p.11 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Finally got my copy and am struggling to determine whether the fringing (teal and purple, bokeh and otherwise) is typical of this lens or not. Looks more excessive than in some of the other stress tests I've seen so far. Shot on the A7RIII and showing fairly equal fringing in both JPEG and RAWs. What do you guys reckon?
p.11 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
poses wrote:
Finally got my copy and am struggling to determine whether the fringing (teal and purple, bokeh and otherwise) is typical of this lens or not. Looks more excessive than in some of the other stress tests I've seen so far. Shot on the A7RIII and showing fairly equal fringing in both JPEG and RAWs. What do you guys reckon?
I wonder what sort of help LR will be when a profile comes out..
A Lightroom profile won't reduce longitudinal CA and that's what you are seeing in your samples. Very nice BTW!
Having said that, this is normal for fast wide angle lenses and the Sigma 35/1.2 is actually better corrected than most, including the 35/1.4 ZA and Sigma 35/1.4 Art.
p.11 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Donzo98 wrote:
You try the tin foil pic with the SL glass?? Curious to see results of that....
I can tell you right now on the SL it would be different results from on the S1. But I don't have the SL anymore.
It's a bit overcast today (same with yesterday) but I'll try to do a tinfoil shootout with various worthwhile lenses (I have too many to shoot them all). Will do them wide open at as close to minimum distance as I can and will do them with artificial light if the sun doesn't show up by tomorrow.
p.11 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
poses wrote:
Finally got my copy and am struggling to determine whether the fringing (teal and purple, bokeh and otherwise) is typical of this lens or not. Looks more excessive than in some of the other stress tests I've seen so far. Shot on the A7RIII and showing fairly equal fringing in both JPEG and RAWs. What do you guys reckon?
p.11 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Amazon / Park Cameras have the lens in stock if anyone is wondering from the UK
placed my order as soon as i realised this morning.
the quality and rendering ive seen from the pictures is fantastic . since this will be my first 35mm prime, how could i resist?
Oh just to add, I left the exposure inconsistencies to show that the 50SL is brighter than it seems vs other lenses. Same happened for the 50RF but that could be camera related and not lens related.
EDIT: I actually tested over 10 lenses w/various cameras here but only kept the relevant ones (and some were stupid hard to direct compare because of the minimum focus distance for M lenses vs their FOV.. Tin foil got awfully tiny with the 21LUX mounted). In hindsight I should have kept them all in as it was interesting. BTW the 35SL did the best hands down, it even has an advantage over the 50APO (though I've NEVER had the 50APO fail me in the field EVER when it came to things like this). So for practical purposes the 35SL, 50APO, 90SL are probably the most corrected lenses I've used with the 35SL taking the cake and the 50APO never giving me problems.
Oh just to add, I left the exposure inconsistencies to show that the 50SL is brighter than it seems vs other lenses. Same happened for the 50RF but that could be camera related and not lens related.
EDIT: I actually tested over 10 lenses w/various cameras here but only kept the relevant ones (and some were stupid hard to direct compare because of the minimum focus distance for M lenses vs their FOV.. Tin foil got awfully tiny with the 21LUX mounted). In hindsight I should have kept them all in as it was interesting. BTW the 35SL did the best hands down, it even has an advantage over the 50APO (though I've NEVER had the 50APO fail me in the field EVER when it came to things like this). So for practical purposes the 35SL, 50APO, 90SL are probably the most corrected lenses I've used with the 35SL taking the cake and the 50APO never giving me problems. ...Show more →
p.11 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I've taped the lens' contacts (so there is absolutely no correction) and here is the result with a foil paper. I don't see the amount of LoCa from your Sigma 35/1.2 test.
It's not free of CA but I think it's a great performance for a 35mm lens at f/1.2. (Better than the f/1.4 alternatives)
Your Leica 35/2 is APO and it's not f/1.2. The Sigma will probably get very close to its LoCA performance once stopped down to f/2.
Oh just to add, I left the exposure inconsistencies to show that the 50SL is brighter than it seems vs other lenses. Same happened for the 50RF but that could be camera related and not lens related.
EDIT: I actually tested over 10 lenses w/various cameras here but only kept the relevant ones (and some were stupid hard to direct compare because of the minimum focus distance for M lenses vs their FOV.. Tin foil got awfully tiny with the 21LUX mounted). In hindsight I should have kept them all in as it was interesting. BTW the 35SL did the best hands down, it even has an advantage over the 50APO (though I've NEVER had the 50APO fail me in the field EVER when it came to things like this). So for practical purposes the 35SL, 50APO, 90SL are probably the most corrected lenses I've used with the 35SL taking the cake and the 50APO never giving me problems. ...Show more →
Nice Tin Foil test. It's amazing how well the RF 50 handled that.
p.11 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred, seems mine may be a little worse than your sample without taping contacts--am I losing it or does it seems so? I've had some bad luck with a lens or two in the past regarding CA, so hate to bite it on this one unless its standard! These are 100% crop screenshots.
Oh just to add, I left the exposure inconsistencies to show that the 50SL is brighter than it seems vs other lenses. Same happened for the 50RF but that could be camera related and not lens related.
EDIT: I actually tested over 10 lenses w/various cameras here but only kept the relevant ones (and some were stupid hard to direct compare because of the minimum focus distance for M lenses vs their FOV.. Tin foil got awfully tiny with the 21LUX mounted). In hindsight I should have kept them all in as it was interesting. BTW the 35SL did the best hands down, it even has an advantage over the 50APO (though I've NEVER had the 50APO fail me in the field EVER when it came to things like this). So for practical purposes the 35SL, 50APO, 90SL are probably the most corrected lenses I've used with the 35SL taking the cake and the 50APO never giving me problems. ...Show more →
One thing though Adam, the 50 APO has very common flaring issues. I have a 50 APO LHSA and had a 50 APO regular, and both lose contrast very quickly when faced with bright sunlight. I'm not sure if this is an issue with the correction of the lens though or just the construction of it.
p.11 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
One thing though Adam, the 50 APO has very common flaring issues. I have a 50 APO LHSA and had a 50 APO regular, and both lose contrast very quickly when faced with bright sunlight. I'm not sure if this is an issue with the correction of the lens though or just the construction of it.
p.11 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've taped the lens' contacts (so there is absolutely no correction) and here is the result with a foil paper. I don't see the amount of LoCa from your Sigma 35/1.2 test.
It's not free of CA but I think it's a great performance for a 35mm lens at f/1.2. (Better than the f/1.4 alternatives)
Your Leica 35/2 is APO and it's not f/1.2. The Sigma will probably get very close to its LoCA performance once stopped down to f/2.
Do you have the full pic so I can estimate the focus distance?
I think it is very important as the purple green fringing is dependent on subject distance, how OOF it is. I also dont see much of the foil in front of focus plane?
I took a shot and I see lots of purple LoCA and green LoCA on my copy so I think it is normal.
Lighting condition is nighttime with Florescent down lights.
On my test shots outdoors I actually thought it’s loca is pretty ok... I do see moderate LoCA on a lot of sample pics before I got the lens so I wasn’t expecting a 40mm art kind of performance. But I must say the tin foil test under strong indoor lightin really a Loca torture test.
p.11 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
Do you have the full pic so I can estimate the focus distance?
I think it is very important as the purple green fringing is dependent on subject distance, how OOF it is. I also dont see much of the foil in front of focus plane?
I took a shot and I see lots of purple LoCA and green LoCA on my copy so I think it is normal.
Lighting condition is nighttime with Flores ent down lights.
On my test shots outdoors I actually thought it’s loca is pretty ok...
That was the full picture. (screenshot)
Distance was about the same as Adam's. I tried to mimic his experiment while making sure there was no in-camera or post-processing correction.
PS: You don't really have to tape the contacts. Just remove the lens very slightly until electronic transmission is no longer available. (The aperture will show "F--" instead of F1.2)
p.11 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
That was the full picture. (screenshot)
Distance was about the same as Adam's. I tried to mimic his experiment while making sure there is no in-camera or post-processing correction.
My test shot shows similar loca as Adams. Can you try focusing more to the back? What’s the lighting condition? I think u need the highlights to be really overblown as the fringing is directly dependent on how strong the highlights is. If the general background is darker, the camera will exposes higher. I shot the tin foil on a black marble TOP. Fringing looks worse than Adams to be frank.
I don’t think there is in camera loca correction. I wish there is...
p.11 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
My test shot shows similar loca as Adams. Can you try focusing more to the back? What’s the lighting condition? I think u need the highlights to be really overblown as the fringing is directly dependent on how strong the highlights is. If the general background is darker, the camera will exposes higher. I shot the tin foil on a black marble TOP. Fringing looks worse than Adams to be frank.
I don’t think there is in camera loca correction. I wish there is...
I don't believe there is much variation in LoCA performance between copies unless the lens is badly asymmetric. Like I wrote, with the Sigma 35/1.2, LoCA will be visible in real world images but the performance is better when compared to other fast 35mm native choices we have. (And none of them are f/1.2)
p.11 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't believe there is much variation in LoCA performance between copies unless the lens is badly asymmetric. Like I wrote, with the Sigma 35/1.2, LoCA will be visible in real world images but the performance is better when compared to other fast 35mm native choices we have. (And none of them are f/1.2)
Native includes the 35mm art? I did not do A/B comparison but I am pretty sure my 35mm Art (when i used nikon mount) has lower LoCA than the 35mm f1.2. The 40mm Art is perfect for CA, best ever I have seen on 35-40mm.
For me, I rate the LoCA on the 35mm f1.2 OK as in average... not so high that I cannot tolerate it. Of the fast 35-40mm lens I have used
Best to worst for LoCA
sigma 40mm art
sigma 35mm art
Sigma 35mm f1.2
Nikon 35mm f1.4G
35mm f1.4 ZA
