p.14 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
darbo wrote:
That is simultaneously awful, yet strangely beautiful at the same time. Really appreciating all your images so far.
I felt the same way about the flare.
Been posting most of them in the dedicated image thread and will keep to posting images that display some property or function of the lens here.
The general AF experience I've had with this monster mounted on the A9 is different from what I've read from some users above as it has been very impressive.
Tracking example below. The green eye detect box was on my daughter's eye in that last frame and it appears to have hit spot on.
p.14 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
I felt the same way about the flare.
Been posting most of them in the dedicated image thread and will keep to posting images that display some property or function of the lens here.
The general AF experience I've had with this monster mounted on the A9 is different from what I've read from some users above as it has been very impressive.
Tracking example below. The green eye detect box was on my daughter's eye in that last frame and it appears to have hit spot on.
John,
To be clear, I’m getting some good shots and high % hits with the focus tracking and eye af with this 35Art2. But it still misses a few times here and there for me. I’m just accustomed to my 55/1.8 or the Sigma 28, which both I feel like physically can not miss. I’ve even reported in the past that my 24GM had some amount of missed eye-af shots.
Mines not an a9 though and it’s at 42mp, so that may contribute somewhat.
Have you not had any missed focus shots wide open? That’s awesome if so.
Also: nice pics. Looks like you and your fam have been having a good time. As Sean Reid told me once, despite gear reviews and new camera lenses and photography in general, “nothing is more important.”
Actually pretty hard to get it to do this. I've done it now a few times "accidentally on purpose" but most of the time all you get is a little glowing red ball when shooting backlit subjects.
p.14 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
John,
To be clear, I’m getting some good shots and high % hits with the focus tracking and eye af with this 35Art2. But it still misses a few times here and there for me. I’m just accustomed to my 55/1.8 or the Sigma 28, which both I feel like physically can not miss. I’ve even reported in the past that my 24GM had some amount of missed eye-af shots.
Mines not an a9 though and it’s at 42mp, so that may contribute somewhat.
Have you not had any missed focus shots wide open? That’s awesome if so.
Also: nice pics. Looks like you and your fam have been having a good time. As Sean Reid told me once, despite gear reviews and new camera lenses and photography in general, “nothing is more important.”
Are you saying your Art 28 can focus as fast and as accurate as the FE 55/1.8? The GM 24 is like a GM 1.5 to me, not quite the level of the GM 135 (GM 2.0).
p.14 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
The point I was making is that you cannot compare the results of such tests across different foil/lighting.
Funny you mention the matte foil. My tin foil has a matte side and a shiny side. The first pic I posted which is similar to Fred's pic with low LoCA was purposely shot using the matte side
The second pic which is worst LoCA (even worse than your sample) was shot one day earlier directly under a down light.
The final pic was shot similar location as the first pic but on the shiny side of the Foil.
I think the best way for you to answer whether your lens is below average is to bring your lens and test another copy in store and shoot side by side ....Show more →
I think we buy the foil from the same supermarket. Oh and I did my tests all lenses using the same tin foil under artificial light.
But you're right I need to test multiple copies of the same lens to determine if it's a lens issue or if it's within spec.
EDIT: For the record my focusing isn't great, but I'm using an S1 so focusing hasn't been great for non-native lenses with the camera thus far.
p.14 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
Are you saying your Art 28 can focus as fast and as accurate as the FE 55/1.8? The GM 24 is like a GM 1.5 to me, not quite the level of the GM 135 (GM 2.0).
Re: the 28 Art: As accurate as the 55mm, yes. As fast, no. The 24 GM is fast but not as spot on as the 55/1/8. The focal length also matters, as from 5-10 ft away, the green eye-AF box is tiny on the 24 GM. Even smaller than the 28mm of course.
The 24GM is a solid lens, but def not as fast as the 135GM or even noticeably faster than the 55/1.8.
Are you saying your 28 Art is not fast or accurate?
p.14 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
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.
It's the front focusing group that's responsible for that. It's most recessed at infinity and out front at MFD. It's a strange choice that Canon did that. So at infinity, you have both optical vignetting and some mechanical vignetting at play. I personally don't buy the bigger throat mount will help with vignetting. It will depend on largely on the design choice. Both the GM 24 and 85 have extremely low optical vignetting,nearly round corner bokeh. The 7artisans 28 also exhibits above average optical vignetting control and it was designed for the small M mount.
p.14 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
Re: the 28 Art: As accurate as the 55mm, yes. As fast, no. The 24 GM is fast but not as spot on as the 55/1/8. The focal length also matters, as from 5-10 ft away, the green eye-AF box is tiny on the 24 GM. Even smaller than the 28mm of course.
The 24GM is a solid lens, but def not as fast as the 135GM or even noticeably faster than the 55/1.8.
Are you saying your 28 Art is not fast or accurate?
I don't have one so I'm just curious to see if I should get one. I like the 28 focal length better than 24. Accuracy wise, I'm confident that my A9 will nail most of it. It's the AF speed that I am interested in for fast moving subjects. If and when Sony has the GM 28, I hope they use their latest AF motor.
p.14 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
so, day 2 of this lens.
instead of basing my opinions on sharpness tests at home(basically pixel peeping and all that malarky) i actually took this out into a nearby woodland area
- I walked around with this lens for about 2-3 hours. no problems with weight.
- Sharpness at F1.2 has exceeded my expectations and totally happy with the outcome
- rendering and bokah is great. impressed by the subject separation for a 35mm
- stopping down to about F2-f.28 and things start to become much sharper with better contrast. This lens is very sharp
- still missing focus and hunting at F1.2 (about 30 percent of the time) with things like the top of flowers etc etc when using flexible spot and center focus. i switched to manual focus and everything was so much better. im not too bothered about that as hopefully sigma release a firmware upgrade in the near future as my 50/1.4 is so much better after i updated it (also, it could just be my shit photography techniques)
- CA/green purple fringing is there in certain scenarios but thats totally expected and completely manageable in post. it certainly isnt anything out of the ordinary. ive seen so much worse.
- Im yet to try the eye autofocus on it or any type of portraiture
p.14 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
John,
To be clear, I’m getting some good shots and high % hits with the focus tracking and eye af with this 35Art2. But it still misses a few times here and there for me. I’m just accustomed to my 55/1.8 or the Sigma 28, which both I feel like physically can not miss. I’ve even reported in the past that my 24GM had some amount of missed eye-af shots.
Mines not an a9 though and it’s at 42mp, so that may contriblovute somewhat.
Have you not had any missed focus shots wide open? That’s awesome if so.
Also: nice pics. Looks like you and your fam have been having a good time. As Sean Reid told me once, despite gear reviews and new camera lenses and photography in general, “nothing is more important.”
...Show more →
Haven't noticed that it is a departure from the other lenses that I've had (to include the 55/1.8). Haven't had the 28 Art so I cannot speak to that one. As far this 35 mounted on the A9 though, it has been rock solid with the only exception being one scenario where the backlight was causing some misses. This isn't overly different than what I've experienced with other lenses either though.
For a 1.2 lens, it has been very impressive compared to any other lens I've used with similar maximum aperture. My other experiences with fast AF lenses has been the Canon 50/1.0, 50/1.2, and the two versions of the 85/1.2. This lens is both optically superior and focuses much faster/reliably than all of those.
Thank you re the pics. Agreed re the craft and gear. I happen to love both facets so it's an all-around win for me.
I agree that the 1.2 is easier to handle, not only because the weight is lower but also because the distribution is better.
40mm 1.4 has the biggest front element and is more front heavy than the 35mm 1.2.
I agree that the 1.2 is easier to handle, not only because the weight is lower but also because the distribution is better.
40mm 1.4 has the biggest front element and is more front heavy than the 35mm 1.2.
Based on samples and reviews from 40mm, I think 40mm is both sharper and CA free and it has very good rendering over wide condition. The problem is focal length, size, weight and weight distribution that designed as a SLR lens in the beginning.
p.14 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
Based on samples and reviews from 40mm, I think 40mm is both sharper and CA free and it has very good rendering over wide condition. The problem is focal length, size, weight and weight distribution that designed as a SLR lens in the beginning.
So I didn't put it as consideration.
I think I have mentioned many times with samples that the 40mm rendering at transitional areas is just poor. This fact seems to be ignored by almost all reviews online... thus I did not know about it before buying it, I just had to sell it after testing it for a few months and one trip. Sharpness and ca is unrivalled I think.
p.14 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Hello, there is no doubt that this is the best 35 for the Sony FE system, but the weight pulls me back. In addition, according to several tests I have seen that it is not a 35, but more like a 37-38. My big dilemma, I wait for the Sony FE 35 1.8, portability, or do I buy the sigma?
regards
p.14 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Based on what I have seen Sony 35mm, it is sharp and focus super fast with gm quality motor. I think Sony build this with latest AFC is mind.
Unfortunately it is a CA machine load with chromatic aberration more than any other latest 35mm compared.
Choose your poison.
J. Reque wrote:
Hello, there is no doubt that this is the best 35 for the Sony FE system, but the weight pulls me back. In addition, according to several tests I have seen that it is not a 35, but more like a 37-38. My big dilemma, I wait for the Sony FE 35 1.8, portability, or do I buy the sigma?
regards
p.14 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I have seen a lot 40mm images, the bokeh looks quite nice to my eyes. It was a motion picture lens.
Are you particularly talking about focus transition? Is it a quality (trade off) for extreme sharp lens without any aberration? Many modern lenses go this way.
I look forward to Bastian’s review and head to head comparison though I have to admit 40mm will never be a target for me.
wind30 wrote:
I think I have mentioned many times with samples that the 40mm rendering at transitional areas is just poor. This fact seems to be ignored by almost all reviews online... thus I did not know about it before buying it, I just had to sell it after testing it for a few months and one trip. Sharpness and ca is unrivalled I think.
Hope it helps someone to pick his or her favorite lens.
Very nice comparison Bastian! It's crazy how sharp the Sigma 35/1.2 is at the very corners from wide open!
Some may wonder, why the color correction is slightly worse compared to the 40mm 1.4 then, but I am sure this was intentional: the apochromatic lenses we have seen so far (e.g. Voigtlander 65mm 2.0 or 110mm 2.5) never featured the most pleasing, best in class bokeh.
p.14 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Very nice comparison Bastian! It's crazy how sharp the Sigma 35/1.2 is at the very corners from wide open!
Thank you!
And yeah, it really is. Contrary to my first assumption field curvature is almost non existent.
That is even more impressive, considering most 35mm 1.4 lenses struggle here.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perfect!
That is only an assumption of course, I have no insider contact to Sigma
