p.2 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BTW, in one of Chinese review, they do mention that this lens focus faster on S1 than Sony Ar3 used.
Quote and translated in English by me.
“ somehow, it’s AF feels slightly less faster than f1.4 glass. Given AFc only requiring minor adjust each time, it still feel pretty fast (A7r3). On Panasonic S1, however, AF is very fast. No wonder sigma is one of members of L Mount. “
They didn’t mention which f1.4 glasses they compared, and they didn’t mention it is in which mode on S1 though.
Given this thread in alt forum now, I think it is useful info for any people with L camera want to order it.
I don’t know other L users but this is the first L lens worth the hassle for me, not only for rendering, but also price and build quality. I look forward foveon sigma FF camera, if I can’t have ergonomic L camera I want, it better have some specialty, sigma FF might fit the bill.
p.2 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jochenb wrote:
Thanks for the review again, Bastian!
What I find a bit odd is that the mechanical vignetting causes the bokeh balls to have "ears".
Maybe it's me, but I don't think I've ever seen such behavior.
I've noticed that as well when inspecting Bastian's full size files. It happens at center as well so not strictly related to optical vignetting. The bokeh outlining is not symmetric and it's something I've never seen before either.
Have you seen it in other samples from different copies?
p.2 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've noticed that as well when inspecting Bastian's full size files. It happens in the center and towards the corners so I don't think it's related to optical vignetting. The bokeh outlining is not symmetric and it's something I've never seen this before either.
Have you seen it in other samples from different copies?
p.2 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
That is of course a good info to know. I will take a look for canon 50rl vignette info. Do you have number?
I think they should design its 50L even larger
Edit: you are right, it is more than 4 stop at corner. 85RF is better at 3 though.
Not a big deal for me anyway. Just a thought. I don’t want take away anything from this fine lens.
MayaTlab wrote:
The Canon 50 RF vignettes just as much if not worse than this new Sigma... despite using a larger mount and making use of it, and it being a longer focal length.
p.2 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
BTW, in one of Chinese review, they do mention that this lens focus faster on S1 than Sony Ar3 used.
Quote and translated in English by me.
“ somehow, it’s AF feels slightly less faster than f1.4 glass. Given AFc only requiring minor adjust each time, it still feel pretty fast (A7r3). On Panasonic S1, however, AF is very fast. No wonder sigma is one of members of L Mount. “
They didn’t mention which f1.4 glasses they compared, and they didn’t mention it is in which mode on S1 though.
Given this thread in alt forum now, I think it is useful info for any people with L camera want to order it.
I don’t know other L users but this is the first L lens worth the hassle for me, not only for rendering, but also price and build quality. I look forward foveon sigma FF camera, if I can’t have ergonomic L camera I want, it better have some specialty, sigma FF might fit the bill. ...Show more →
p.2 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
It is all relative. I don’t want be that guy but here I want to mention anyway.
Leica L and Sony E are two smaller Mount compare to Canon and Nikon. Both are better than M Mount and Nikon F Mount for sure in term of Mount size for design flexibility. Sony E Mount is 46.1mm with 18mm flange distance, Leica l Mount is 51.6mm with 20mm flange distance, if you ratio them, they two are about the same I would assume they can handle about the same design first order with each has a little bit more flexibility in different area: L has bigger Mount to have bigger last element and E can put last element closer to sensor.
So, no wonder sigma will design lens natively work both Sony and L. However, if you pay attention to what canon have done with R Mount, you will realize it is not just market talk. They utilize their Mount size and flange distance on many design include 28-70, 50f1.2, 85f1.2 and even budget 35mm f1.8. Sorry I am on cellphone so no lens diagram included here.
I personally won’t expect any sigma lens designed for canikon in next few years given its bandwidth and all the hassle they need go through to back engineer Canikon’s AF. Even it does finally, I would say Sony E and Leica L are the one limit it’s full design potential just like Nikon F did on sigma tamron 3rd party design, especially on wide end and fast glass.
I would think that is why given 35f1.2 size and 82mm front element, it is still having huge vignettes.
I personally like this lens enough to order it (not only based on this fine review, there are also many Chinese reviews I have seen)but I have to say it is never at a time I hate this multiple Mount between system. You want certain lens, you either need wait forever or having multiple system.
Even after Sigma delivered a mirrorless 35mm "f/1.2" AF lens designed for the Sony E-mount with top IQ and rendering, many will still insist the E-mount's diameter is not large enough for super fast wide angle lenses...
If there is a design advantage for larger diameter mounts, we will never see it from third party lens makers who would probably want to maximize their sales by using the same optical design in multiple mounts. They are pretty much stuck designing lenses for the E-mount (since it has the smallest diameter) and then adapt the design for other mounts...There is a chance Canon/Nikon will eventually produce a 35/1.2 that's better but until then...the mount size advantage marketing is not really as relevant anymore.
p.2 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've noticed that as well when inspecting Bastian's full size files. It happens at center as well so not strictly related to optical vignetting. The bokeh outlining is not symmetric and it's something I've never seen before either.
The Zhong Yi 50mm 0.95 (II and III) also show these ears.
The outlining is also affected by the mechanical vignetting, you can see that pretty well in that section of the review.
So towards the corners on one side the oultining is cut, on the other it is not.
Those dpreview samples, imho the worst I have ever seen.
Not a single meaningful sample and all taken with EFCS on.
p.2 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
That is of course a good info to know. I will take a look for canon 50rl vignette info. Do you have number?
I think they should design its 50L even larger
Edit: you are right, it is more than 4 stop at corner. 85RF is better at 3 though.
Not a big deal for me anyway. Just a thought. I don’t want take away anything from this fine lens.
I'd be careful evaluating and comparing vignetting based on a difference in relative illumination between the centre of the frame and the corners as many variables can muck up the results.
Personally I'm not comfortable with any hard number but I rather look at the rate of change, either in terms of illumination (ie at which f stop does the vignetting stop to evolve) and bokeh balls (but here there may be issues as well). Basically, at which stop does the lens clears its own vignetting ?
Also, vignetting varies with focusing distance with most lenses, so...
And I'm wondering is vignetting is linear or not (ie the rate at which the peripheral illumination degrades when moving from centre to the edge may not be the same between lenses, but I haven't bothered to check with my own).
Basically a single number to evaluate vignetting is unlikely to be fully representative.
With this new Sigma we already know that at x focusing distance, vignetting is strong enough to cut bokeh balls in both the sagittal and tangential directions in the extreme corners, basically like the 50 RF.
The 85 RF looks indeed like one of those rare f1.2 lenses where you truly get something for your money for most of the frame .
p.2 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Even after Sigma delivered a mirrorless 35mm "f/1.2" AF lens designed for the Sony E-mount with top IQ and rendering, many will still insist the E-mount's diameter is not large enough for super fast wide angle lenses...
If there is a design advantage for larger diameter mounts, we will never see it from third party lens makers who would probably want to maximize their sales by using the same optical design in multiple mounts. They are pretty much stuck designing lenses for the E-mount (since it has the smallest diameter) and then adapt the design for other mounts...There is a chance Canon/Nikon will eventually produce a 35/1.2 that's better but until then...the mount size advantage marketing is not really as relevant anymore....Show more →
That(mount size advantage Canon and Nikon claim) was a speculation until I saw Canon's new designs. They are not just talk but utilize the mount, they use it fully. I am still waiting for Nikon ones, though (only 50f1.8s show that)
I never have doubt Sony can design f1.2 glass with their mount given Leica M can have lens like f.095. And we all know It is all relative as mentioned. I think Sigma CEO mentioned mount size as well in one of his interview: no surprise here, it offer flexibility but good engineer can always work things out....
I fully agree from now on, Sony E and L mount will define (or limit ) 3rd party MILC lens design.
Sigma is the company really gain my respect and I am even happy to build my system around its glass now as I trust them. I have used 85 and 135 art that I like both. 35 sigma can use a update but here is the one.
p.2 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
nehemiahphoto wrote:
@Bastian@ I'd love to see how this lens renders against the rx1 if both are shot f2 in terms of transitions and bokeh. I realize they aren't the same lens at all and really not too comparable beyond the FL in real world usage given size, price, specs and the fixed lens aspect, but do you still have RX1R2?
I don't have the RX1RII anymore as I gave up on getting one after I tried 3 with misaligned aperture blades.
p.2 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
MayaTlab wrote:
I'd be careful evaluating and comparing vignetting based on a difference in relative illumination between the centre of the frame and the corners as many variables can muck up the results.
Personally I'm not comfortable with any hard number but I rather look at the rate of change, either in terms of illumination (ie at which f stop does the vignetting stop to evolve) and bokeh balls (but here there may be issues as well). Basically, at which stop does the lens clears its own vignetting ?
Also, vignetting varies with focusing distance with most lenses, so...
And I'm wondering is vignetting is linear or not (ie the rate at which the peripheral illumination degrades when moving from centre to the edge may not be the same between lenses, but I haven't bothered to check with my own).
Basically a single number to evaluate vignetting is unlikely to be fully representative.
With this new Sigma we already know that at x focusing distance, vignetting is strong enough to cut bokeh balls in both the sagittal and tangential directions in the extreme corners, basically like the 50 RF.
The 85 RF looks indeed like one of those rare f1.2 lenses where you truly get something for your money for most of the frame . ...Show more →
I fully agree we can't compare just number here given different focal length and focus distance etc... It is all relative that if it is matter to you or not. If we are not shooting sky at f1.2. it is hardly an issue anyway.
I think all these latest f1.2 glasses are special and worth the money. Sigma is not only worth the money but a good value.
Buy it if you guys can handle the size and weight.
p.2 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
That(mount size advantage Canon and Nikon claim) was a speculation until I saw Canon's new designs. They are not just talk but utilize the mount, they use it fully. I am still waiting for Nikon ones, though (only 50f1.8s show that)
I never have doubt Sony can design f1.2 glass with their mount given Leica M can have lens like f.095. And we all know It is all relative as mentioned. I think Sigma CEO mentioned mount size as well in one of his interview: no surprise here, it offer flexibility but good engineer can always work things out....
I fully agree from now on, Sony E and L mount will defined(or limit ) 3rd party MILC lens design.
Sigma is the company really gain my respect and I am even happy to build my system around its glass now as I trust them. I have used 85 and 135 art that I like both. 35 sigma can use a update but here is the one. ...Show more →
Not sure how the L-mount will define 3rd party MILC lens design. Sony E is treated as the bottleneck (Both in the mount size and sensor stack thickness) here so it will dictate the design.
As for the mount size marketing talk, clearly there is no lens on either Canon or Nikon side that really shows the advantage. It might just be that the requirements for better optics (in term of size and weight and the amount of glass used) will overshadow any minuscule difference a bigger mount can offer.
I do hope Sony wouldn't get into this whole race of designing f/1.2 lenses for their GM line-up. They can just leave that to Sigma. When the dust settles, Canikonic users are left with all the bloated f/1.2 lenses while us Sony users actually have many choices to pick from.
p.2 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
Not sure how the L-mount will define 3rd party MILC lens design. Sony E is treated as the bottleneck (Both in the mount size and sensor stack thickness) here so it will dictate the design.
If you compare Leica L(51/20) and Sony E (46/18), the ratio of Mount size/flange distance is about the same at 2.55. Clearly, both are much smaller than 55/20 Canon and 55/16 Nikon. I don’t know who is the bottleneck as mentioned it depend on design. One offer shorter flange distance and other offer slightly bigger mount. I’d guess either can be a limit factor in this 35mm design. I can’t found this sigma diagram with lens house to speculate though.
hiepphotog wrote:
As for the mount size marketing talk, clearly there is no lens on either Canon or Nikon side that really shows the advantage. It might just be that the requirements for better optics (in term of size and weight and the amount of glass used) will overshadow any minuscule difference a bigger mount can offer.
I am not sure about this statement. Everyone are entitle their opinion but I would say Canon clearly show what they can do with this mount. Especially compare to other f1.2 glass with other mount even their EF.
It is Nikon who hasn’t show that yet. It not like they didn’t design better glass with their S mount, all S glasses have been awesome compare to competitor at the same focal and speed. But by looking lens diagram,(other than 50f1.8S) I didn’t see obviously mount size as the limit factor yet (they certainly used 16mm flange distance in design) but they haven’t put out any fast glasses yet. 50mm f1.2 due next year.
hiepphotog wrote:
I do hope Sony wouldn't get into this whole race of designing f/1.2 lenses for their GM line-up. They can just leave that to Sigma. When the dust settles, Canikonic users are left with all the bloated f/1.2 lenses while us Sony users actually have many choices to pick from.
Sony better do if there is no limitation prevent them do that or they understand rich amateurs market like Canon did. Nikon never come back as good even I think they make better cameras over the years. Canon’s RF glasses have already draw tons of attention; It is a matter of time. It is just a matter of time…
Use what make you happy. Even I hate these multiple mount and system debate, I never feel as free as now without locking into any system
p.2 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Awesome Bastian—thanks. Do you by chance have that same photo @f2 for the Sigma Art?
No, sorry.
Was more of a coincidence I decided to go to that forest and take pretty much the same picture.
Only read your question after I returned.
Review has been updated with a few more samples and a first take on coma.
p.2 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
If you compare Leica L(51/20) and Sony E (46/18), the ratio of Mount size/flange distance is about the same at 2.55. Clearly, both are much smaller than 55/20 Canon and 55/16 Nikon. I don’t know who is the bottleneck as mentioned it depend on design. One offer shorter flange distance and other offer slightly bigger mount. I’d guess either can be a limit factor in this 35mm design. I can’t found this sigma diagram with lens house to speculate though.
I am not sure about this statement. Everyone are entitle their opinion but I would say Canon clearly show what they can do with this mount. Especially compare to other f1.2 glass with other mount even their EF.
It is Nikon who hasn’t show that yet. It not like they didn’t design better glass with their S mount, all S glasses have been awesome compare to competitor at the same focal and speed. But by looking lens diagram,(other than 50f1.8S) I didn’t see obviously mount size as the limit factor yet (they certainly used 16mm flange distance in design) but they haven’t put out any fast glasses yet. 50mm f1.2 due next year.
Sony better do if there is no limitation prevent them do that or they understand rich amateurs market like Canon did. Nikon never come back as good even I think they make better cameras over the years. Canon’s RF glasses have already draw tons of attention; It is a matter of time. It is just a matter of time…
Use what make you happy. Even I hate these multiple mount and system debate, I never feel as free as now without locking into any system ...Show more →
Quite unfortunate that all that Canon lens goodness can’t be recorded at more than 30MP, eh?
p.2 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
So back to the ACTUAL topic which is the 35mm 1.2 lens...I will be testing it against the 40mm Art and the Samyang as well although in a more environmental portrait minded review.
So far from the tests here I am thinking that this 35mm could be THE one for me.
. 
