p.3 #1 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
carstenw wrote:
What? I own the lens. Do you want to see the shots?
As do I.
cogitech wrote:
I suspect it is a matter of "Performance does not increase as dramatically as it is stopped down as compared to such-and-such Zeiss/Leica/etc. lens, therefore it is lackluster in a relative sense, not an absolute sense."
This seems like a failure in communication, not a genuine difference of opinion on the lens.
It might not be a Zeiss, but to say it does not improve much with stopping down is a bit of an exaggeration IMO.
p.3 #4 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
cogitech wrote:
This seems like a failure in communication, not a genuine difference of opinion on the lens.
BTW, Carsten, I won the race!
I know, I was being silly. But the race to 15000 is still on!
About the Sigma, I can only say that when I first bought it and was shooting it wide open, I was very pleased with it, but when I stopped it down to get more sharpness, it only sharpened up marginally and I was pretty disappointed and surprised. I guess I am used to macro lenses and Leica and Zeiss lenses, and the Sigma just doesn't deliver anything like the stopped down sharpness. Maybe the newer Sigmas are better (85/1.4, 35/1.4).
p.3 #6 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Nowhere near 15.000 posts, this actually is my first on this nice and friendly forum.
As for the images in the link above, I think the new 35 mm shares much of the look of the Sigma 50 1.4 especially concerning colors and contrast. The bokeh seams a bit less creamy, which is to be expected due to the wider angle.
p.3 #9 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
peterv wrote:
Nowhere near 15.000 posts, this actually is my first on this nice and friendly forum.
As for the images in the link above, I think the new 35 mm shares much of the look of the Sigma 50 1.4 especially concerning colors and contrast. The bokeh seams a bit less creamy, which is to be expected due to the wider angle.
The creamy boke of the 50/1.4 was a selling point for some, but a negative for others; those who prefer more texture and action in the boke. It could be that Sigma is trying to aim slightly more centrally with the new design.
p.3 #10 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Great news! I'm particularly impressed that EVERY single lens is quality tested:
"Every 35mm F1.4 DG HSM will be checked using Sigma’s own MTF measuring system, “A1,” as will all new lenses under the Global vision categories. This system uses 46-megapixel Foveon direct image sensors to pick up previously undetectable high-frequency details for quality control inspections."
So they're testing it on a crop sensor 15 megapixel camera?
p.3 #12 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This new Sigma 35 1.4 looks to be at least the optical equivalent of the Samyang/ Rokinon 35 1.4 but with much better build and, of course, AF.
p.3 #13 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Beni wrote:
So they're testing it on a crop sensor 15 megapixel camera?
If you read the PR, they move the sensor and check all 4 corners as well as the center crop.
The Foveon sensor is useful for this application because it can detect all colours at any given location. I.e. it offers much higher precision near the edges where chromatic aberration becomes a large factor in lens sharpness. It's a much better way of testing a lens than bayer array sensors.
p.3 #14 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This new Sigma 35 1.4 looks to be at least the optical equivalent of the Samyang/ Rokinon 35 1.4 but with much better build and, of course, AF.
p.3 #18 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
Canikon have serious trouble now. They are not only lose body market but Lens now. Just look at this performance make you wonder how come Nikon can ask $1600 a piece with uglier build and similar performance at best.
Don't let me even mention canon 24-70 f4 cost about $1500 with more plastic in it?
p.3 #19 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
R.Young wrote:
Looks fantastic, Bokeh seems decent too
Agreed. I still slightly prefer the Contax, but the Sigma isn't bad at all.
In the comparison with the Samyang it seems that the typical Sigma yellow is still there: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Samyang-35mm-f142
I wonder why it doesn't show up in the comparison with the Contax (maybe WB was equalized in that test?).
Also, the Sigma seems to have some wavy field curvature that makes zones D and E lass sharp than the extreme corner in zone F. I would like to see a comparison at infinity though.
Longitudinal color is much better corrected than the Samyang, but the focus transition looks quite different too.
p.3 #20 · What do you expect from Sigma 35 F/1.4 artist?
AhamB wrote:
Agreed. I still slightly prefer the Contax, but the Sigma isn't bad at all.
In the comparison with the Samyang it seems that the typical Sigma yellow is still there: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Sigma-35mm-f14-vs-Samyang-35mm-f142
I wonder why it doesn't show up in the comparison with the Contax (maybe WB was equalized in that test?).
Also, the Sigma seems to have some wavy field curvature that makes zones D and E lass sharp than the extreme corner in zone F. I would like to see a comparison at infinity though.
Longitudinal color is much better corrected than the Samyang, but the focus transition looks quite different too.
I don't know the Contax 35/1.4, but I have a Contax G 90/2.8 that I like on my NEX 5N.
But I thought the Sigma pretty much destroyed the Contax 35/1.4 on sharpness to the point that I wouldn't even consider the Contax 35. Bokeh appeared to be very similar so I don't think the Contax made back any ground after losing so much in sharpness.
That's quite the milestone Paul. It's nice to have you back.
?