Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Jim, thanks!
My previous experience with Sigma was very negative, my first lens for Canon was Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX and I used it with 3.1Mpix Canon D30, and later I had crop sensor 30/1.4 EX - and since those days I have absolute hated Sigma as brand and assumed they can never produce anything useful. Due to Sigma 24-35 Art I had to change my opinion.
Sigma 24-35 Art is my "best 28mm lens" at the moment, I prefer it over of Zeiss&Leica alternatives (Distagon 2/28 ZE, Biogon 2.8/28 G, Distagon 2.8/28 C/Y, Leica R 28/2.8mkII). Lens is large but as it's EF-mount and I use it with Metabones adapter = I have Arca/Swiss-"plate" in the adapter = size and weight are irrelevant. What comes to focus plane image quality my observation is the same as most reviews in internet; the lens is technically stronger in wide end and gets worse towards long end. However it does not mean that 35mm would suck, it's still pretty damn good, but not as good as 24mm. I naturally end up to 27-29mm range most of the time, as my eye "sees" wide angle as 28mm FOV. Also in most of my scenes the 24mm is usually impossible to use due to how much sky it includes into picture, and I personally don't like 35mm perspective.
Overall feeling is that this lens needs 1/3 or 2/3 stops down on most scenes to gain larger contrast difference between focus plane and boke (closing down increases focus plane contrast, but boke doesn't change). Closing down 1/3 stop increases boke quality, but after that it does only affect to quantity - wide open boke highlights do have little bit too high light concentration to boke highlight circle edges, but 1/3 stopping down smooths it. Boke character is not best possible, and sometimes it can have little bit double imaging in area between transfer zone and background boke (e.g. look this photo about halfway of the main subject; the tree bark texture gets messy because double imaging). This seems to be common problem with modern high performance lenses. Other than that I like boke quality; boke highlights shapes are OK, boke highlights have even light distribution and contrast is lower compared to focus plane contrast.
I tried the AF few times, but I can't comment how that works as I suck on this AF-stuff and almost always prefer manual focusing. Manual focus feels good, transition from static friction to kinetic friction is OK for AF-lens, but one can't expect similar smoothness we have for example in Zeiss ZE/ZF/ZM-lenses. Focus throw could be longer (only 90 degrees), the short focus throw will cause accurate focusing taking 5-10x the time compared to Zeiss ZE 28mm (~140-150 degrees). I haven't tested if the zoom parfocal as I always do accurate focusing after I have composed.
Lens is naturally very telecentric and there is no field curvature relevant issues even with super thick A7-series sensor cover glass. I tested the lens similarly as I tested 50/1.4 Art and I could not detect field curvature caused corner boke differences between standard super thick sensor cover glass vs. Kolari v2.
For landscape usage Sigma 24-35 I have mixed feelings. Photos look good (specially when pixel peeping), but as I'm used to Zeiss-look, many times I don't find the photos look like "my photos" - it's like looking some other photographer photos who happened to be shooting in same location. Landscape photos just aren't bold enough and feel somehow thin. Also there is something going on which I don't understand; few landscapes I took (e.g. rather good looking rendering of rock formation on right side, definitely not flat) look really good, but then on other hand some other landscapes just don't have any look (e.g. sharp and nice landscape but very flat and bland looking). So for landscape photography I haven't yet figured out the behavior of this lens on good enough level.
I really need 28mm as it seems I just can't make my "lens kit" work with these super popular focal lenghts (24/25mm & 35mm), which are available for Sony system from various brands and in various speeds. I love 50mm perspective and I just simply don't want to have "lens kit" without 50mm. For me it's too big jump from 24/25mm to 50mm, and makes little to no sense have 35mm & 50mm lens at same shoot they always seem to be too close to each another. In 2018 I have enjoyed quite a lot finally having satisfactory "lens kit", which really works: Sigma 24-35 Art, Sigma 50 Art & Zeiss APO-Sonnar 2/135, thou I used also a lot Sony/Zeiss Alpha mount (SLR) 1.4/50 SSM instead 50mm Art.
So I have really high hopes for Sigma 28mm Art as it and 40mm Art are supposed to be "2nd generation" Art lenses. And being "2nd generation" it seems to show in weight, size & price - e.g. 24mm & 35mm Art are half the weight,size and price of 28mm. So hopefully both of the new Art lenses will have even better quality boke (subjective opinion: focus plane is good enough on all Art-series lenses). But if it's not good, I can live with 24-35mm as my 28mm lens. It's also nice bonus to have little bit zoom range. I personally would also prefer to have tripod mount on any lens size of these monsters, but as far as I have understood there will be none in the 28mm Art - makes me wonder should I get Canon EF version just to get the tripod foot for my lens?
EDIT: Some of your 24mm Art pictures had very nice look/rendering style. Specially liked this one even I usually don't care so much about "all sharp" photos. Also these had really nice rendering style.
Samuli...Show more →
Thank you, Samuli, for your informative and in-depth reply.
It's funny -- you and I approach similar subject matter from different directions, but on outcome and gear choices, we have a lot in common. I tend toward more AF, and am happy to shoot multiple frames to choose the sharpest and best focus from the group. Also differing -- I'm almost never using a tripod anymore, except for time exposure in twilight and such.
You have told me a lot about a few lenses I'm very interested in. The 24-35 Art seems a little redundant for me, having the very nice 24/1.4 Art --- which I like the effect of wide open shooting. I've been thinking about the 35 and 50 Art, and it's good to get your positive experience with the 50. Fifty is a lens I seldom shoot unless it is part of a zoom. Even my Loxia 50 (which I love!) seldom gets used even if packed. The 28 Art sounds interesting, but the 40 Art is gigantic (even for me!) and not a favorite focal length.
I could probably shoot 90% of the subjects I prefer with 20-50mm lenses.
I would like if the 35/1.4 Art (wasn't it the original FF Art lens?) were up to the standards (or close) to the 24 Art. I may end up getting the 50 Art to replace my Canon 50L.
I share similar expereince to you in that "back in the day" I had bought the Sigma 24-70/2.8 HSM for Canon, and found it to be sub-par. I sold it and got the original 24-70/2.8L, and never looked back for event work! Finally sold that lens about a year ago after getting the better replacement 24-70/2.8L II. So, I also thought I'd never buy another Sigma, but along with the 24-105/4 Art for Nikon, this new 24/1.4 has convinced me (along with reviews) that the other Art series needs to be considered.
Thanks for the help and great examples. 
|
. This type of photography will bring in less keepers, significantly less keepers compared to landscape photography or portraits but, it is highly rewarding nonetheless. 
