The 1.2 and 1.4 differ a lot in terms of field dependent aberrations and the impact on bokeh is not subtle past the APSC circle.
I believe Bastian’s comparison is between the Sigma 1.2 and Sigma 1.4, not between the Sigma and the Sony. The Sony is known to have nicer bokeh than the Sigma 1.4, so there’s less of a difference between the bokeh of the Sigma 1.2 and the Sony.
From what I’ve seen, and from a couple of test shots I took at a store, the Sigma is unquestionably smoother, and of course 1.2 gives you a tad more blur than 1.4. But it didn’t strike me as a dramatic difference. Again, with the disclaimer that I haven’t personally had the opportunity to do an extensive head-on comparison.
The across-the-frame sharpness of the Sigma, its lower CA, and lack of onion rings are probably the more significant advantages. Color/contrast seems to be a tiny bit better too.
p.16 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
fredmirandafan wrote:
For those of you who have shot with both the sigma 1.2 and Sony’s 1.4,, what would you say the bokeh differences are?
When the Sony came out, it was much better than any classic fast 35s in the bokeh dept, and there was no other modern one that was clearly better. I liked it a lot.
But the Sigma 1.2 is a clear step ahead in the bokeh dept, both quality and quantity - at least if you have the usual taste for smooth bokeh. It's also a clear step ahead in sharpness and contrast. The question which everyone has to answer for themselves is whether that's worth the size and weight.
p.16 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
DavidBM wrote:
When the Sony came out, it was much better than any classic fast 35s in the bokeh dept, and there was no other modern one that was clearly better. I liked it a lot.
But the Sigma 1.2 is a clear step ahead in the bokeh dept, both quality and quantity - at least if you have the usual taste for smooth bokeh. It's also a clear step ahead in sharpness and contrast. The question which everyone has to answer for themselves is whether that's worth the size and weight.
I didn't like the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 but I couldn't quite put my finger on why the first time I bought it (sold it a week later).. The second time I bought it I figured out why I didn't like it. I felt that it really didn't flatter people at closer distances (and it's a much needed quality in a wedding scenario). I haven't used the 35/1.2 enough to judge if this is better or worse but I tend to use the 35FLE as a benchmark (though it has it's own set of IQ quirks) as I feel it's quite flattering shooting tight groups of 2-3 ppl.
If I had to say off the top of my head what lens I like better I would pick the sigma for it's pop and lack of flatness (which is what I initially hated with the ART series).
For me I'd use the sigma over most "big" (fast) 35mm lenses. And I'm very curious as to what Canon does in that dept since the new f/1.2 primes from Canon have been killer so far.
p.16 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
I didn't like the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 but I couldn't quite put my finger on why the first time I bought it (sold it a week later).. The second time I bought it I figured out why I didn't like it. I felt that it really didn't flatter people at closer distances (and it's a much needed quality in a wedding scenario). I haven't used the 35/1.2 enough to judge if this is better or worse but I tend to use the 35FLE as a benchmark (though it has it's own set of IQ quirks) as I feel it's quite flattering shooting tight groups of 2-3 ppl.
If I had to say off the top of my head what lens I like better I would pick the sigma for it's pop and lack of flatness (which is what I initially hated with the ART series).
For me I'd use the sigma over most "big" (fast) 35mm lenses. And I'm very curious as to what Canon does in that dept since the new f/1.2 primes from Canon have been killer so far. ...Show more →
I don't think Canon will be making new f.12 EF lenses, so any new ones will be mirrorless, and not adapt to E mount. So excellent though they are, they will be in a different ecosystem. (and I'd never switch systems for a lens or even a few: it has always taken me at least a year to get my skills back to maximum speed and not sometime miss things I want when I've switched systems before, so I have only ever done it a few times in 35 years, and only when I've thought there was overwhelming reason to do so. Basically at the switch from analog to digital, and the switch from DSLR too mirrorless.)
p.16 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
DavidBM wrote:
I don't think Canon will be making new f.12 EF lenses, so any new ones will be mirrorless, and not adapt to E mount. So excellent though they are, they will be in a different ecosystem. (and I'd never switch systems for a lens or even a few: it has always taken me at least a year to get my skills back to maximum speed and not sometime miss things I want when I've switched systems before, so I have only ever done it a few times in 35 years, and only when I've thought there was overwhelming reason to do so. Basically at the switch from analog to digital, and the switch from DSLR too mirrorless.)...Show more →
Yeah I was referring to the EOSR lenses, I'm hoping a Canon 35/1.2 RF lens comes out soon. I get bored easily so switching systems is worth the cost/time/energy involved for me. And I don't really have much of a problem adapting to different bodies.. I use to do that at weddings to challenge myself when I would get bored.
Would be neat to see the newest and best Canon has to offer 35mm wise since the little 35RF macro that's out is a good lens for the price but falls short of spectacular IMHO.
Also I'm using the 35Sigma on the L-mount Panasonic and there are some communication errors that make it less than ideal in stressful use situations.
p.16 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
Yeah I was referring to the EOSR lenses, I'm hoping a Canon 35/1.2 RF lens comes out soon. I get bored easily so switching systems is worth the cost/time/energy involved for me. And I don't really have much of a problem adapting to different bodies.. I use to do that at weddings to challenge myself when I would get bored.
Would be neat to see the newest and best Canon has to offer 35mm wise since the little 35RF macro that's out is a good lens for the price but falls short of spectacular IMHO.
Also I'm using the 35Sigma on the L-mount Panasonic and there are some communication errors that make it less than ideal in stressful use situations. ...Show more →
Ah well if switching counts as fun rather than work, makes sense. I’m sure the Canon will be excellent when they do one. Might be larger and heavier than their fifty though: 35 seems to be a focal length that makes for large fast lenses, even more so than 50. Odd, you’d expect mirrorless designs to be smaller the smaller the FL.
p.16 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
DavidBM wrote:
Ah well if switching counts as fun rather than work, makes sense. I’m sure the Canon will be excellent when they do one. Might be larger and heavier than their fifty though: 35 seems to be a focal length that makes for large fast lenses, even more so than 50. Odd, you’d expect mirrorless designs to be smaller the smaller the FL.
Yeah that's what I've been thinking too... But I think with Sigma sort of setting the bar for acceptable size the other camera companies were probably like "heck it's easier to build a big good lens than a small good lens and since people seem to like Sigma we might as well make em big".
And I'm sure the Canon 35/1.2 (if it comes) will be huge. The 85RF is a beast of a lens but it's nice
p.16 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Sigma"s latest lenses are firstest with the mostest. Not necessarily, now, cheap or cheaper though. First I bought their 135mm F1.8. Sony’s 135 came many months later meanwhile, I was shooting. Next the vaunted but huge heavy, expensive 40mm F1.4.
Now the 35mm F1.2. My present to myself for my Birthday. Fastest of the high IQ super speeds heavy (but better balanced than the 40) and designed specifically for mirrorless. Well we see what that means-a still large and heavy lens that’s only a bit shorter than an adapted DSLR Cine lens.
Sigma makes the best modern lenses no matter what the size, utility and cost. I, and others like me, are buying. I wonder if and when Zony will issue a modern 35mm F1.2. Meanwhile I am shooting. Not sure what I will do with both the Sigma 40 and this 35 though.
p.16 #13 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Sony will release a 35 1.2 GM a month after I succumb to the Sigma 35 1.2.
SoundHound wrote:
Sigma"s latest lenses are firstest with the mostest. Not necessarily, now, cheap or cheaper though. First I bought their 135mm F1.8. Sony’s 135 came many months later meanwhile, I was shooting. Next the vaunted but huge heavy, expensive 40mm F1.4.
Now the 35mm F1.2. My present to myself for my Birthday. Fastest of the high IQ super speeds heavy (but better balanced than the 40) and designed specifically for mirrorless. Well we see what that means-a still large and heavy only a bit shorter than an adapted DSLR Cine lens.
Sigma makes the best modern lenses no matter what the size, utility and cost. I, and others like me, are buying. I wonder if and when Zony will issue a modern 35mm F1.2. Meanwhile I am shooting. Not sure what I will do with both the Sigma 40 and this 35 though....Show more →
p.16 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I grabbed a Sony 35mm 1.8. I know exactly what will happen so Ill just plan on this process of getting the Sony 1.8 get pissed off because i dont like it than force my hand into getting the Sigma 1.2. If i do it this way i know i exhausted all avenues of getting a decent 35mm. Im tricking myself here
p.16 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GMPhotography wrote:
I grabbed a Sony 35mm 1.8. I know exactly what will happen so Ill just plan on this process of getting the Sony 1.8 get pissed off because i dont like it than force my hand into getting the Sigma 1.2. If i do it this way i know i exhausted all avenues of getting a decent 35mm. Im tricking myself here
It's really the best 35mm lens even produced. If you don't mind the weight and size, it's a non-brainer for $1,500.
You will like the 35/1.8 as well. It's very light and produces a nice pop. Rendering is not bad at close distance.
p.16 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GMPhotography wrote:
I grabbed a Sony 35mm 1.8. I know exactly what will happen so Ill just plan on this process of getting the Sony 1.8 get pissed off because i dont like it than force my hand into getting the Sigma 1.2. If i do it this way i know i exhausted all avenues of getting a decent 35mm. Im tricking myself here
I have been telling you this for a LONG time since the 1.2 started showing up, you will inevitably end up buying it, I just wanted to save you some time
I need to finish my video review of an outdoor shoot with it tonight to post it and tempt you more
p.16 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GabrielPhoto wrote:
I have been telling you this for a LONG time since the 1.2 started showing up, you will inevitably end up buying it, I just wanted to safe you some time
I need to finish my video review of an outdoor shoot with it tonight to post it and tempt you more
I Know it’s a weight thing. I need to trick myself. Besides I kinda went crazy buying some gear. I’m going to go look at it in NY in 10 days. I would like to hold this one
p.16 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GMPhotography wrote:
I Know it’s a weight thing. I need to trick myself. Besides I kinda went crazy buying some gear. I’m going to go look at it in NY in 10 days. I would like to hold this one
I dont feel is bad at all but then again, pretty much all my lenses are Towers of Power so I am not the best one for reference when it comes to size and weight judgment.
