p.17 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GabrielPhoto wrote:
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.
I am on the same boat as Luis here. As long as the lens delivers, I care less about the weight and size of the lens. I got my FE Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art over the weekend and a few days prior to that, I took delivery for the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DN.
p.17 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Would wholeheartedly agree with the prior comments. Yes it is heavy - but very well balanced with most of the weight near the amount. Using an R3 with a grip it sits perfect in the hand and much, much better than the Milvus 35 + Metabones which was the prior 35mm image quality champ IMHO.
The image quality is superlative - sharp, beautiful colour rendition and creamy bokeh that one does not normally get with a 35mm.
p.17 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
AGeoJO wrote:
I am on the same boat as Luis here. As long as the lens delivers, I care less about the weight and size of the lens. I got my FE Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art over the weekend and a few days prior to that, I took delivery for the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 DN.
p.17 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone compared the rendering from the Sigma 35/1.2 and Tamron 35/1.4 at mid-distance?
Curious about that myself.
However, it would have to be noticeably better optically and with regard to AF performance in order for it to be considered (personally).
Handling and weight-wise, it's about 940 grams for the Tammy with adapter versus 1090 for the Sigma. Also uncertain of where the bulk of the weight lies with the Tammy as I already know the Sigma balances well.
Ultimately, my gut tells me there won't likely be much of an upside other than cost savings since beating the Sigma optically/AF by a significant margin is highly unlikely.
p.17 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Curious about that myself.
However, it would have to be noticeably better optically and with regard to AF performance in order for it to be considered (personally).
Handling and weight-wise, it's about 940 grams for the Tammy with adapter versus 1090 for the Sigma. Also uncertain of where the bulk of the weight lies with the Tammy as I already know the Sigma balances well.
Ultimately, my gut tells me there won't likely be much of an upside other than cost savings since beating the Sigma optically/AF by a significant margin is highly unlikely.
The Tamron is $600 cheaper for those who already have the MC-11 adapter. Resolution will probably be the same but I'm wondering about rendering.
p.17 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
Best I have ever seen in any lens.
But if you haven't seen that in the samples provided yet, I can now be sure there is no such thing as 3D effect, as it has never been more obvious imho.
p.17 #13 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I have the sigma for a couple of days, the only flaw, it suffers from field curvature, especially on infinity, I updated the firmware and 'AF is even better.
p.17 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Tamron is $600 cheaper for those who already have the MC-11 adapter. Resolution will probably be the same but I'm wondering about rendering.
I too am still curious to see a comparison, especially at mid-distance. The Tammy looks really good from some of the samples I have seen.
---------------------------------------------
bushwacker wrote:
Very nice sample man... I like it.
I am still looking for more images.
Cross-post from the FE images thread and a couple that weren't. The two latter shots from the park were in less than optimal post-sunset lighting which for me, shows how well it does even in less than desirable conditions for producing that look of depth. Personally, the ability to produce the "look" through a variety of conditions to include ones where there are less than desirable, non-controlled/added lighting scenarios is the truer measure of a lens' ability to produce 3D.
p.17 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Was out shooting skylines with some friends, I met a new friend and he couldn’t help but comment on the size of my 35 and that for hiking he would never consider a lens such as Sigma’s.
I just smiled and nodded, stayed until the conversation ended and continued to take my shots.
We have a messenging group where we share photos and he was blown away.
All I can say is a compromise is often something we have to deal with in life and in this respect I accept that for the results this tool is able to provide.
p.17 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
TheLinguist wrote:
Was out shooting skylines with some friends, I met a new friend and he couldn’t help but comment on the size of my 35 and that for hiking he would never consider a lens such as Sigma’s.
I just smiled and nodded, stayed until the conversation ended and continued to take my shots.
We have a messenging group where we share photos and he was blown away.
All I can say is a compromise is often something we have to deal with in life and in this respect I accept that for the results this tool is able to provide.
That's an interesting topic, as I don't use the Sigma for landscapes or stopped down shooting nearly at all.
Do you guys find your copies well-centered / not-tilted?
I actually realized I had not tested mine for that when I bought it a year ago and when I did it now, I saw that I unfortunately have one corner that is really bad (which I think is more common in complex designs like the Sigma).
The funny thing is that I never noticed it, because of the way I use this lens (large aperture family snaps 99% of time ) and also if I focus on the problematic corner, the problem goes away.
However, if I wanted to shoot some center-focused landscapes, I'd have to stop down my copy to f5.6 where the worst corner finally catches up to the others...
) and also if I focus on the problematic corner, the problem goes away.