The 35mm focal length is my favorite. So when a brand makes one, I automatically hold it to higher standards. Today, Sigma is announcing their new Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art Lens (properly called the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG Art II). I reviewed the original on L-mount and liked the look that it could deliver — but I ultimately thought that it was more of a specialized tool than anything else. After using the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art lens on paid gigs though, I can say with confidence that it’s probably going to be my next lens. This thing is incredible in so many different ways.
Table of Contents
The Big Picture: Sigma 35mm f1.2 II Art Review Conclusions
As I’m typing up this review, I’m looking back on the images I shot for it with fondness. The Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art lens is wonderful mostly because of the working experience that I can have with it. It’s fast, reliable enough, weather resistant, light enough, and is truly a lot of fun to work with. For the most part, it gets out of the way of making great images. But it mostly does that with LUMIX cameras more than anything else. Sony cameras tend to deliver images that lack imagination and give you the sad reality that we’re all trying to escape. Leica can do a great job — but still, nothing is beating LUMIX in this case.
For many years, the only f1.2 lens that I used regularly for work was the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 L. But this beats it in every single way except in the special way that Canon can make something look like it was shot on medium format.
The 35mm F1.2 DG | Art will cost $1,549. And even though I own the Leica 28mm f2 Apochromatic and the Panasonic 35mm f1.8, I’m considering getting this gem.
- Sharp, but that’s obvious
- Nice bokeh, obviously
- Weather resistance
- Fast to focus
- Nails the subject when doing event photography. But you’ll have better luck if you’re stopped down a bit

The Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art lens receives 5 out of 5 stars and the site’s Editor’s Choice award.
Experience
If you’re coming to this website for the first time, welcome. For a day job, I’m the Editor in Chief of this publication. But on the side, I’m a gainfully employed photographer who makes taxable income from the gigs that I do. And what I deliver are images, not my own presence on a social media platform. For most of this year, I’ve used L-mount camera to do my gigs. And typically, I’ve used Panasonic and Leica lenses because Sigma’s have often lacked the imagination that I’ve wanted from the scenes that I shoot. But with LUMIX cameras and sometimes a lens filter or two, things can change. With my Panasonic S1II E and the S5 II, I can load up the simulated looks of Kodak Portra 400, 160, and 800. And then I shoot the exact same way that I would when shooting film. This way, I get a look that holistically doesn’t always feel digital.






That’s what I realized when I used the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art on my gig shooting Plant Con 2025 here in NYC. The autofocus felt snappier than several other L-mount lenses I’ve used, tested, and own. But in low light, I really experienced this when the lens was stopped down a bit more. In low light, it can truly have some focusing inaccuracies if you’re shooting wide open. But if you ever so slightly stop down to like f1.4, it becomes peak. That kind of blows my mind because I’d been expecting this from the 135mm f1.4 instead — and believe it or not, the 135mm is the more accurate lens.
In good lighting, the autofocus tracking will be doing just fine.
There’s one really memorable moment that I had with the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art. When the marketing director for Plant Con was coming out of an elevator, I realized she was there. I immediately pointed the camera and lens at her, held my flash up, and got the shot instantly. I’d never have that with older Sigma lenses. But in this case, it did the job so well.
The Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art is weather resistant, has a clicky aperture ring, feels good in the hand, and is lightweight enough that the experience never seems to get in the way of shooting. I adore this lens and how the performance simply lets me focus on shooting and making photos. Part of this has to do with how LUMIX and Leica have improved their autofocus performance.
Now, I said earlier that I’m considering buying this lens even though I own a Leica 28mm f2 and a Panasonic 35mm f1.8. Realistically speaking, if you own the 35mm f1.8, I don’t think that it’s worth getting the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art unless you want to shoot at f1.2 all the time. But here’s the thing: only photographers will really be able to tell the difference between the photos. Your clients and their social media followers won’t care.
Sure I could probably talk about the image quality of this lens, but believe it or not, I don’t think that it’s worth discussing all that much. Optically speaking, I really can’t tell much of a difference between the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art and the LUMIX 35mm f1.8 in my own work. I only know the differences because I mostly remember what I’m using when I do a gig. Instead, you’re buying this lens for the performance and the versatility.
Image Quality
To recap what I said earlier, this feels like an optically standard lens unless you’re attaching it to LUMIX cameras. I realistically don’t care to stare at the bokeh all day because when I photograph people, my job is to make them look good. And these days, any lens can pretty much do that. For the record, if you’re shooting real-life, you’re not going to sit there ruminating over 100% sharpness, how the lights in the background look like onions, or anything else. And in my tests, no one made any of those complaints about my images. Instead, they loved the vibe that I delivered.
Keep note of this: even when shooting with the Sigma 35mm f1.2 II DG Art stopped down and with a flash, I didn’t have a complaint about being able to see someone’s pores. Part of that is how LUMIX can render images.
With all this said, I encourage you to get real about image quality these days. I’ve asked the industry to give us more chromatic aberration control, and honestly, I would’ve loved some swirly bokeh with this lens.
The following images aren’t edited.




















































The following photos are edited.














If anything, I think I like my unedited work more. There’s more life to it. And there are some autofocus flaws that you can embrace as part of the look and the vibe that you’re hired for.
Really, I think that you’d buy the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG Art II for the performance more than the optical image quality. Optically speaking, this lens is lacking imagination and therefore, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between this and what an AI puts out.
This lens, if anything, is proof that the photographer behind the camera really matters.
Tech Specs
| Product Name | Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG II | Art | |
| Product Line | Art | |
| Lens Construction | 17 elements in 13 groups | |
| FLD Glass | 0 | |
| ELD Glass | 0 | |
| SLD Glass | 1 | |
| Aspherical Elements | 4 | |
| Angle of View | L-Mount: 63.4°Sony E-mount: 63.4° | |
| Aperture | Number of Diaphragm Blades | 11 |
| Rounded Diaphragm | ✓ | |
| Minimum Aperture | F16 | |
| Minimum Focusing Distance | 28cm / 11.1in. | |
| Maximum Magnification Ratio | 1:5.3 | |
| Filter Size | φ72mm | |
| Dimensions (Diameter x Length*) | L-Mount: φ81.0mm x 111.4mm / φ3.2in. x 4.4in.Sony E-mount: φ81.0mm x 113.4mm / φ3.2in. x 4.5in. | |
| *The length of a lens is measured from the front of the lens to its mount | ||
| Weight | L-Mount: 755g / 26.6oz.Sony E-mount: 745g / 26.3oz. | |
| Edition Number | A025 | |
| Supplied Accessories | PouchLens Hood LH782-04Front Cap LCF-72 IVRear Cap LCR III | |
| Mount / Product Barcode | L-Mount: 00-85126-37069-5Sony E-mount: 00-85126-37065-7 | |
Declaration of Journalistic Integrity
The Phoblographer is one of the last standing dedicated photography publications that speaks to both art and tech in our articles. We put declarations up front in our reviews to adhere to journalistic standards that several publications abide by. These help you understand a lot more about what we do:
- At the time of publishing this review, Sigma is not running direct-sold advertising with the Phoblographer. This doesn’t affect our reviews anyway and it never has in our 15 years of publishing our articles. This article is in no way sponsored.
- Note that this isn’t necessarily our final review of the unit. It will be updated, and it’s more of an in-progress review than anything. In fact, almost all our reviews are like this.
- None of the reviews on the Phoblographer are sponsored. That’s against FTC laws and we adhere to them just the same way that newspapers, magazines, and corporate publications do.
- Sigma loaned the unit and accessories to the Phoblographer for review. There was no money exchange between us or their 3rd party partners and the Phoblographer for this to happen. Manufacturers trust the Phoblographer’s reviews, as they are incredibly blunt.
- Sigma knows that it cannot influence the site’s reviews. If we don’t like something or if we have issues with it, we’ll let our readers know.
- Sigma paid for shipping of the lens to and back. This is a standard practice in the world of journalism.
- The Phoblographer’s standards for reviewing products have become much stricter. After having the world’s largest database of real-world lens reviews, we choose not to review anything we don’t find innovative or unique, and in many cases, products that lack weather resistance. Unless something is very unique, we probably won’t touch it.
- In recent years, brands have withheld NDA information from us or stopped working with us because they feel they cannot control our coverage. These days, many brands will not give products to the press unless they get favorable coverage. In other situations, we’ve stopped working with several brands for ethical issues. Either way, we report as honestly and rawly as humanity allows.
- At the time of publishing, the Phoblographer is the only photography publication that is a member of Adobe’s Content Authenticity Initiative. We champion human-made art and are frank with our audience. We are also the only photography publication that labels when an image is edited or not.
More can be found on our Disclaimers page.
