found that I can get accurate results even with my Canon 5D Mark IV by very carefully using the focus confirmation chip. To use this technique, select the focus point you want to use and set it over your subject. From either infinity focus or close focus slowly focus towards the plane of focus with the shutter button pressed halfway down. As soon as the focus point lights up and the beep is heard fully depress the shutter button and take the shot. With practice you will learn to not continue to focus beyond accurate focus and quickly get the shot.

I also used the lens on a Canon EOS 80D body, where it provides a useful 64mm equivalent focal length. Here’s one of my favorites from this pairing:

Perhaps best of all was using it via adapter on the Sony a7R II that I happened to have at the time. The excellent options for magnifying the image in the Sony’s EV-F resulted in very accurate focus results (and a lot of fun in acquiring focus), not to mention excellent optical results due to the high resolution body.

One praiseworthy aspect of both Voigtländer lenses that I’ve reviewed (the other being the 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar) is that infinity focus is properly calibrated, meaning that when you want to shoot a landscape scene you simple twist the focus ring to the hard stop at infinity. This eliminates one of the more difficult challenges with some manual focus lenses that will enable you to focus “past infinity”, or to where everything is starting to go out of focus. Bravo for quality engineering.

The Voigtländer 40mm is an f/2 lens, which gives it a significant advantage over the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 in that the aperture lets in a full extra stop of light (meaning that the Canon lens needs twice as much light in equivalent situations). This gives an advantage both in light gathering and also in producing a more shallow depth of field. It’s on this note that one of the unique quirks of the lens is exhibited.

Lens Hoods, Adapters, and Maximum Magnification

The Voigtländer 40mm will technically take two different filter sizes. It does have 52mm filter threads, but the lens cap comes in a different size because the lens comes with an adapter/lens hood. As a lens hood it is very shallow, but it does offer some protection value along with a bit of shading (it’s even flocked inside!), and it is so compact that there is little reason to not keep it mounted. Another good reason to keep this little metal lens hood/adapter attached is that the included lens cap doesn’t fit without it attached. The hood/adapter is threaded in a tiny 39mm filter size, and the lens cap actually fits this diminutive size. I have found a bit of minor frustration in that the tiny lens cap seems to pop free quite easily if the lens is in a bag, and while I haven’t lost the tiny thing yet, it has been a fairly constant fear.

The purpose of the lens hood/adapter goes beyond just adding a different filter size, however, as the third piece of the puzzle is a tiny close-up adapter. It looks like a tiny clear glass filter, but is actually an additional element for the lens to enable closer focus. Without the close-up adapter the lens will focus down to a pedestrian 1.3’/0.38m which results in an also pedestrian 0.14x maximum magnification or 1:7 reproduction ratio. That definitely trails the Canon’s 0.18x magnification. Here are the two compared:

The close-up adapter functions much like an extension tube, however, and allows the lens to focus down much closer and produce a much more useful 0.25x magnification or a 1:4 reproduction ratio. Needless to say this opens up many more possibilities for macro-type shots, and fortunately there doesn’t seem to be any loss of image quality when using the adapter. Here’s a look at the difference in magnification of the same object with the close up adapter attached:

There is one penalty, however, and that is the much like an extension tube the ability to focus to infinity is lost. And not just infinity; you can only focus out to a maximum of about two feet with the close up lens attached.

While this functionality is welcome, the rather clunky method of achieving it makes it of less value. The close up adapter won’t do you much good if you don’t have it along, and clearly you can’t keep it mounted all the time. It would obviously be much more useful to have that kind of reproduction ratio built into the lens without having to rely on the adapter. Still, the adapter does allow for a unique advantage when compared to other lenses.

On of the great strengths of the Voigtländer 40mm is its beautiful build quality, which feels like it will work as well (and look as good) in forty years. If you (like me) have a love for beautifully made things you may find the build and design of the pretty little lens irresistible. Beyond the beauty, however, it is the compact size that makes this lens so attractive. When I’m planning a kit for an outing or traveling it is easy to reach for this little prime lens for the twin reasons that it is so small but also that it has a relatively large maximum aperture. But does the lens deliver optically?

Image Quality

The Voigtländer 40mm has a very simple optical formula: six elements in five groups. Those of you who favor less complex lenses will applaud this fact. Two of those lenses are aspherical elements to help eliminate chromatic aberrations. The lens has multi-coatings on the front to help with flare resistance and to further correct for aberrations. For a detailed breakdown of the image quality from this lens, check out this video:

Voigtländer 40mm Resolution and Rendering

The Voigtländer 40mm delivers a strong performance from such a small package, particularly in its wide aperture performance. It has quite good sharpness across the frame at f/2, an aperture value that delivers twice as much light as Canon’s own EF 40mm f/2.8 STM lens. Everything is good until you compare it to other lenses and it becomes quickly apparent that the Voigtländer 40mm, while sharp in its own right, is certainly no sharper than the competition. The Canon lens shows greater sharpness and contrast with both lenses wide open (see comparison from left to right across the frame).

Stopping the Voigtländer down improves the comparison, but there is still a slight edge for the Canon. The only real advantage for the Voigtländer in this type of comparison is that the Voigtländer 40mm benefits from being stopped down and shows considerably less vignette.

At all equivalent apertures the Canon showed superior sharpness. Not by much, but visibly superior. That’s not what you want to see when it costs less than half the price of the Voigtländer 40mm.

One of the other few lenses near this focal length is the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC. I happen to own that lens as well, so I was able to compare it to the Voigtländer. The Tamron is a bit more expensive than the Voigtländer 40mm, though at the moment of this review (thanks to a ongoing Tamron discount), the difference was only $50. It should be noted that the Tamron is not really an apples to apples comparison as it is a much larger lens, though both lenses share a professional grade build. The Tamron is the definite winner on the feature list, with image stabilization, autofocus, and weather sealing. In many situations I love the rendering from the Tamron, though I do lament its higher than average chromatic aberrations and some “onion bokeh” (concentric circles in bokeh highlights). When directly comparing the lenses optically, the Voigtländer 40mm really only wins on one level – less chromatic aberrations. All of the sharpness metrics definitely favor the Tamron.

If you stop the lenses down to f/2.8 the margin only widens.

But we don’t shoot comparisons, we shoot things. In the real world the lens delivers nice sharpness that should satisfy you. The contrast is fairly good even at wide apertures, and, when you stop down to traditional landscape apertures you will get very nice sharpness across the frame. I was particularly impressed when using the lens on the Sony a7R II and it’s extremely pixel dense 42 MP sensor. I used the lens in Niagara Falls, and, while this image has some slight imperfections due to shooting through a window, it is pretty remarkable how much detail was rendered from the little lens at f/5.6.

Still, as I used the lens over the course of several months, a nagging question started to form in my mind. “Is this lens any better than some of my vintage lenses?” I decided to do some direct comparisons to one of my favorites – the vintage SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4. I did both a chart test and some real world comparisons (find an interactive look at this in my video review). Wide open (Voigtländer at f/2, the Takumar at f/1.4), the Voigtländer is a bit sharper and has more contrast (the Takumar shows a bit of “haze” due to low contrast).

With both lenses at f/2, however, that advantage disappears, with the Takumar actually a bit sharper at different points on the frame. With both lenses stopped down to f/2.8, it is hard to declare a winner, but I would give a slight edge to the Takumar (which also shows less distortion and lower vignette).

Uh-oh. And what about the bokeh and rendering? There’s no question that this favors the Takumar, which shows noticeably softer, left busy bokeh rendering.

Both lenses have great color, but the larger aperture of the Takumar gives it the leg up…even with both lenses at f/2, like here:

Now a 50mm isn’t a 40mm lens, and the Takumar, while very small, isn’t as absolutely compact as the Voigtländer. Still, the fact that a much less expensive vintage lens can give you essentially the same image quality has definitely made me question whether or not I should keep the Voigtländer 40mm.

A careful look at the bokeh highlight circles from the Voigtländer 40mm shows a slight amount of “onion bokeh” (concentric circles), but not in an exaggerated way. One area that the more modern design of the Voigtländer 40mm is in the electromagnetically controlled nine-bladed aperture, which retains a circular shape when stopped down.

The greater maximum aperture of the Voigtländer 40mm means that it produces bigger, softer bokeh highlights even at equivalent apertures when compared with the Canon 40mm STM.

In an absolute sense I’m happy with the rendering from the Voigtländer, which often renders beautifully and delivers fabulous color.

I used the lens for some food photography while traveling and documenting a resort, and it proved a great companion for that:

An area of definite strength for the Voigtländer 40mm is the superior color rendering, which, much like a Zeiss lens, gives images that little bit “extra” that sets them apart from the cheaper lenses that might equal it in sharpness.

I strongly recommend that you check out the Lens Image Gallery to see many other samples that demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the lens.

Chromatic Aberration Control

The lens that I most frequently use near this focus length is the Tamron SP 45mm f/1.8 VC. It’s a wonderfully versatile, extremely sharp, and beautifully rendering lens, but it does struggle with chromatic aberrations in real world usage. This isn’t bad when shooting stills (particularly when shooting RAW), as it is easy enough to correct for in post. But the Tamron is a lens that I like to often use for video due to its sharpness and ability to focus so closely, and the CA when shooting video is a bigger problem. The Voigtländer 40mm is not free of chromatic aberrations, but it actually controls them fairly well even in challenging situations. They are definitely less pronounced than with the Tamron lens.

Expect to mostly see the chromatic aberrations when using the close-up lens and shooting at macro focus distances. The very narrow depth of field will reveal some CA before and after the plane of focus. In most situations, however, the chromatic aberrations that will be visible are minimal.

Flare Resistance

The Voigtländer 40mm is a bit atypical in this area, as I find that many lenses are more prone to ghosting (various green or orange blobs of colored light from the sun) when stopped down, and more prone to veiling (prismatic haze and loss of contrast) wide open. The Voigtländer 40mm does its ghosting wide open, but that ghosting takes the form of a very circular ring around the epicenter of the flare.

I suspect that some will find this quite cinematic or artistic. There is also somewhat of a loss of contrast, but not extreme. Lightroom’s “Dehaze” tool restored contrast nicely. There is a slight magenta hue to the prismatic haze around the flare event. Stopped down there is still a bit of prismatic haze, but the ghosting ring disappears and fortunately isn’t replaced by any ugly blobs of light. All in all this actually a pretty decent performance for such a compact optic (with a very minuscule lens hood). What flare is there occurs in an artistically useful fashion. I can see videographers enjoying this lens because of that flare response.

Conclusion

The Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II is unlike just about every other “normal” lens that I’ve used. It feels and looks like a Zeiss, but with a compact size unlike any Zeiss lens I’ve used. The look and sensibilities of the lens remind me more of a number of vintage lenses that I’ve used over the years, and therein lies the greatest challenge to the lens. I have no problem personally preferring this lens to the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. I’m not a huge fan of STM lenses anyway, and have been unimpressed by the performance of the 40mm STM on Canon’s newer DPAF bodies. I vastly prefer the build and the brighter aperture of the Voigtländer lens, and also feel like it gives a more premium rendering and color performance. But the manual focus only nature of the lens means that vintage lenses become valid alternatives at much lower price points. The SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 is one such lens, and it compares fairly well to the more expensive Voigtländer, though with more quirks in usage due to requiring an adapter plus lacking any kind of electronics. By contrast the Voigtländer, despite being manual focus only, is actually very easy to use. Those looking for a beautifully crafted lens that is built to last and who don’t mind manually focusing should seriously consider the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 lens, as it provides a bright aperture, beautifully rendering, and an incredibly portable form factor that means it will always be easy to bring along.

Pros:

Built and handles like a Zeiss
Great focus ring
Incredibly small, compact size
Lovely color rendering
Artistic and useful flare resistance
Chromatic aberrations well controlled

Cons:

No sharper than cheaper competitors
Manual focus only
Bokeh can be a little busy
Good magnification figure requires use of close up lens
More distortion than competitors

Gear Used:
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV (5D4): B&H Photo | Amazon.com | Amazon Canada
Canon EOS 6D: B&H Photo | Amazon.com | Amazon.ca
Purchase Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL II from Amazon
Super Precision Matte Eg-S Interchangeable Focusing Screen
Adobe Lightroom CC Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure X2 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. You can also make a donation here if you would like. Thank you for your support.

Check me out on:

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

March 5th, 2017

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II

I’ll readily admit to having a weakness for compact, well made manual focus lenses. I’ve considered the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens to be an excellent value lens, but I’ve been disappointed in the fact that this first lens that was equipped with an STM focus motor doesn’t actually focus very quickly or smoothly with Canon’s modern DPAF focus systems. Although the Voigtländer 40mm has been discontinued at a number of retailers, I decided that I would like to pick up a copy anyway and give it a try as a replacement. The Voigtländer 40mm ups the ante with an all metal construction, beautiful focus action, and, of course, a full stop faster f/2 aperture and the ability to create more bokeh in an equally compact package. That all sounds good, but is the little Voigtländer actually an upgrade? Find out when my review launches in a few weeks. In the meantime, check out my photos of this beautiful little pancake prime along with the photos I’m taking with it as a part of my review. Here’s a careful look at the design, features, and handling of the lens:

Images of the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II on APS-C

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II on Sony A7R II

Gear Used:
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV (5D4): B&H Photo | Amazon.com | Amazon Canada
Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Sony A7R II | B&H Photo | Amazon.com | Amazon.ca
Purchase Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL II from Amazon
Super Precision Matte Eg-S Interchangeable Focusing Screen
Adobe Lightroom CC Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure X2 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52016DA in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Check me out on:

Canon EOS M3 Review

Dustin Abbott

October 29th, 2015

WordPress database error: [You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MariaDB server version for the right syntax to use near 'FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND ( wp_posts.ID NOT IN ( SELECT obje...' at line 2]
SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS all FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND ( wp_posts.ID NOT IN ( SELECT object_id FROM wp_term_relationships WHERE term_taxonomy_id IN (1) ) ) AND ((wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish'))) ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC LIMIT 0, 8

The EOS M has long been the “red-headed stepchild” of Canon’s camera lineup. Canon wanted a piece of the growing mirrorless system market with their DSLR-like sensors and miniature bodies, but when the EOS M came to the market in June of 2012 it felt a step behind the competition in many ways. It was also priced a little too high to be competitive, and sales lagged. Interest (if not profits) got a temporary boost in the North American market in the middle of 2013 when the “firesale” began that saw the price drop by well more than half. I jumped in at that point, and found that despite some obvious shortcomings the camera was actually very, very useful. I’ve used it in multiple countries as a lighter option when I didn’t want to carry heavier kit, and I’ve added a bunch of images to my personal portfolio that I think are fantastic. The sensor on it was good – really good, in fact. It put other crop sensor bodies that I used to shame in the image quality department.

But development stalled. The system launched with only two available lenses (the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM and the EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM). The lenses were both lauded for excellent build quality and optical performance (particularly the 22mm “pancake”), but photographers wanted more options. But things got a little weird. Canon eventually did produce two more excellent lenses (a 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM wide angle lens along with later producing the 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM telephoto), but did not release either lens to the American market (arguably the largest in the world). They eventually released the EOS M2 in early 2014, but it was widely viewed as a very incremental update and again was not released to the American market. In the meantime stock of the existing EOS M gear was dwindling on shelves and in warehouses, and the system seemed to be dying a slow death.

But then earlier this year the EOS M3 was announced and then released to the Asian market, with some interesting marketing videos and a feature set that seemed to address a lot of the current criticisms. I found it interesting enough that a few months ago I took the plunge and imported one from Japan. My son Samuel took over the original M body, and is producing some amazing images with it. You can follow his Instagram account here: Samuel Abbott. Before getting into the meat of this review, let me just say that I’ve really enjoyed using the M3 and feel like its new 24.2 MP sensor is better than ever.

I got excited a few months ago when I got the announcement that Canon was taking another swing at the North American market on the strength of the M3 and announcing not only the camera but the lenses that had never been released. I’ve also been following mention of different EF-M lens patents with the hope all of this signifies that Canon finally has a real plan in place for advancing the EOS M system. It’s ironic how sure-footed Canon has been with its DSLR line and how comparatively awkward they have been in the mirrorless segment.

One exciting thing to note is that since the announcement to bring the EOS M3 to the North American market there has been an announcement from Rokinon of both a 50mm f/1.2 (I’m very excited about that!) and a 21mm f/1.4. The former provides (finally) a [very] fast portrait prime lens for the mount (about an 80mm equivalent) while the latter provides a fast(er) wide angle prime (approximately 35mm equivalent). Both of these will be manual focus only, but fortunately the M3 is far more forgiving of manual focus than, well, just about any other Canon body. I’m less excited about the 21mm simply because Canon’s 22mm f/2 STM is a fantastic lens already plus has autofocus. It is my most used lens with the system.

In a few weeks the EOS M3 will be available to purchase in the North American market (you can preorder here:): should you buy it?

Before we jump in, though, you might want to read:

EOS M Review (plus reviews of the 22mm f/2 STM and 18-55mm STM)

Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS for the EF-M (an excellent lens that I’ve added to my own kit)

Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 VC (a nice all purpose lens with surprisingly good image quality)

Finally, if you prefer to watch your reviews, take a look here:

First, the Bad News

My time with the EOS M3 says that Canon has made some excellent advances but still has some room for improvement. In some cases it even seems like they have taken some steps backward from the EOS M Classic. I’ve been using the M3 quite extensively for the past three months, and certain “quirks” have made themselves manifest during ongoing usage of the camera. Here are the standouts:

1. Auto Exposure bracketing reverts to single shot speeds of about 1 frame per second, making it very difficult to do handheld HDR (and negatively impacting HDR from a tripod, too). There is an HDR mode on the camera, but that mode takes over all control of aperture, shutter speed, and also reverts to JPEG only. The exposure blending is done in camera (with all of the inherit limitations) and you are left with only the combined single JPEG image. This is far from what serious photographers are looking for. Using AEB (Auto Exposure Bracketing) does allow for the shutter to be hit only once and three bracketed shots will be taken (limited here to a maximum of +/-2 stops rather than +/-3 stops on my DSLRs), but again the shutter speed drastically drops to something like a fifth of its normal frame rate. The ironic thing is that the HDR mode shoots at the normal (faster) rate. This is clearly just a firmware issue (and one that the original M did not have), but my reaching out to Canon Japan produced this response, “Regarding shooting with AEB on the EOS M3, rather than the shutter being released three times during continuous shooting, three images are automatically shot with one release of the shutter.” This didn’t exactly address the question I asked! I’m hoping that a firmware update will eliminate this bug, but at the moment it is a serious shortcoming.

2. The second issue is also one that the original M did not have. When you are shooting with something like the 22mm f/2 STM lens there will be many times when you need to focus more precisely than what the fairly large box on the screen is centered on. For example, you may be wanting to focus on a subject’s eyes but the focus square on the LCD covers a large portion of their face. The original M allowed you to tighten up your focus by being able to “zoom” into the image 5x or 10x and then refocus. The M3 also allows you to zoom in, but when you partially hold down the shutter to focus, the zoom function temporarily reverts to the non-magnified view to focus. Once focus is locked the image returns to the previous state of zoom. This quirk prevents you from being able to achieve more “pinpoint” focus. Ironically you can manually focus while zoomed in, but you cannot autofocus. Considering that this was not a part of the original M’s functionality, this feels like another bug that needs fixing by a firmware update. On a positive note the overall autofocus is much more accurate than the original M.

3. On this same note, another quirk is that you cannot magnify the image at all when in video mode. This isn’t unusual during video capture, but the M3 doesn’t even allow for it before video capture commences. This is another step back from the M Classic and quite a frustration for those of us who like to use manual focus lenses for video. I have had to shift over into a stills shooting mode, dial in my focus, and then come back to video mode.

4. Body’s construction (not shape) feels like a step back from the M Classic. When I first got the M1 I was immediately impressed by how solid and dense it felt despite its small size. The M3 feels less professional grade and more commercial grade despite having a more robust shape and grip. One a positive note I must confess that my M3 has already easily survived a small fall from an open case to a linoleum floor. The battery door popped open but I can’t see any other effect from the fall. It made me wonder if the battery door popping open was by design to transfer some of the energy. The camera still feels well made, but it didn’t have the same impact on me that the original M did. But this is only perception: the M3 is actually made from magnesium alloy and coated to match Canon’s high end camera bodies. The slightly more “plasticky” feel is nothing more than perception.

5. Another oddity is that the choice to select AdobeRGB color space is missing from the menu; I can’t recall using a Canon camera without this option, including the original M. Furthermore, the menu design is a departure from the typical Canon design. I can’t say at this point whether it is better or worse; it is just slightly unfamiliar. The amount of custom functions is rather sparse, and I feel like several of the things that I have addressed above are items that I should have been able to address in the custom function portion of the menu.

6. One final quirk is that in some situations the M3 introduces a greenish cast that is both very “unCanon-like” and different from the original M. Here’s an example taken with the 22mm f/2 STM.

I’m not quite sure what causes this issue, but yet again it feels like a little quirk that a good firmware update could correct.

These items all contribute to the feeling of a somewhat unfinished camera. It unfortunately feels that the camera needed another few months of development before its release, and it is my sincere hope that the North American release of the M3 will signal some steps towards correcting some of these notable shortcomings. It feels like the development team didn’t start with all the good things about the EOS M and build upon them but rather started from scratch and overlooked some of the fundamentals. I’m afraid the end result will be a camera that for many potential buyers still seems to lag behind the competition.

At this stage it might seem that I’m down on the camera, but that’s not actually the case. I would suggest instead that it is the overall progress of the line in so many other areas that makes these particular issues stand out all the more (particularly those that seem like a regression in the M series). In many ways the M3 is great step forward for the M line. The ergonomics are significantly improved, the already excellent sensor performance is vastly improved, and the AF performance is more robust. The potential for greatness is there, but some of these issues seem unnecessary at this stage. In many ways I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the camera thus far, and here’s why.

Now for Some Good News

1. Improved ergonomics.

These photos show you a physical comparison of the original M and the M3 bodies.

[Show as slideshow]

The original M, while robustly made, had several ergonomic flaws. The first was an almost complete lack of a grip. There was a raised section the front of the camera that gave your fingers a little leverage, but it in no way felt like a mini-DSLR. The M3 adds a compact and yet fully formed grip that is nicely contoured and gives your hand a much more natural/complete purchase. This also allows for a more natural interaction with the shutter release button. It has one of the best physical designs of the small, mirrorless cameras. The M3 is a joy to carry and use as a result, and it is one of the few areas where it really shines in comparison to its mirrorless competition.

The M also lacked any kind of dial around the shutter release button (at least in a traditional sense). There was a bit of dial, but that was to choose between the three camera modes (Auto, M/AV/TV, or Video). As a result it was not unusual to inadvertently switch to the wrong mode. The M3 not only puts the shutter release button in a better/more natural position, but also gives you a fully functional dial that allows to change shutter speed in Manual mode or Aperture in AV mode. It also adds a fully functional dial for different camera modes (most of which had to be previously accessed through the menus) and also a second dial (THANK YOU!) for dialing in exposure value changes in up to 3 stops in either direction (+/-). It is fantastic to be able to quickly use that dial on the run to influence exposure in the way that you want.

The camera also adds two buttons to the back of the camera (exposure lock and zoom/focus point selection). These buttons can be programmed to other functions as well.

The original M had no built-in flash, but relied on the Speedlite 90EX that was sometimes sold in kit with the camera. If your kit did not come with that flash, you were out of luck. The M3 manages to fit in a very small built in flash, but it has a rather puny guide number of 5 (Meters coverage at ISO 100). The 90EX isn’t a ton better, but it has a guide number of 9. My flash head units of the choice (Metz 64 AF-1) have a guide number of 64, by comparison, but of course they are also bigger than the M3! Still, something is better than nothing here, and the M3 retains a fully functional hotshoe as well that is compatible with all portable flash units in the appropriate mount (including my Metz giants!). Just be aware if you are using a lens like the excellent Tamron 18-200 Di III VC that the lens will cause some shadow when used at wide angle with the on board flash despite it popping up fairly high. One nice aspect of the flash’s design is that you can use a finger to angle it upward to “bounce” the flash at capture, which can eliminate some of the shadows created by a larger lens and give a more pleasing end result.

I personally prefer to rely on the improved ISO performance on the sensor most of the time rather than attempting to use the flash, but I’m happy that it’s there.

2. Tilting LCD TouchScreen

One of the biggest ergonomic improvements to the already excellent touch screen on the EOS M is the inclusion of a tilting LCD. The LCD screen will tilt 180 degrees up and 45 degrees down. The only thing better would be in the inclusion of a fully articulating screen like the one on my EOS 70D. Have a tilting screen makes such a huge difference when you are shooting at unconventional angles (high or low) or when you are looking down and trying to stabilize the body on a platform of some kind (like when shooting video). I’ve already use it in so many different ways when either shooting events or just in the field. It is incredibly useful.

The primary problem with tilting as opposed to articulating is that it is really only useful when shooting in landscape/horizontal mode. If you are shooting vertically/portrait orientation the tilting screen doesn’t really do you much good. I’m rather partial to composing vertically myself, so I really miss that functionality. Still, the inclusion of the tilting LCD was on the primary selling features for me.

Canon does touchscreens really, really well, and the M3 is no exception. The combination of a great touchscreen and improved physical controls make this camera’s ergonomics very, very nice.

3. Improved AF performance (with caveats)

The original M was famous (infamous?) for its slow autofocus performance upon its introduction. Canon was later able to unlock MUCH better AF performance with a firmware update down the road. The M3 employs Canon’s Hybrid CMOS AF III system which uses a combination of contrast-based and phase-detect technologies and embeds 49 points across most of the sensor’s area (about 80% vertical and 70% horizontal coverage). Canon claims that it focuses up to 6.1x faster than the original M, and perhaps that is true of before the firmware update to the original M, but frankly the camera only feels marginally faster to me at best. The improvement is most obvious in single shot AF mode. It is also only a little better at AF Servo tracking but still doesn’t continually focus when shooting burst mode.

Canon is touting the increased speed, but I find the bigger upgrade to be in the focus accuracy department. It may only be slightly faster acquiring focus, but it definitely focuses with more accuracy and consistency. I’ve found my focus accuracy thus far to be generally excellent with the M3 and the 22mm f/2 STM, 18-55mm IS STM, and 55-200mm IS STM. I also use a Rokinon 12mm f/2 wide angle lens (which I love!), but it is manual focus and not really relevant to the current discussion.

The only time I encounter hunting is when using either an adapted lens (via the EF adapter) or occasionally with the 55-200 STM telephoto, which sometimes hunts back and forth for a split second.

Performance with adapted lenses via the Canon EF adapter is not really any better in my experience (in fact, it is worse). You will definitely want to turn off Continuous AF if using non-STM lenses, as the noise and continually hunting will drive you crazy! The single best lens that I’ve used to adapt to the M is the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, which seems almost like a natural part of the system in both size and operation. The new 50mm f/1.8 STM is another good fit. I was very disappointed when I tried the EF-S 55-250 IS STM lens. I thought that I could use it on both systems (Canon 70D + M3), but the AF performance was so painfully glacial that I decided against it and bought the EF-M 55-200. During this review I tried it on the original M via adapter (my son now owns my original EOS M) and discovered the AF performance was much better. In fact, I probably would have been satisfied with the combination if I were still using the original M.

But then something interesting happened. I put the word out about this on CanonRumors to see what other photographers were encountering. Another user let me know that there was a firmware update via Canon UK for the EOS M3 specifically for helping focus speed with the EF-S 55-250 STM. I downloaded it, but didn’t notice any measurable improvement. I shared this. He pointed out that there was a second firmware update for the lens itself specifically for the M3/lens combination. I downloaded and installed it, and voila, suddenly the lens focuses almost as quickly and confidently as the native EF-M 55-200 STM lens. It isn’t as fast as with the 70D (unsurprising), but the difference isn’t much. The lens focuses very fluidly for video as well. Other than the notable size difference, the operational difference between the two lenses is now minimal.

I will be comparing the two lenses head to head for a while before deciding which to keep and which to sell. They both have their strengths. I only wish I had discovered this before I went ahead and purchased the second lens, so perhaps my experience can help others.

That aside, however, the fact that such an incredible difference could be made through firmware was startling. On top of this the fact that it took a two step process even with an STM lens (the focus motor that works best with EOS M3), suggests to me that either Canon has either outpaced itself with the AF system on this body or deviated from the norm. There is clearly a very different process at work with the AF system when compared with the former M body, and I suspect that such tweaks could probably help a number of other lenses…but will they get them?

Using other lenses in my kit (most of which are not STM) also worked better on the original M via the adapter. This makes me curious – is this a matter of the existing EF adapter being better tuned to the focus system of the original M, or is this something unique to my camera body/adapter combination. This patent makes me think that it more likely the nature of the adapter and that Canon probably needs to release an adapter more attuned to the focus system of the M3.

My own experience makes me conclude that Canon has perhaps oversold the AF performance improvement. It is better, yes, but I personally feel that it is incremental progress when radically better AF performance was needed to match what the leaders in the field are offering. The majority of current mirrorless cameras all focus more quickly than the EOS M3 and add a faster frame rate to boot.

The Manual Focus front is surprisingly better. Finally Canon has made some concessions towards the fact that some lenses are manual focus only and that some situations need manual focus. The EOS M3 allows you the option of enabling focus peaking (with a choice of three colors) when manually focusing (this can be programmed to one of the back buttons). The optional Canon EV-F DC-1 also helps (more on that in a moment), as does the ability to magnify any point on the LCD screen 5x or 10x. The latter feature was available before, but the implementation is more natural/usable on the M3. The EV-F makes a huge difference when manually focusing, as it shows the true depth of field and allows you to more easily achieve visual focus. The addition of focus peaking (I’ve assigned it to the video record button in stills shooting for easy on/off toggle) combined with the EV-F (and the potential to magnify the image in the EV-F) makes pinpoint focus pretty easy and opens up a lot of possibilities. I’m enjoying shooting some of my vintage glass on the EOS M3 (far more than the original M), and an old lens like the Super Takumar 150mm f/4 makes for a surprisingly good portrait lens (now if only Canon had in body stabilization!!)

One final nice addition when it comes to manual focus is the inclusion of a dedicated MF button (press the rear dial to the left). The EF-M STM lenses don’t have any switches on them, and this allows you to quickly turn on manual focus if desired. STM lenses are still far from my favorite lenses to manually focus because of the almost total lack of tactile feedback, but this does work better than using manual override. I often wondered if I was doing anything in the AF+MF mode on the EOS M cameras with STM lenses.

Frankly I am more impressed with the upgrades to the MF functionality to the EOS M3 than I am to the AF functionality. Both improvements are appreciated, but one feels more substantial than the other. Then again, Canon was able to vastly improve the first M’s AF through firmware update; maybe lightning can strike twice here.

4. Improved Connectivity

The M3 jumps into the modern era by the inclusion of both Wi-Fi and NFC (Near-Field Communication). I’ve previously written about the pros/cons of Canon’s Wi-Fi system on the Canon 6D (the implementation is similar here). One area that I find useful is that this is one of the most convenient ways to shoot long exposures with the M3 (access BULB mode by putting the camera into Manual mode then turning the dial past the longest native exposure time of 30 seconds.) Using the remote app you can simply hold the button down on your phone while the timer ticks off on your screen. There is no place on the M series to attach a remote shutter release, although you can also use one of the RC wireless remotes to achieve the same effect. Yes, you can hold down the actual shutter release button on the camera, but this is not recommended as you will invariably introduce camera shake.

I have an iPhone, so I can’t make use of the NFC technology that makes for a much easier “handshake” between the two devices (just tap the two NFC devices together to pair them). The Wi-Fi connectivity has not really progressed since the 6D was released, unfortunately. Canon has a long way to go in this area. Once you do get things connected, however, it is certainly useful. I use Wi-Fi connectivity to get images to an iPad, for example, and from there I can share them more simply with either clients or social media. I’ve also used the Wi-Fi connectivity for remote shooting on many occasions.

5. Improved Image Quality

The strength of the M system has always been in its sensor. I have been impressed time and again at the fantastic images a tiny camera like this can make. The M3 kicks it up even further, and moves from the 18mp in the original M to a new 24.2 sensor along with the newest DIGIC 6 processor. The image quality from the M3 rocks, frankly. It’s when you review your images that your appreciation for this camera jumps up. It definitely outperforms the sensor on my 70D. For the first time (ever) I don’t see a huge drop-off in quality when I compare images from my full frame bodies to this crop sensor (APS-C) body. Yes, full frame is still better, but the differences are more subtle now.

Less noise, better high ISO performance, and more detail/resolution are all apparent when using this body. I notice that I have more latitude when I go to process and have to push things a little bit. The amazingly clean images from my 6D bodies have always been a joy to process for this reason, and while the M3 cannot yet rival them, it’s getting closer. This is one area where Canon can most definitely compete, and if you prefer JPEG shooting, the M3 produces some really stunning JPEG output. It has always felt very empowering to have such strong imaging potential in such a small package, and the M3 only increases that feeling. I can put together a 3 or 4 lens kit in a tiny bag that I won’t even notice the weight of and yet produce professional grade images. My own personal EF-M kit covers from 12mm to 200mm and weighs next to nothing.

I directly compared the M Classic and M3 in higher ISO performance. Both sensors produce more grain/noise than what my full frame bodies do, but when the ISO starts to jack up (starting at ISO 1600) there is a noticeable difference in the overall look of the images. The M Classic images quickly develop the typical high ISO look, losing contrast and having some color banding in the shadows.

EOS M Series (ISO 3200-12,800):

[Show as slideshow]

EOS M3 Series (ISO 3200-25,600):

[Show as slideshow]

I didn’t see the color banding on the M3 at any setting save its extended range of 25,600 – even the native maximum setting of 12,800 avoided color banding and retained a nice dynamic range with good highlights and dark shadows – the images overall look good and contrasty, just noisy. The coarseness of the grain is noticeably heavier than that of the 6D at equivalent apertures, though the M3 actually has an arguably richer looking result when viewed as a whole. I would categorize its results as actually very good here.

I walked extensively with the M3 in New York City in August, and got a number of awesome images while scarcely noticing the weight of the camera. It was quite a difference from the days on the trip that I carried a full frame DSLR with a lens or two!

It is the image quality that tips the balance in favor of the M3 for me. I do get frustrated by some of its shortcomings because it really feels like most of them could have/should have been easily addressed. The camera at times feels like a BETA release. I’m never going to use it for action photography, and I don’t have to rely on it for my sole camera system, so I’m more easily able to overlook some of the shortcomings and just let the camera play to its strengths. I encourage you to check out the Image Gallery to see the camera in actio n with a variety of lenses.

6. Improved Battery Life

Battery life is not a natural strength for mirrorless bodies. Their small nature often means comparatively small battery packs, and the original EOS M seemed to be always burning through its battery. The larger LP-E6 battery pack that most of my DSLRs take often lasts for 1100-1200 shots. If you start the day with a freshly charged battery pack you simply aren’t going to have to worry about battery life. The EOS M was a different story. Its battery was rated at 230 shots, and you were lucky to get that. You simply had to plan on getting multiple battery packs or staying close to your charger.

On paper the M3 doesn’t have a big advantage. It’s LP-E17 battery pack is only “rated” for 250 shots, but real life shooting for me (and everyone else that I’ve dialogued with) show real life battery performance is MUCH better. It’s not unusual to not just get double that, but triple that. One primary difference is that the means that the rating is produced involves using the flash at least 50% of the time. The M Classic did not have a built in flash, so its rating did not include that impact on the battery life. I personally almost never use the M3’s flash and have set it to go to “sleep” faster (meaning the LCD screen turns off more quickly). As I result I will often get 700-800 shots from a single charge, making the battery life in my style of shooting not far off of my DSLRs. I’ve never had the battery go dead in a day of use on me, so it means that even when traveling all I need to do is remember to charge the battery every day or two and I’m golden. There was no “magic bullet” with the M Classic – battery life was poor no matter what, so this is actually a significant area of improvement on the M3. Some have reported getting nearly 1000 shots out of a charge in ideal circumstances.

There are a number of factors that can impact battery life, but my experience says that real life battery performance is actually very strong for a mirrorless camera.

7. Somewhat Improved Burst/Buffer

The overall speed isn’t really higher with the M3. It is rated for 4.2 FPS, which is about par with the M Classic. The file sizes are of course 25% larger, which accounts for part of the reason why the burst rate isn’t further improved. Nor is the buffer with those big RAW files improved. What has improved, however, is the burst rate with JPEG files. Before the buffer would fill after 17 JPEGs, but now you can essentially shoot until the battery is dead, though it’s hard to imagine a scenario where you would actually be testing this limit.

In short this is a marginal improvement, at best, and the competition has gotten much, much better during this same period. Canon has definitely fallen behind here.

8. Screen Refresh and overall Speed

One irritating aspect of the original M was how it would take for the camera to be ready to shoot again after capture. The screen would go blank for a few seconds before it would refresh and be ready to compose again. The M3 has completely eliminated that, and the camera is ready again to shoot nearly instantly after capture. The camera feels more responsive overall.

Video Features

Another area where Canon is falling behind here is in the video capture. There are some pluses. The built in stereo microphones are notably improved, and the overall tracking is superior and smoother when compared to the M. I used it at a recent family events to record speeches around the table. I was just handholding it with the 22mm f/2 lens attached (the must have lens for the camera!) and it did a great job of the simple tracking needed along with very acceptable audio recording. If you just need a quick camcorder replacement, it is is just fine.

Video quality is quite good, and I periodically use the camera to shoot footage for my YouTube channel. It does have a jack for an external microphone and standard mini-HDMI output, but it doesn’t have a headphone jack or clean HDMI out.

But the camera is lacking when it comes to video modes. Forget 4K – that’s not even on the radar. In fact, the slow motion spec is a somewhat apathetic 720P/60 FPS. Basically all of the competitors are offering a 60FPS/1080P standard, so the M3 is really lagging in this regard.

None of this is to say that the M3s video is bad (it isn’t), but it is to say that this is one more area where Canon is lagging behind its mirrorless competitors. People expect more in 2015.

Accessories

The big new player for the M3 is the Canon EV-F DC-1 EV-F viewfinder. It’s actually a very clever and useful device, sensing when your eye comes near and automatically switching between the EV-F and the LCD screen. It can be tilted up to give you more flexibility in how you use it. The screen resolution is pretty decent, although it does lag a bit when you are rapidly moving the camera. But many people are going to mostly notice two things:

It isn’t built into the camera, but instead mounts on the hotshoe. It adds a fair bit of size (height) to the camera, and as a result the M3 may not fit in your typical bag of choice with the EV-F mounted.
It is a separate expense. You can purchase it in a kit with the M3 like I did, but if you buy it separately, it is a whopping $229. You can live without it, obviously, but many of the M3’s rivals come with a built in EV-F.

Once the elephant in the room has been cleared, here are my thoughts on the EV-F. I like having it, obviously, but there are pros and cons to it being a separate item. It’s nice that the M3 can stay more compact by not having it built in, and perhaps nice that you don’t have to pay for it if you aren’t going to use it. There are also some serious downsides, though. First of all, there have already been a number of times that I’ve thought of the EV-F while in the field and remembered it was sitting in my photography cabinet at home. It doesn’t do you any good if you don’t have it with you. You can obviously forget using a flash unit and the EV-F simultaneously, too, as the DC-1 mounts on the camera’s hotshoe. Other manufacturers have figured out a way to incorporate the EV-F without blowing up the size too much, so surely Canon can do the same. One plus is that is the DC-1 will work with several other bodies (some of the Powershot G series cameras), so you may get additional value there.

Do you need the EV-F? It depends on your shooting style and what lenses you are using. The LCD on the M3 is very good. It rarely gets washed out in bright sun, and for general purpose shooting it works very well, particularly because you can tilt it into a useful position. But I discovered when doing the Tamron 18-200 VC review on the EOS M Classic that I didn’t particularly enjoy the experience of shooting telephoto focal lengths with the LCD. The slight refresh lag and inability to completely isolate what’s on the screen with your eye made trying to track anything an exercise in frustration. The EV-F certainly helps with this, and I really like it mounted when I have the 55-200 STM mounted.

It is also very beneficial when shooting manual focus. The EV-F shows true depth of field (like the EG-S focus screen I have in one of my EOS 6D bodies), and the ability to zoom in the EV-F (5x or 10x) plus the addition of Focus Peaking makes getting accurate focus with manual focus lenses quite easy.

If you are mostly going to just use the 11-22mm, 18-55mm, or the 22mm lenses, you may not really need the EV-F at all.

Another important accessory for the system is the EF Adapter. This has been one of the Canon’s main talking points for selling the M system along with their chief excuse for not developing more lenses for it. Virtually any lens that will autofocus on an EF camera will autofocus (at varying speeds) on the EOS M system via the adapter. This includes all the EF-S lenses. This is a big deal for those of us already invested in the Canon ecosystem, as it means that we already have lenses to use on the EOS M/M2/M3 bodies. Not all lenses translate as well to the smaller mount, however, and some lenses are fairly unusable due to slow autofocus or unwieldy size. If you want to use the continual AF Servo focus (particularly in video mode), you will be best served by the STM lenses. They focus more smoothly and much more quietly. A number of other lenses work fairly well in One Shot mode, however, and it is very nice to be able to get a fresh look at some of your lenses. I particularly like the EF-S 24mm f/2.8, EF 40mm f/2.8 STM, and 50mm f/1.8 STM lenses on the M system (along with the aforementioned 55-250 STM after the updates). A couple of other nice options are the EF 35mm f/2 IS and EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses. The new Tamron 35mm f/1.8 and 45mm f/1.8 VC lenses work quite nicely, too.

I mentioned earlier in the review that the EF adapter needs some revisiting, however. The process of focus has clearly changed from M Classic to the M3, and the adapter that worked quite well on the M works less well on the M3 despite its more robust AF. A new EF adapter made for the newer M3 would really help breathe life into the process of adapting EF lenses to the system.

One closing note is that the vastly improved grip on the M3 makes using slightly larger/heavier lenses a more natural experience than the M Classic.

Lenses

Another area where Canon has really failed to support the M series in is in EF-M lenses. There are a few good third party lenses in an EF-M mount from Samyang/Rokinon and Tamron, but most people are not looking for manual focus lenses (which accounts for almost all of them save the Tamron 18-200 VC). To date Canon has had but four lenses, though a fifth lens has just been announced alongside the new EOS M10 budget mirrorless (smaller, lighter, and a bit cheaper than the M3. It has the older 18MP sensor rather than the M3’s 24 MP). That lens is the EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM. I doubt too many are going to jump up and down over this focal length (although it does correspond to the classic 24-70mm focal length – very useful!) and aperture speed (slow!), but it looks to have a few nice tricks up its tiny sleeves. It is a collapsible zoom, storing at a tiny 1.75″/45.5mm. The 15mm wide end is very nice, equating to 24mm on a 35mm/full frame body – a very useful focal length for landscape work. The EF-M 18-55mm is 2.4″/61mm long and weighs 210g compared to the paltry 130g for the 15-45mm, so the new lens certainly wins for being small and light. I’ve not tested it optically, but thus far all of the EF-M lenses have actually been very good optically. Other lenses include:

EF-M 22mm f/2 STM (so far the only real “must have” for the system. Super small, very light, and optically excellent.)
EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM (Universally acclaimed as a fantastic wide angle lens that punches way above its weight).
EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (Kit lens that is a little better than the EF-S counterpart, but not exceptional).
EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM (once again this is optically superior to the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, but at the cost of a slower aperture and smaller zoom range).

You’ll note one glaring problem in this line-up of now five (when the 15-45mm arrives) native lenses – there is a LOT of overlap. The 55-200 STM is only lens to not really share its focal length with another lens in the kit. Furthermore, they are almost all (with the exception of the lone prime) very slow lenses, with the final two hitting a maximum aperture of f/6.3 on the long end. As a result, the 22mm pancake lens remains the lone native option for use in low light shooting. This is one more area where Canon really, really needs to show support for the system. There is no real portrait lens available for the system, nor is there a macro option. These, to me, need to be Canon’s priority in lens development. An equivalent to the excellent EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro could do a reasonable job of addressing both those concerns. I intend to review the new Rokinon 50mm f/1.2 shortly, and I’m personally excited about it, but once again it is a manual focus only lens and simply won’t have broad appeal for most users.

Canon needs to step up its game when it comes to lens development for the EOS M lineup to prove its commitment to mirrorless.

In Conclusion

The Canon EOS M3 remains a bit of a paradox. In many ways it is a far superior camera to where Canon began with the M series, and in many aspects it addresses the concerns that I and other photographers had with the M Classic. But then there are areas where it takes some puzzling steps back. In some ways it feels like a more unfinished camera then the original M despite brilliant strides forwards in some areas. There have always been two distinct advantages for the M series when compared to many other mirrorless cameras: 1) Fabulous image quality and 2) the ability to use more than 70 EF lenses via adapter. Canon has advanced the former advantage (though others have made big strides as well!) but seems to have watered down the latter, at least with the current adapter. Much like the first M, however, the M3 ends up being more than the sum of its parts. It has a really excellent build, ergonomics, and logical design. I really, really like the camera despite its flaws, and just today I went trail running with the M3 and four(!) lenses without hardly noticing the weight at all. Being able to carry such a small camera without feeling like you are compromising your ability to get stunning images remains a very heady experience. (M)3 may not quite be a charm, but keep at it, Canon, you’re getting there!

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Canon EOS M3 Mirrorless Body
EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Lens (Silver)
Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS
EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens (Black)
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens
Adobe Lightroom CC Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use Code “dustinabbott” to get 10% anything and everything)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

Great News! I can now offer a 5% discount on all purchases at Amplis Foto, Canada’s Leading Photographic Supplier. Please enter discount code: AMPLIS52014 in your cart. It is good for everything in your cart, and is stackable with other coupons, too! It will take 5% off your entire order! Proceeds go towards keeping this site going and providing you with new reviews!

Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC Review

Dustin Abbott

March 27th, 2015

Samyang/Rokinon has entered uncharted waters with the release of the new 50mm and 135mm lenses (read my review of the 50mm f/1.4 here). Previously they have primarily offered budget alternatives to a variety of large aperture primes that typically cost a lot of money. Samyang has carved itself out a niche by offering lenses with no frills but highly competitive optics that have drawn in photographers on a budget and videographers that don’t have a Zeiss kind of budget. Samyang/Rokinon has occupied the opposite end of the spectrum from high end manual focus lens producer Zeiss. The Zeiss option at any given focal length is pretty much guaranteed to be the most expensive, while the Samyang option at any given focal length is typically the cheapest.

And this is why the two newest Samyang lenses are the biggest gambles the company has made thus far. Take, for example, the 50mm f/1.4 that we are currently reviewing. Its introductory retail price is $399 at B&H, which, coincidentally, is the same price that Canon’s own EF 50mm f/1.4 and the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (not ART series) and $3 more than the Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.4G lens. Sure, there are more expensive options like the Sigma ART and even the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4. The problem, of course, is that all of these lenses save the Zeiss offer autofocus motors for that price.

Likewise with the 135mm f/2 ED UMC. It retails for $549, which gives it a little more wiggle room than the 50mm. This is a good price for a 135mm lens, as the retail price for the Canon EF 135mm f/2L (a pretty legendary lens) is $1049. This is a higher price than most people have paid for the lens, however, for between discounts and the used market, it would not be difficult to pick up a copy anywhere between $800-900. The 135L, however, is a very deserving member of Canon’s “L” series lenses, with an excellent build, very fast and accurate USM autofocus, and wonderful optics. It is a favorite of many photographers (including myself). The Samyang has to provide some compelling reasons to choose it over the excellent Canon. Nikon’s own AF 135mm f/2D lens is not quite as good as Canon’s and also runs an extra $250 ($1299) at current pricing. Samyang’s price point makes it very competitive, but it’s optics are going to have to prove to be exceptional to make photographers take a second look at it…particularly when it is a manual focus lens. As we will see in this review, Samyang has most definitely made its point with the optics of this lens, but its decision to continue to only make manual focus lenses (with only focus confirm in Nikon F mounts) will still probably prove its undoing with most photographers.

Build and Handling

A lot of lenses pass through my hands every year, and with a few notable exceptions, the difference in build quality for modern lenses varies very little. With the exception of Zeiss lenses and some of the higher end Canon lenses, they are almost universally variations of the engineered plastic around a metal mount and frame theme…as is the case here. Gone are the days when there was a radical difference between “cheap lenses” (typically third party options and Canon’s low end EF-S lenses) and the more premium options. It has been a long time since I have seen a plastic lens mount, and just as long since I have heard a really cheap, buzzy micromotor for autofocus (thank God!!) The physical difference between this new lens from Samyang and my L (luxury!) series 135mm f/2 lens from Canon are minimal. Samyang/Rokinon has even incorporated a “red ring” into its design (though at a different location from Canon’s), so the visual similarities between the lenses is even more pronounced.

The build quality on this lens is really quite nice. It isn’t threatening the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135 with their build (not even close – that lens is exquisite!), but when I compare the 135mm to my Canon 135L, for example, I can’t say that the build seems noticeably different. They are both made with engineered plastics around a metal mount, and both have a black matte finish with a semi-gloss flecking pattern on it. Speaking of mounts…one of my favorite things about the Korean company’s philosophy is that they take their third party role very seriously. They don’t just focus on the Big 2 (Canon and Nikon), or even the Big 3 (throw Sony in there), but they make their lenses available in a host of native mounts, including: Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony A and E mounts, Fujifilm X, Samsung NX, Pentax K, and even Micro 4/3rds. The effective focal length will change due to the crop factors of some of those mounts, but bravo to Samyang for developing for all of these mounts (8 of them, by my count!) What a service to photographers everywhere to bring us more choices in the mounts we prefer. On top of that, they also have a cine version of the lens with geared focus and aperture rings and a declicked aperture ring.

If you would like to take an interactive look at the build, watch the first four minutes of this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiNfFmCEMts&feature=youtu.be

The focus ring on the 135mm is fairly wide (about two inches), and has a ribbed, rubberized feel, but I find the damping a little heavy. I have been shooting in colder temperatures, but even indoors the resistance feels too much. You certainly will not be doing any “finger focusing” like you could with, say, the Zeiss Otus 85! There was also a very specific point between the 10-15 feet mark on the focus ring where I could feel some additional friction that cause a minor “sticking point”. Since I have not tested more than one copy, I can’t say if this is the rule or if this lens is an aberration in that regard (I suspect the latter). I once returned a Rokinon lens that I knew to be off the standard (I used three copies between review and ownership). The initial response from the company was that they had tested it and found it to be “within spec” (though I knew this to not be true). I persisted, and they replaced it, and the second copy was just like the original lens that I had reviewed, which is to say, perfect! I share this anecdote to acknowledge that my experience with the 135mm may not be rule. This lens has a comfortingly dense feel to it that makes one feel that it is fairly well made and has some serious glass in it. And that it does!

The Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC has 11 elements in 7 groups, including one extra low-dispersion element. It also brags about its coatings. Samyang’s engineers have done a fabulous job here, as this lens is an optical revelation…particularly at its price point (more on that later). The aperture has nine curved blades and stays nicely round even when stopped down considerably. It has a range between f/2 and f/22. The front filter thread is 77mm, and while the lens is internally focusing, having that extra seal by adding a front filter to keep dust and moisture out is never a bad idea. There is no weather sealing claims on this lens, although I have noted before that there is also little to be damaged by weather here because of the complete lack of electronics in the lens.

Samyang should be commended here, because unlike Canon, it includes both a lens hood and a drawstring bag for protecting the lenses even though these are budget options. I cannot understand why Canon persists in not including lens hoods with its non-L-series lenses. The lens hood surely only costs a few dollars to manufacture, and I can’t help but believe that the goodwill that would be generated by a change in this policy would pay dividends for them. Nonetheless, the fact that Samyang manages to do this while producing budget options is clear evidence that it can be done. Kudos to them! It give you a good feeling to have these accessories included. I particularly value getting a lens hood as I tend to use them religiously. I actually prefer the hood from the Samyang to my Canon L lens because the 135L’s is both oversized in my opinion and flares considerably, which means when it is reversed on the lens for storage it requires quite a bit of extra width in the bag. The Samyang’s hood is more appropriately sized, and takes up far less room when reversed for storage. The Samyang is actually 11mm longer than the Canon, but when the hoods are attached the Canon becomes the longer of the lenses by far. The hood itself is fairly cheap feeling plastic with some flocking inside to prevent stray light from bouncing around in there. It is effective. The lens is made in Korea. My only real reservation with the build of the lens is the issue I detailed above with the focus ring, and my hope is that A) this is copy specific and B) once the lens is broken in that issue would go away. Just keep an eye on your own copy should you purchase.

Imagine you want to watch some xnxx hd and you don’t know how to reach them, that’s why I’m here

One final word before we move on: I get that Samyang/Rokinon has made its reputation as a manual lens manufacturer. I’ve favorably reviewed a number of them, and, in fact, own a couple myself. But their decision to not include the most basic of electronics puzzles me for a number of reasons. You don’t realize how much the focus confirmation chip in Zeiss lenses (which are generally very well calibrated) makes a difference in focus accuracy. I do feel that Samyang/Rokinon is doing its customers a disservice by not incorporating this into their design. They typically charge a little more for the Nikon mounts with the AE chip (although for some reason the 135mm is the same price in all mounts). But the 135mm is a very hard lens to nail focus with. Depth of field is typically very, very small at maximum aperture with the 135mm. It is supremely sharp (like, epically sharp! I doubt that the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135 has much on this) when the focus is nailed, but even though I have a lot of experience with manual focus lenses I still found that I missed a LOT of shots. Live View focus with the 10x zoom obviously helps to nail focus, but Live View focus is never a quick exercise. There are only so many situations where you have an opportunity to spend that much time in focus. The relatively simple addition of a chip on the mount with focus confirm would really help make their lenses at least seem more accessible, and my experience says they can make a big difference on a lens like this. I missed a number of shots with the Zeiss 2/135, too, but far fewer than I did with the Samyang.

No electronics here!

The second big reason I think that Samyang is missing out by not including an electronic connection is that they are missing out on a lot of branding. Many file sharing sites (like Flickr and 500px) incorporate the EXIF data in some minor way into their photo sharing. In most photos you can see both the camera used along with the lens and the ISO, aperture value, and shutter speed information. A great looking shot that says “Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC” on it is one of the best advertisements that a company could have. I would think that alone would be worth the $15 it might cost the company to incorporate the chip. As a photographer I use that information to sort photos and draw my own conclusions. I MISS that EXIF data!

If I were to own this lens I would certainly make the minor investment of money and a little investment of effort to purchase a “Dandelion” focus confirm chip off of Ebay that would also allow me to set up some rudimentary EXIF data (even if that date would frequently be incorrect due to using different settings than what were programmed into the chip). Between that and the EG-S focus screen experience tells me that I could produce fairly consistent focus results. The focus confirm chip has to be glued into the appropriate spot on the mount, and I have previously done it on another Rokinon lens with relatively minimal effort.

If there is a silver lining here it is that I have found with every manual focus lens that my focus success rate increases with familiarity. It’s as if you have to learn the unique personality of the lens, and, when you do, you better learn how to use it. I did quite well at close to medium range with the Samyang 135mm. At this range I find it much easier to visually confirm focus due to the EG-S super precision matte focus screen in my EOS 6D camera (if you are going to shoot manual focus lenses, get the 6D! It allows for changing the focus screen and has amazing image quality. The more complex AF system of the 5DIII is wasted on manual focus lenses.). My accuracy at longer distance (20 feet or more) went drastically down, particularly in a portrait setting. Infinity shooting or when the lens is stopped down is a completely different story, but at 30 feet the depth of field wide open (f/2) is only about 21 inches – still a lot of margin for error when it is tough to visually confirm focus.

Portrait Observations

One of the primary uses of both of these prime lenses will be as portrait lenses. I did a couple of sessions today where I exclusively used three manual focus lenses: the Rokinon 50mm, the Samyang 135mm, and a Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm. One minor challenge in this setting is that no EXIF data is communicated to the camera body (no electronics at all), so some of the advanced ETTL flash settings (like focal length and even aperture) are not going to be communicated to the flash. I entered these values manually, and away we went. I love shooting the 135mm focal length from a distance to create very shallow depth of field full length, environmental portraits with the great compression that the focal length provides. The Samyang proved a bit of a challenge for this type of shot, however, as there is not only no AF but also no focus confirm. I was using a Canon 6D with the EG-S focus screen installed. That does make visually achieving focus easier, but that advantage diminishes somewhat with the kind of working distance I was at (30-50 feet). I was not particularly happy with the focus accuracy I achieved here. Let me note here that part of that is due to unfamiliarity with the lens itself. I find there is a adjustment period with most manual lenses where it takes a while to get a feel for focusing. Each lens seems to have its own personality, and I find that my focus accuracy improves with familiarity.

Despite every shot not being perfectly focused, however, I was really happy with the overall look and feel of the session. The lens has great personality, with awesome looking bokeh and excellent overall drawing. Color rendition is beautiful. When focus is nailed, the lens is exquisitely sharp. But therein lies the rub; that excellent sharpness is frequently wasted by the simple truth that modern cameras are not particularly attuned to the unique needs of manual focus lenses. Don’t plan on every one of your shots having nailed focus. I do think that practice does make perfect with manual focus lenses, and if you do purchase one of these lenses (or any other manual focus lens) don’t give up too quickly. Good manual focus is an art form. The good news is that due to the great overall resolution and contrast of the lens images have a very nice 3 dimensional effect that is similar rather focus is nailed or not. Even my missed photos look great unless viewed at a pixel level. I think in most cases my clients would actually be very happy with the images that I’m personally disappointed with because I am a pixel peeper.

The 50mm f/1.4 is not as sharp as the 135mm. Not even stopped down to f/2. But, like the 135mm, I got a number of results that I am very pleased with. My focus accuracy was actually a bit higher, primarily because I shortened my working distance to a more moderate 10-15 feet for most shots. The EG-S focus screen makes focusing at that kind of distance much easier, and the depth of field of 50mm (I shot mostly at f/2 on the 50mm) is slightly more forgiving of near misses. There is some chromatic aberrations that are quite apparent on the lens, and missed shots really show that bokeh fringing. I would place the optical performance of the lens fairly close to that of the Sigma EX 50mm f/1.4 (non ART). It may be a little bit sharper, but the overall look of the images is reminiscent. Bokeh is quite nice from the lens, and the drawing is overall very good. Read my review of that lens to see more.

The easiest lens to focus was the Zeiss (my review of it will be coming next week). I had no misses with it. But, it had a number of advantages. First of all, it is built to specifications several orders of magnitude higher. It costs more than five times as much as the 50mm, and about 3 ½ times as much as the 135mm. It had the advantage of a smaller aperture (f/2.8 is mostly where I shot it), a much wider focal length (depth of field much deeper) and also the advantage of a focus confirm chip that seems quite accurate. A big plus for the far cheaper primes is that the overall look of the series is fairly similar, so I give them a thumb’s up for their color accuracy.

One other serious plus for portrait use comes for when you want to do tightly framed headshots. One of my favorite portrait lenses is the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. It’s seriously great in a number of ways, but its single greatest downfall is a mediocre minimum focus distance and poor maximum magnification. Close headshots aren’t its strength. This Samyang can get seriously close, though, down to 2.6 feet (80cm). That is a good 11cm closer than the Canon 135L, which was already appreciated for its nice minimum focus. This uncropped photo of my cat shows just how close you can get.

There are going to be very few situations that you want to get closer than that, and, as an added bonus, the lens seems to have great resolution at minimum focus. An additional bonus is that by adding extension tubes you can very quickly have a nice macro lens with a great working distance. Most of us do macro using manual focus anyway!

I used the lens in a number of other portrait settings, both of people and of a dog. At a lot of typical portrait lengths (12 feet and closer), the focus accuracy was reasonably good but only occasionally perfect. That gave me some concern, as I am a very experienced manual focus shooter. As per usual, however, my focus accuracy improved throughout the review period. Familiarity makes a huge difference when using a manual focus lens. This is a gorgeous portrait lens, however, with very flattering drawing, beautiful bokeh, and very nice transition from focus to defocus. The sharpest lenses of this type that I have used have been the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135mm and the Zeiss Otus 1.4/85mm (now that is an amazing lens!!), and I would say that this Samyang is only behind them in terms of absolute image quality from a portrait prime – and that is really, really high praise! The 135mm focal length is very flattering for portraits, and allows you to blow out backgrounds completely at close to medium range (and with a large aperture choice) but even at a longer distance to still create a lot of separation between your subject and the background. It produces a “cut-out” three dimensional effect that few lenses can rival. Here are some portrait samples:

[Show as slideshow]

Optical Conclusions

There is absolutely no hesitation on my part when it comes to the optical performance of the new Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC; it is an amazing optical instrument. I knew as soon as I began to use the lens and review the images that the optics exceeded those of my beloved Canon EF 135L. In fact, I suspect the sharpness and contrast of the optics of this new Samyang are closer to that of the amazing Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2/135mm I reviewed last year. The Canon 135L is an amazing lens, and it also has autofocus, but both the Zeiss and this new Samyang make it clear that its optical performance has been easily eclipsed (it was released in 1996 – almost 20 years ago!). I did a simple test of a bookshelf with paperback books with a lot of texture information. This was shot wide open, f/2, mirror lockup and a 2nd second delay to eliminate vibration. I put the camera in AV mode to eliminate the Live View metering issue that I will detail below, then used 10x focus. My point of focus was the “In Canada $5.50” under Historical Novel on the “Lord of the Nile” book. Here are my observations:

The difference in contrast is immediately noticeable. The text from the 135L appears to be a dark blue/purple due to both a lack of contrast and some chromatic aberrations. The text from the Samyang is inky black and the text is much crisper.

All textures are rendered with far more detail in the Samyang image. Texture detail from corner to corner is very good in the Samyang.

The Canon frames tighter than the Samyang. At this relatively close distance (6 feet), the Samyang is clearly not a true 135mm. I’m sure at infinity it is. Many modern lenses exhibit this phenomena where they “focus breathe” due to floating elements. The upside is this creates both the ability to focus more closely (it can focus down to only 2.6’/.8m) and enables better results at or near minimum focus. The specs do have the Canon framing at 18 degrees vs. 18.8 for the Samyang, so they aren’t exact. The Samyang has slightly better maximum magnification, however, due to being able to focus more closely.

Before reading my conclusions, take a look at this screen captures from the comparison and make some judgment calls for yourself:

[Show as slideshow]

One test note: the sharp eyed among you will notice that the two lenses did not meter the same in this comparison. I had the camera in AV mode as it meters the best in AV for lenses without electronic coupling to the lens. The Canon exposed at 1/125th second vs. 1/50th second, or roughly a stop difference. When trying to equalize the histograms I discovered it took roughly 1/2 stop. At 2/3rds stop the center of the image is brighter from the Canon but the edges are bit dimmer (the Canon vignettes more). It’s hard to draw conclusions based on one test, particularly one where I wasn’t specifically looking for that issue, but if I were to draw a conclusion it would be that the overall light transmission is a bit better on the Canon but at the price of much heavier vignetting. I would be very surprised if DXO tests this lens and finds the light transmission much worse than the nearly 20 year old Canon, though. All things considered, however, it is probably better not to draw any conclusions from these numbers. Leave that for DXO.

My results from this comparison definitely reconcile with my field observations. The Samyang 135mm f/2 is optically superior to my beloved 135L is every way. It exhibits better sharpness and resolution, much better contrast at wide apertures, and less chromatic aberrations. The bokeh looks just as good. Time and again I was very impressed when I zoomed into a pixel level and saw stunningly good resolution. I didn’t really notice any optical flaws here. I was able to induce just a bit of flare and ghosting when shooting with the sun right in the frame, but it was better controlled than many large aperture primes. What flare that I did produce seemed to have a lot of artist value to me, and unlike a wide angle lens, I do actually like some flare effect in a portrait lens.

I was even able to get a very cool shot of a dog diving into a frigid pond full of ice by watching its pattern and doing predictive focus. You can shoot action with a manual focus lens…but you really have to plan in advance.

The bokeh and drawing from the lens is really quite lovely. It has a great transition to defocus, and the out of focus area is beautifully creamy. I didn’t find anything that disturbed me at all about the bokeh – this lens was able to hit that great balance between sharpness and yet excellent drawing and bokeh. In that sense I personally feel it has the upper hand when compared to the recent Sigma ART offerings that have been a bit better in the sharpness region than they have in the defocused areas. It is no small feat to pull off what Samyang has done with the optics of this lens. Take a look at the image galleries here to see many more examples.

That’s all good…but not all is well.

You have to get it focused, first.

Conclusions

If you want to take a closer look at the image quality of this lens, I would recommend taking the time to watch the video, particularly about five minutes in where I look at the optics in an interactive fashion.

Between these two new primes from Samyang/Rokinon (135mm and 50mm) one could have an excellent portrait lens kit for less than a thousand dollars. As long as one nailed focus, I doubt anyone would be able to tell that you weren’t shooting with a Canon 135L and a Canon 50L – the drawing from both of these lenses is that good. The challenge, of course, is getting them focused accurately. The Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC is easily worth the $549 due to its exceptional optics, but the early reaction that I’ve witnessed from photographic forums has been rather, “meh”. I think both of these lenses are going to have earn their way into photographer’s bags upon the merit of their optical performance. The reality is that a 135mm f/2 lens is not an easy lens to manually focus. Some of the bodies that are supported by this lens have much better manual focus aids than what Canon and Nikon offer, so this may be a different proposition for some of you. I personally miss an image stabilizer on the Canon 135L, and as a result I often reach for a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens instead. Adding the challenge of needing to manually focus without having a stabilizer makes things even a bit tougher. I would be happy to own this lens – no question. The question is whether or not I would choose it over a lens like the Canon 135mm f/2L despite the fact that that the Samyang beats the pants off it optically. As an owner of the 135L, I can’t say that I am personally compelled to make that switch. But if you are in the market for a 135mm f/2 lens and want both better optics and a cheaper price, this lens is worth a very long look. It has the ability to produce images that are amongst the finest possible with this focal length. And that is always intriguing!

Pros

Amazing optical performance
Exceptional contrast
Beautiful bokeh and drawing
Excellent minimum focus distance and maximum magnification
Very reasonable price
Good long focus throw for precise focusing
Nice overall build
Includes hood and pouch

Cons

No autofocus or focus confirm (save on Nikon F mount)
Challenging to focus
No EXIF data chip
No image stabilizer
No weather sealing
Focus weight/resistance is heavy

Review Notes: I reviewed an early retail copy of the lens provided for review from B&H Photo in New York. Purchasing your gear through them (and through my linkage) is what funds this site and enables me to keep bringing you reviews. Thank you for using them when you purchase!

Gear Used:

Canon EOS 6D DSLR Camera (Body Only)
Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Software for Mac and Windows (Boxed Version)
Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud 1-Year Subscription
Alien Skin Exposure 7 (Use code “dustinabbott” to get 10% off)

Purchasing your gear through B&H and these links helps fund this website and keeps the articles coming. Thank you for your support.

[contact-form][contact-field label=’Name’ type=’name’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Email’ type=’email’ required=’1’/][contact-field label=’Website’ type=’url’/][contact-field label=’Comment’ type=’textarea’ required=’1’/][/contact-form]

Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART Review

Dustin Abbott

November 29th, 2019

Sigma 40ART Build and Handling

40ART Autofocus and Video Performance

Sigma 40ART Image Quality

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Purchase the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART from B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

November 17th, 2019

Images of the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART

Images taken with the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART (Canon)

Images Taken with the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART (Sony)

Purchase the Sigma 40mm F1.4 ART from B&H Photo | Amazon | Amazon Canada | Amazon UK | Amazon Germany | Ebay

Use Code “DUSTINHDR” to get $10 off ($15 CDN) any Skylum product: Luminar, Aurora, or AirMagic

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II Review

Dustin Abbott

May 22nd, 2017

My Quiet Rebellion

Build, Design, and Handling

Lens Hoods, Adapters, and Maximum Magnification

Image Quality

Voigtländer 40mm Resolution and Rendering

Chromatic Aberration Control

Flare Resistance

Conclusion

Pros:

Cons:

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II Image Gallery

Dustin Abbott

March 5th, 2017

Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f/2 SL-II

Images of the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II on APS-C

Images Taken With the Voigtländer 40mm f/2 SL-II on Sony A7R II

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Canon EOS M3 Review

Dustin Abbott

October 29th, 2015

First, the Bad News

Now for Some Good News

Video Features

Accessories

Lenses

In Conclusion

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Samyang 135mm f/2 ED UMC Review

Dustin Abbott

March 27th, 2015

Build and Handling

Portrait Observations

Optical Conclusions

Conclusions

Pros

Cons

Related Articles at DustinAbbott.net

Recent Posts

Around the Web

Books

Extended Reading

Contact Me

Leave A Tip!