Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens sample images

Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens for Nikon 4 Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens for Nikon 5

Foto Hans Keuzekamp received their first Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art lens for Nikon mount and sent me few sample images taken with the Nikon D7100. This new 30mm f/1.4 lens is designed for APS-C/DX Nikon DSLRs cameras (45mm equivalent focal length) and is compatible with the Sigma USB dock ($59).  The lens is still not shipping in the US and is currently available for pre-order for $499.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens sample images:

Full size version of the JPG files is available on flickr:

Additional Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens images:

Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens for Nikon 1
Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens for Nikon 2
Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens for Nikon 3

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens specifications:

Lens Construction 9 Elements in 8 Groups
Angle of View 50.7º
Number of Diaphragm Blades 9 (rounded)
Mininum Aperture f16
Minimum Focusing Distance 30 cm / 11.8 in
Filter Size (mm) 62mm
Maximum Magnifications 1:6.8
(Diameter x Length)
74.2x63.3mm/ 2.9x2.5in
Weight 435g / 15.3 oz.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens MTF chart:

Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM lens MTF chart

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM lens design:


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Putin Tame

    Ren Kockwell said Sigma is for tinkerers not pros. Don’t waste your time with this Sigma product. He only uses Nikon and Canon product because they work every time.

    • SleeperSmith

      Agreed. All those who said sigma 35/1.4 was good are on crack. I learned everything I need to know from Ren Kockwell, and he’s never wrong.

      • longzoom

        Sure you right guys, so I’ll buy this lens without second thinking just to show how bad the one is, exactly as its older brother 35/1.4 is!

        • Global

          Putin Tame IS KEN ROCKWELL.. Everytime someone bashes Ken Rockwell, its always Ken Rockwell. He gets thousands of page views this way. Great marketing, bro! If you’re not him, you should work for him.

          • Which is why I should delete all KR related comments – this thread got hijacked gain.

            • RMJ

              a photo site without KR comments is like… well, I wouldn’t know since I never go them…

              we need our amusement, our daily fix of humour. photography shouldn’t be too serious business. 🙂

          • longzoom

            Sure, but why in my address?

        • No longer Pablo Ricasso

          I like some Sigma for sure but you may benefit from a second thought.

          • longzoom

            Sure I did! So I ordered a new Sig 35/1.4!

        • When I’m a newbie years ago, I fully trusted KR words. Right now, his reviews are rather amusing to me.

          • MeToo

            Yeah, me too. I bought a D7k because of his recommendation(but not via his affiliate link, sorry Ken). Then I shoot jpg only, also because he told me so. One day I played around with RAW and s*&t, what a wasted year!

      • Sahaja

        KR may write a lot of nonsense – but it seems he may be no fool and is laughing all the way to the bank. According to various website valuation tools “” is worth about $2,500,000/- and earns $3,000/- per day. (and that may be just advertising revenue)

        Not bad for someone always bleating about sending donations and buying stuff through links on his website to support his family.

      • Nikonnut

        I have the sigma 1.4, I also have the 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g, 50mm 1,4g ang 1.8g, 35mm 2.0d, 24-70 2.8 vc tamron, 16-35mm f4 Nikon, nothing beats the sigma. My opinion of course

        • Dude

          Ols Sigma 1.4?

    • Duncan Dimanche


      I couldn’t tell if it was ironic or not..
      Doesn’t Ken Rockwell shoots JPGs and not RAW ?….


      • longzoom

        What irony are you talking about? It is not! My friend was pushed into pool, and damn thing after swimming stops to work! I am deadly serious here! His Sig 35/1.4 stops to work, can you imagine that? Of course it is bad lens, after all! So he is ordering the second one, idiot he is!

        • Manolo Kikash

          2 words for you – weather seal.

          • longzoom

            Correct, but swimming 2 meters under surface, you know…

            • umeshrw

              You are being sarcastic. Right?

            • longzoom

              Yes, a little bit, but the lens is dead. Hope the new copy will be as good.

          • Remedy

            In what universe weather sealing = swimming pool sealing? Or right…. in Fantasyland.

        • Duncan Dimanche

          hahahah Are you serious Longzoom !!! you are baching Sigma caus eyour friend went swimming into his pool with his sigma ?!!!! hhaha

          So tell your friend that he has two option for that. Olympus are weater sealed and Pentax.

          PS the new 35mm 1.4 is amazing

          • longzoom

            Out of questions! It is the best 35mm lens today in digital era. Hope new 55-60/1.2 and 135/1.8 are the same. Will see!

      • Nick

        Sorry but shooting RAW does not make you some photo god. I am so sick of the “you are only a photographer if you shoot RAW” mentality. The truth is that unless you are using capture NX your Nikons jpeg files will smoke your RAW conversion… no contest.

        • Remedy

          Obviously You take “cluelessness” to a whole new level. Good job sir, I pronounce You honorable citizen of Tardville.

        • Damn, how can people be so fool? Never heard of Capture One? Even Lightroom 4 does a better job in Raw conversion than the camera JPEG engine…

        • Duncan Dimanche

          Ok Nick…. how can I put this simply…
          With JPGs the camera does all the editing for you and you can control to a certain degree the amount of editing it does…
          With RAW the camera does not touch the files and lets you do all the hard work…

          And I think that a man is capable of doing a better job than a machine… I will say that some camera edit their jpgs better than others and that some RAW files from cameras are useless (like on my old E-420).

          JPGs cannot outperform RAW it is mathematic
          My D800 RAW files are 70mo whereas my JPGS are 20mo. That’s almost 4 times more information recorded on the RAW files.

          I do shoot JPGs for sports and family pictures
          Trust me I would love to juste shoot JPGs.

          • Sahaja

            Shooting RAW is like shooting with negative film. Shooting JPEG is like shooting with transparency film.

            RAW and negative film give you latitude to fix exposure, white balance, etc. in post processing.

            With JPEG or transparency film you have much less latitude and your exposure, wb etc. should to be dead on

            Plenty of pros shot with transparency film. Nobody said this was not “pro”.

            So long as all your camera settings are right, you can get excellent results with JPEG in many situations.

            • umeshrw

              What about missing details because of compression?

          • Nick

            This is not my first rodeo… I use to shoot RAW back in my D70s days. Its not as simple as a larger file size insures superior image quality. Sure there is more data to work with but at the end of the day the cameras proprietary engine will convert that data better than a third party software. Sure if you want to edit to your hearts delight take the raw, but if you have dialed in your picture control the Jpeg will be ace. Look I shoot day in and day out, on the road about 90% of the year, and I was estimate I submit a photo to my clients that was edited from a raw image maybe 0.5% of the time. You come to a point in your shooting where you can recognize situations where the camera may not make the ideal file, and thats when you flip it over to RAW+Jpeg for redundancy sake. Outside of that I can live with the jpegs fantastic in camera sharpening and noise reduction. Please dont list of softwares and claim they are good as what nikon makes in house, I have tried them ALL and so have my friends in the media room and came to same conclusion I did. Seriously the top 4 guys in my line of work all shoot Jpegs on their D3s, D4 and 1dx’s… These guys nail their photos and require very little if any post work.

            Anyways Duncan I would hate my life to shoot sports on a D800 in RAW mode… your buffer must want to explode. I know one photographer in sportscars that uses it as his primary and one guy in F1 as a second body but outside of that most opt for the speed of the D3s or D4. I am not saying RAW is right or wrong, just pointing out I am so sick of people coming in on their high horse about how much better a raw is due to its initial non destructive editing. I think the vast majority of people dont realize if they nail their exposure and have a decent preset in picture control the Jpeg will actually produce a higher quality end file… and take way less time and HD space.

          • jk

            “And I think that a man is capable of doing a better job than a machine”

            Oh how I wish this were true. It takes skill to properly edit a raw image. In most instances an out of camera jpeg will yield the best results for people that lack the ability. This is probably why jpegs are better for some..less room to add their creative control. 😉

        • jk

          I can’t even make sense of this nonsense you speak.

      • Dick

        Guess he just don’t know how to capture NX or photoshop XD

    • n11

      Not that I don’t read what Ken writes and I enjoy reading, but shouldn’t a real photographer come to his own conclusions as to what he should or should not buy?

      • longzoom

        His writings are not for pros, but his contradicting things, sometimes, are not any good for amateurs either. But, honestly, he knows the TV systems very, very well.

        • Jack

          He’d tell you to use D40 with 18-55 kit lens

          • longzoom

            Hah! Indeed!

      • Diffraction

        KR makes a few good points, but I take them with grain of salt. He takes a simple approach that works for some neophytes, but people should do their homework and listen to a good helping of various opinions out there. Otherwise you’re just cloning the work of whoever’s blog you’re reading – their blindspots become your blindspots.

    • hm thats strange. I shoot professionally with Sigma and Tamron gear every weekend. I guess I’m doing it wrong and I should throw all my lenses in the garbage.

      • Micah Goldstein

        Don’t feed the trolls.

  • FedUp

    I think its funny y’all stick to kr like he is a god… I own all Nikkor glass but am pissed the widest prime I can get that isn’t a Fisheye is a 35. I’m glad to see other companies doing what Nikon won’t unless your part of the niche market(Nikon 1) Ashton Kirchner can suck my DSLR

    • 9gager

      Not sure if they’re being sarcastic or they really worship KR 😉

    • SleeperSmith

      Lost in translation.

      We are all making fun of him. He’s a bit like “the” internet joke nowadays.

      • AM

        Sadly, he’s laughing along all the way to the bank.

    • Micah Goldstein

      The widest prime in current production Nikon land is a rectilinear 24mm/1.4. It is quite excellent. The 14-24 is also quite excellent. It outperforms all other full frame 14mm lenses–primes included. No need to discriminate against a zoom if it does a better job! The new 28/1.8G is a prime as well, and it’s damned sharp. I don’t like the un-round aperture blades, but it is a rectilinear prime wider than 35mm.

      If you need wider than 14mm for DX, truly, Nikon doesn’t make anything worthwhile. Here I’d opt for the excellent 11-16/2.8 Tokina.

      You have nothing to be pissed about. High quality glass wider than 35mm is available in Nikon mount. But go ahead and whine to your hearts content. That’s what the internet is for, right?

      • Duncan Dimanche

        Fedup is quite sad…
        Micah Goldstein said it all. Thank you i won’t have to write that myself

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        Oh, but he will never be satisfied with any of those Nikons because they aren’t made for the small sensor and they won’t make the light fall off in the corners as much as a lens that saves fifty grams will.

        Let’s go ahead and give a hands up to sigma for reviving this many years old lens and making it somewhat acceptable across the frame because they know so much better than Nikon what cameras Nikon will be producing next year! Why fuss around with something dodgy and expensive like a 50 f1.8 on a full frame when you can have this for only 500 bucks? It will give almost as narrow a focus and still be somewhat sharp when opened up! This will surely keep people from going full frame.

      • mervis

        Pretty sure FedUp meant fullframe-equivalent on a DX body: making 36mm-equivalent (24mm x 1.5) the widest rectilinear Nikon lens for, say, a D7100.

        Still baffled why Nikon, to this day, hasn’t built a set of dedicated high-quality large-aperture primes for their DX line (16, 23, 33, 57, 70, 90) instead of expecting their customers to cobble something together from their old film lenses

        • mervis

          Clarification: first paragraph applies only to large-aperture prime choice. There is a 20mm and a 14mm Nikon available, both f2.8.

  • Spy Black

    I’d like to see how it looks wide open in bright sunlight high contrast situations at full res. That’s the acid test for a high-speed lens. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 did surprisingly well, so I would imagine this should be pretty good too.

    • longzoom

      That is what I agree with you.

    • Eric Calabos

      its a $500 lens
      so inject some forgiveness liquid to your acid bath

  • David G.

    Big brands are really going to have to step their game up. Looking at you Nikon

    • Nilrem

      I guess Nikon employees don’t read NR. That’s a shame.

      • jk

        If I was Nikon I wouldn’t put much weight in what most of the people say here. I like the site and all but this doesn’t represent “real life”.

      • David G.

        That’s not what I was implying, but… yeah, it’s probably better if they stay as far away as possible from here 😛

    • Micah Goldstein

      I’d still take the 35/1.8 over this. It’s better in the corners and I know the focus works. And the price can’t be beat! (well, except if it were free) So no, Nikon still has occasion to rest on it’s laurels. The 35/1.4 is better too, but that’s in a whole other class/price range.

  • Rhonbo

    Go Sigma, now please give us a great 12mm,14mm,16mm prime lens since Nikon won’t. DX seems to be the only interchangeable lens format that is not being fully supported by Nikon & Canon even though it’s their biggest money maker.

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      You might think about what that means, in a five or ten year perspective. It is inevitable that the price of the existing full frames will continue to fall. At some point improved models be introduced at the price point of the cheapest current models and they will become even cheaper. At some point there may be a model positioned below the D600/6D. As things are, the camera is less than a really good lens. Soon, the camera will be less than a so so lens. Life is good. Enjoy the 50 1.8 on both formats.

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        I mean…

        You spend 500 on this and put it on your whatever.

        I get a new 50 f1.8 for 200 or an old one for 75 and put it on my full frame whatever.

        It will be like medium format against 35mm print film.

        Even the old lens. And either one is smaller and weighs half as much as the Sigma, so you don’t get any portability points either.

        • Rhonbo

          Regardless of what happens with FF in the future right now we need a decent wide angle prime or at least some updated ultra wide zooms that can deal with the new high MP sensors better from edge to edge. Existing primes and FF lenses work well enough for me (improvement is always welcome) but its the wider end of zooms and no wide primes that is lacking the most. Once we get that there may not be much reason to upgrade to FF any time soon unless someone has a specific need.

          • umeshrw

            Once we get that there may not be much reason to upgrade to FF any time soon

            And we wonder why nikon doesn’t make good wide angle primes and zooms.

            You said it yourself.

            • Rhonbo

              You may be right that’s why sigma may be the company to do it for us since Nikon won’t.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              You still don’t get it. This lens is actually less sharp in the center than the original version. The only thing that’s better about it is that it doesn’t become a complete blur in the corners like the other one does. Which one of the two 30s is best for you depends on your style of shooting but in no case is either of them going to be able to stand up to a humble 50 f1.8 on a full frame.

              So maybe you say OK and put the 50 on your APS camera. Well It won’t stand up to either Nikon 85 or the Sigma 70 on a full frame. Put any of those on your APS camera and get ready to be humbled by the 135 f2. And so on.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              The only thing you will eventually want your APS camera for is for getting the most out of the center of your long bomb (s) and maybe for carrying with one or two lenses when you don’t want to take much gear. The 80-400 and the kit zoom is a great package, There are loads of 16- and 18- zooms in all price ranges that are suited to carrying with various long lenses. There is also a 10-24 zoom and it goes wider than all but the 14-24 and costs much less. These lenses likely represent the best quality you are going to get for the money because they still have to bend light over the same distance to get to the sensor. That means that a full frame can have FIFTY PERCENT more slop and still be as sharp. That means that comparable performance will inevitably require more precision with the smaller medium, and therefore more cost, all other things being equal. This is why you are contemplating spending 500 bucks to get something that won’t match something else costing 75 bucks that has existed for a long time.

              The way forward for APS sensors it without mirrors. With that the distance from the rear element to the sensor can be minimized and you can have a camera that looks, sounds, and behaves like a Leica for what will probably be even less than the current crop of bodies and lenses. There is no point in trying to improve the quality of glass to fit a stop gap system that was only intended to be a stop gap system when the same level of quality would give better results if applied to other systems.

              If you want max resolution, take out your primes and a full frame. If you are on the run and in a hurry take a small camera and a zoom or two. Or take a REALLY small camera like the new stuff that is coming around.

      • chlamchowder

        But APS-C will remain fundamentally different from full frame, even if full frame prices drop. The pixel density offered by APS-C sensors is attractive to people wanting more telephoto reach. And no matter what happens, APS-C will be cheaper than full frame (if only slightly so).

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          And I see them making a decent camera every few years for the telephotoists. And I see them continuing to offer a variation of wide to telephoto lenses that complement such a system. But the main use I see for the sensor is in mirrorless compacts, both those with fixed lenses and those with interchangeable. You won’t want to spend a thousand on an APS when you can get a full frame that is the same size for a couple hundred more and when you can get a camera with the same sensor and most of the features that you use but fits in your pocket with the lens. And it’s a damn good thing that Nikon didn’t sell you a bunch of primes to make the obvious any more of a pain than it will be.

    • rhlpetrus

      Yes, I like the idea of a 12mm and a 16mm for landscapes, Nikon never made good on DX lenses.

  • Captain Megaton
  • VivaLasVegas

    Regardless, Sigmas are kicking Nikkor primes and Tamron is is owning Nikon’s 70-200f2.8 & 24-70f2.8.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      “…Tamron is is owning Nikon’s 70-200f2.8…”

      Haha, another comedian…

    • Sorry, Tamron owns nothing. No idea where you get your data. Sigma has one nice prime so far, no question. What other primes are better? No real data on this lens yet so I guess you are just making this up?

      • Pellevin

        Sigma has a lot of nice primes there is no denying it, then if they are better than the equivalent Nikons (in the cases there is an equivalent) is much a matter of taste. Comparing price to performance the Sigma primes are hard to beat. 30, 50, 85 and 150 mm.

        • genotypewriter

          Did Mike mention Sigmas?
          I didn’t think so…

          Back to the topic, boy.

      • JakeB

        “What other primes are better?”

        Pretty much none.

    • jk

      Let me couldn’t afford the “real” thing so you are trying to make yourself feel better? I am all for saving cash and working with what you have. I also firmly believe that we are too caught up on gear…but blanket generalizations like this do not contribute to moving photography forward as an art.

  • Micah Goldstein

    I nearly lost my wad when I misread that as the 35mm/1.4 being available for pre-order for $499. Alas, it was only a misunderstanding. Just the boring one that’s so cheap. Oh well.

  • Tony

    I have owned the sigma 35 1.4 and its the sharpest lens I have ever owned! Incredible at f/1.4. I’m just not suited to wide angle lenses for my line of work. Got myself a sigma 85 and its truly stunning on my D800 and D700. Slaps the nikon 85 1.4D silly.

  • Sharpness seems to be acceptable at f/1.4 and excellent at f/2.8 judging by these samples. Good work Sigma! I might some day upgrade my 35mm f/1.8 to this one day 😛

  • DHK

    So, I was confused … why is this Sigma “Art” series lens wider, just as fast, cheaper and smaller than the 35mm Sigma Art lens? Then I realized … it is for DX, not FX, sensors. Now it makes sense 🙂 Time for more coffee!

  • Sesam

    I see a decentering on the left side, the sharpness is poor even at f2.8. Next time stick with much more sample photos of flowers, so nobody will see the flaws.

    • Linea1

      I have the lens on my Nikon D7000. After doing AF Fine tune it’s an awesome lens. Build quality is much better as the 35mm 1.8g and the image quality is a little better. I experience this lens exactly how it’s described here:

  • pacey999

    This lens looks really nice, shame I’m full frame now! 🙂

  • Alfonso FotoNovedades

    just a beautifull lens, soon I will have one on my hands to make the proper review!!

  • fredfocus

    I think it is interesting that nobody complains about the pictures up there. One face is tak-sharp and in the other one the face is blury – but the shirt is sharp. I hate this way the auto-focus works on all of my nikons as I dont sell shirts. My old Rollei in the 70s never ever showed me something like that. And I didnt find I a descent workaround unless stopping down the aperture. And I doubt that the second face is shot at 1,4 – not enough DOF. So I dont need a 1,4 lens. If this Sigma wasnt hanging on a Nikon I would love it. Anybody else fond of blury faces?

  • I honestly wonder if Sigma discovered some new secret talent, technology or material… actually all their latest lenses are great hits !

  • “Art” lens? USB Dock??

  • What is the difference between this and the EX verison? Is this one better or worse?

  • Back to top