p.12 #1 · 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.
I take it my lens is out of spec then?
I buy a lot of stuff I'm bound to get a few out of spec lenses but man I'm kinda holding a record for out of spec gear. I was testing my 28Lux too and I think it's WAY out of spec, I've talked to a few other 28Lux owners and it seems mines a CA monster.
p.12 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
darbo wrote:
This thread has turned into a Flat-Earther hat collection photo gallery.
Hahhaahha totally.. It's why I don't like doing things like this. It's usually why I don't put up samples to verify my claims. I usually just say things and let other people figure it out on their own. Seems this time around my lens is out of spec, that or something is weird with the L-mount variants.
If I had time to go out and properly shoot and enjoy myself and then share my results then that is one thing, but this really is like pixel peeping crazy.
p.12 #3 · 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 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)
Ohhhh I just thought of something.. When you tape your contacts or when you pull your lens slightly off BE SURE to check the aperture.. Mine (S1 L-mount) stops itself down somewhat whenever I do anything like that.
p.12 #4 · 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.
Yes it does.. I had one of the original I think like 50pcs made (also tested the prototype which became a production model, my friend bought it, thought it was new). They had the ghosting issue, but it was a marvel of a lens, contrasty/punch/vibrant. When it was sent in for the fix it lost of lot of that magic (biggest regret, but no matter how much I trouble Karbe he "can't" give me the old element that was replaced). Anyway the new lens looses a lot of contrast when faced with backlit situations, it has a very "unique" flare to it now, but I have learned to like it/work with it. It's still my favourite lens. The 35SL flares similar but is way more controlled and doesn't loose contrast as much. Though I feel that's a signature Karbe thing.. Loss of contrast in backlit situations since most of his lenses do that to some extent or another (75APO is infamous for this).
p.12 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Sigma is very responsive to resolving issues like this. I suspect if you contact them and tell them your lens is performing like this, they will fix it for you.
p.12 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jesse Evans wrote:
Sigma is very responsive to resolving issues like this. I suspect if you contact them and tell them your lens is performing like this, they will fix it for you.
?? I am pretty sure they won’t fix loca. Even their pre launch sample pics have loca .
But I did send back my Sony 35mm za for a loca fix... they replaced the lens. The new lens still have plenty of loca.... but maybe slightly less.
p.12 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
If you are having issues on many lenses you night have a flange focal distance issue with your cameras lens mount. With non unit focussing lenses thus can make bug (or small) differences depending on design, @BastianK has been finding this issue in spades recently....
adamdewilde wrote:
I take it my lens is out of spec then?
I buy a lot of stuff I'm bound to get a few out of spec lenses but man I'm kinda holding a record for out of spec gear. I was testing my 28Lux too and I think it's WAY out of spec, I've talked to a few other 28Lux owners and it seems mines a CA monster.
p.12 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
?? I am pretty sure they won’t fix loca. Even their pre launch sample pics have loca .
But I did send back my Sony 35mm za for a loca fix... they replaced the lens. The new lens still have plenty of loca.... but maybe slightly less.
just try another copy to see if it has less than yours. From what Fred showed here, I would say it barely has any. I guess the tin foil test can be quickly at the store as well.
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 →
Thanks for doing this...
As I thought... the SL glass is really well corrected. Amazing glass...perfect combo with the 47mp S1R
Purple fringing on the railing
Bokeh fringing in the out of focus areas
It is not necessarily easy to find a scene like that, but maybe you can think of one.
It seems a reader will send me his 40mm 1.4 Art this week, and I will do a comparison to 35mm 1.2 Art and 35mm 1.4 Art.
While doing so I intend to go to that place as well and will also take a shot there without electronic contact between camera and lens, to see if there are any differences....Show more →
Bastian: how about the 28 Art? If you are a sigma fan, you will definitely enjoy it.
p.12 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
I take it my lens is out of spec then?
I buy a lot of stuff I'm bound to get a few out of spec lenses but man I'm kinda holding a record for out of spec gear. I was testing my 28Lux too and I think it's WAY out of spec, I've talked to a few other 28Lux owners and it seems mines a CA monster.
CA is fatal on the 28 Lux. Though my favorite lens by Leica, CA is the sharpest thorn on an incredible rose! I don’t think your lens is out of spec, I’ve had 3 in the last year (2 purchased brand new). I sent one back b/c it had a chip on it (Ken Hansen gladly took it back) and sold the replacement. I then bought it again, as I think it’s one of Leica’s highest resolving wide or normal lenses.
Try the 7artisans 28/1.4 M, it’s not as sharp but exhibits no CA. Or the 28/2.8, which is a razor.
p.12 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
Bastian: how about the 28 Art? If you are a sigma fan, you will definitely enjoy it.
I am finally receiving the 28mm tomorrow for a review. Cant wait to try it!
p.12 #13 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
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
My 35 Art had worse LoCA than the 35/1.2. The tin foil example of FM looks very good for an f1.2 lens.
p.12 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
Bastian: how about the 28 Art? If you are a sigma fan, you will definitely enjoy it.
I wouldn't exactly characterize myself as Sigma fan.
Of all the Sigma Art DSLR lenses none really appeals to me.
Due to lack of alternatives I was using the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, but it was never a lens I greatly enjoyed,
just the best possible (or least worst) option available to get the job done at that time.
Almost all I didn't like about the 1.4 they fixed with the 1.2.
That one Sigma lens got good results in my review doesn't mean I am a fan of all their lineup.
28mm 1.4 and 40mm 1.4, neither appeals to me personally.
Holger wrote:
My 35 Art had worse LoCA than the 35/1.2. The tin foil example of FM looks very good for an f1.2 lens.
Same here. Unless you have a golden copy of the 1.4/35 and the worst copy of the 1.2/35 I doubt it is possible the 1.2 has worse loCA.
p.12 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
I wouldn't exactly characterize myself as Sigma fan.
Of all the Sigma Art DSLR lenses none really appeals to me.
Due to lack of alternatives I was using the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, but it was never a lens I greatly enjoyed,
just the best possible (or least worst) option available to get the job done at that time.
Almost all I didn't like about the 1.4 they fixed with the 1.2.
That one Sigma lens got good results in my review doesn't mean I am a fan of all their lineup.
28mm 1.4 and 40mm 1.4, neither appeals to me personally.
Same here. Unless you have a golden copy of the 1.4/35 and the worst copy of the 1.2/35 I doubt it is possible the 1.2 has worse loCA...Show more →
What I meant, if you don’t mind dealing with the size of Sigmas glass in order to use very sharp lenses, then you may “definitely enjoy it”.
Sorry I should be clearer and instead say: if you like the optical characteristics of the 35/1.2 despite the very large size, then you may also like the optical characteristics of 28 Art despite its large size.
Also, comparing the 28 Art and the 35/1.2, the 35/1.2 produces much less CA in bright backlit situations for me, even while looking through files processed with the 28’s lens profile. My LR does not have a 35/1.2 profile to adjust CA.
p.12 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
been playing around with the lens for a day now - subject separation is great, hopefully get some decent shots over the weekend.
yes, there's apparent CA/ purple/green fringing (at f1.2) in certain scenarios but lightroom managed to sort most of it out.
the sharpness is nice at F.1.2.
are you guys finding that theres quite a contrast jump from f1.2 to 1.4/1.6 etc? (slightly hazy when wide open)
a fair bit of hunting when using auto focus (that could either be me trying to get to grips with using a f1.2 or perhaps sigma will release a firmware update very soon?)
i found manual focus at f1.2 much better
p.12 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Joeb359 wrote:
been playing around with the lens for a day now - subject separation is great, hopefully get some decent shots over the weekend.
yes, there's apparent CA/ purple/green fringing (at f1.2) in certain scenarios but lightroom managed to sort most of it out.
the sharpness is nice at F.1.2.
are you guys finding that theres quite a contrast jump from f1.2 to 1.4/1.6 etc? (slightly hazy when wide open)
a fair bit of hunting when using auto focus (that could either be me trying to get to grips with using a f1.2 or perhaps sigma will release a firmware update very soon?)
i found manual focus at f1.2 much better...Show more →
What camera? Mine don't hunt with the 35/1.2 (A9, A7r3). With the A9 there was no problem at all focussing in very dim light at last week-end's wedding.
The lens is not hazy at f1.2 at all.
p.12 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
My first impresssions were very positive. Optically very good.
But... I don't like the focusing results of the 35 1.2 with my A9, at least for my use...
AF-C, small flexible spot or the new lock on-AF, eye AF activated. I've got far more consistant results with my Zony 35 1.4 than with the Sigma... With the Sigma, it seems to miss the focus by a little margin almost everytime...
I just did a quick test with my girlfriend yesterday in quiet situations. The Zony is consistently sharper in the eyes than the Sigma. I will post a few results if I can find the time to do it...
EDIT : hmm sorry, I use DXO and this software use a specific additional slider for sharpening when it knows the lens, which is of course not the case with the Sigma for now. I will compare them in C1.
