p.3 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
If you compare Leica L(51/20) and Sony E (46/18), the ratio of Mount size/flange distance is about the same at 2.55. Clearly, both are much smaller than 55/20 Canon and 55/16 Nikon. I don’t know who is the bottleneck as mentioned it depend on design. One offer shorter flange distance and other offer slightly bigger mount. I’d guess either can be a limit factor in this 35mm design. I can’t found this sigma diagram with lens house to speculate though.
It's interesting that you use that ratio since I don't believe Canikon marketing talk ever brought that up (maybe Fuji did IIRC). The simple thing is with digital camera, you don't want light coming out of the last element with steep angle of incident or you have to deal with stuff like the Leica M lenses on the E-mount. Certainly you want that last element to project something that wouldn't be deflected by the smaller mount than the intended design. Even with diagram, you still need ray tracing software to really know how light rays will behave, but I say it's something to be expected for all of these lenses.
zhangyue wrote:
I am not sure about this statement. Everyone are entitle their opinion but I would say Canon clearly show what they can do with this mount. Especially compare to other f1.2 glass with other mount even their EF.
It is Nikon who hasn’t show that yet. It not like they didn’t design better glass with their S mount, all S glasses have been awesome compare to competitor at the same focal and speed. But by looking lens diagram,(other than 50f1.8S) I didn’t see obviously mount size as the limit factor yet (they certainly used 16mm flange distance in design) but they haven’t put out any fast glasses yet. 50mm f1.2 due next year. ...Show more →
Again, having a f/1.2 prime or a f/2 zoom or even a ginormous manual 0.95 lens is not indicative of the potential of a larger mount diameter here. Like Fred said, if there was any doubt that Sony couldn't have an AF f/1.2 prime on the E-mount, Sigma proved that wrong.
What then does this "potential" advantage of having a bigger mount? None of the Z-mount primes show it cause they're already bigger and heavier than the Canon and Sony equivalent. No one here is surprised about the fact that the S 50/1.8 performs better than the Sony (huge surprise if it doesn't), but the minor improvement with the increase in size and weight is nothing to boast about. Just like when that Nikkor S 50/0.95 shows up, would anyone here predict that it would perform worse than the Leica 50/0.95 or the Mitakon?
Same holds for the new Canon RF 50 and 85. They're better than any f/1.2 lenses out there shouldn't be a surprise or suggest that it's because of a bigger mount. Both are among the biggest and heaviest lenses in their class, so it's as expected. I do agree that Canon smokes the competition in term of glass design. I already have the RF 50 and will get the RF 85 DS.
Truth is, neither Canon nor Nikon has done anything closer to what Sony accomplished with the GM 24/1.4. It's among the smallest and lightest lenses in its class while offering superior performance than all. I would argue that the GM 135/1.8 accomplished the same thing (still among the lightest and smallest , but apparently Sony can't cheat physics. That's really the true statement of why one wants to switch to the mirrorless for size and weight reason.
Now if Canikon can design f/1.2 primes as small and light as Sony f/1.4 primes while having as good IQ or better, they would truly prove their point of having bigger mount. I'm not seeing that. Heck, that Z-mount 50/1.2 seems to be even bigger than the RF 50/1.2.
zhangyue wrote:
Sony better do if there is no limitation prevent them do that or they understand rich amateurs market like Canon did. Nikon never come back as good even I think they make better cameras over the years. Canon’s RF glasses have already draw tons of attention; It is a matter of time. It is just a matter of time…
Use what make you happy. Even I hate these multiple mount and system debate, I never feel as free as now without locking into any system
Well, Sigma already showed that it's possible to have a f/1.2 WA prime on the E-mount (what possible limitations?). Sony's mission has always been providing a small and light system (at the cost that some here whined about like ergos, heat issue, etc.) as showed in all the interviews so far. They did their survey and they know what matter most. I would be really surprised if they decide to release a bloated design from now on just to win a pissing contest. I like fast primes, but I know the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal at best. I also frequent the Canon room here, and the impact of those RF f/1.2 seems to be lukewarm. Size, weight and cost..... The "rich" few won't sustain a system unless you're a boutique brand like Leica that is owned by a hedgefund company and one eccentric millionaire
p.3 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GabrielPhoto wrote:
So back to the ACTUAL topic which is the 35mm 1.2 lens...I will be testing it against the 40mm Art and the Samyang as well although in a more environmental minded review.
So far from the tests here I am thinking that this 35mm could be THE one for me.
I would be surprised if it's not since you are quite happy with your 40 . Hopefully whatever AF issue that the lens might have now will be resolved soon via firmware. Looking forward to seeing your comparison against the 40.
p.3 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
If you compare Leica L(51/20) and Sony E (46/18), the ratio of Mount size/flange distance is about the same at 2.55. Clearly, both are much smaller than 55/20 Canon and 55/16 Nikon. I don’t know who is the bottleneck as mentioned it depend on design. One offer shorter flange distance and other offer slightly bigger mount. I’d guess either can be a limit factor in this 35mm design. I can’t found this sigma diagram with lens house to speculate though.
I hear this a lot, and I understand the argument, but what I haven't seen demonstrated is that these throat diameters actually make a real difference. What I have seen is that if you are willing to take a lot of glass and a lot of elements you can make a very well corrected lens at the cost of size and weight. Zeiss started this all with the Otus, a retrofocus 55 mm fl to cover a 43mm IC, showing that there is a market for extremely well corrected but huge lenses, Sigma Art and Canon R are following, and with the Noct-Nikkor Nikon Z isn't far behind.
So here's a question: size and weight no object, could you make a 35/1.2 with similar performance to this for, say, the Nikon F mount, nominally the most restrictive current lens mount? Would such a thing be any larger or heavier than this Sigma? Would a Canon R/Nikon Z version be meaningfully smaller?
Also, I don't see the relevance of registration distance here: there's no flipping mirror, and no reason the rear element cannot intrude into the body cavity.
p.3 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
I would be surprised if it's not since you are quite happy with your 40 . Hopefully whatever AF issue that the lens might have now will be resolved soon via firmware. Looking forward to seeing your comparison against the 40.
It seems to give me the extra smooth bokeh that the 40mm is not able to do in some areas. I am guessing it wont be as perfectly corrected as the 40mm which will be the trade off the smoother bokeh...but only one way to find out which one I will love more.
p.3 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
Well, Sigma already showed that it's possible to have a f/1.2 WA prime on the E-mount (what possible limitations?). Sony's mission has always been providing a small and light system (at the cost that some here whined about like ergos, heat issue, etc.) as showed in all the interviews so far. They did their survey and they know what matter most. I would be really surprised if they decide to release a bloated design from now on just to win a pissing contest. I like fast primes, but I know the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal at best. I also frequent the Canon room here, and the impact of those RF f/1.2 seems to be lukewarm. Size, weight and cost..... The "rich" few won't sustain a system unless you're a boutique brand like Leica that is owned by a hedgefund company and one eccentric millionaire ...Show more →
+1
The epitome of this pissing contest is the 58mm f0.95, which supposedly exists to show that Nikon can design a f0.95 lens for its Z-mount, while others can't. And while Nikon keeps touting the Z series cams' AF system, the halo Noct can't use it, because it's an MF lens .
I for one appreciate that Sony decided not to go down the f1.2 route and stick with f1.4 for, e.g. the 85 GM, and then focused on producing high performing, yet for their class compact lenses like the 400 GM, 24 GM and 135 GM. I hope they continue that strategy, which clearly works.
p.3 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Hopefully each system is inching towards a nirvana of f/1.2 and f/1.8 primes in most focal lengths where we can mix and match as needed depending on use case.
For the wedding photogs, the 35/85 big guns are the money makers for us prime folk and we will most likely pony up for the big guns. For street shooting, we can have a lightweight and good f/1.8 version. Hell for RF I gladly purchased the RF 35 as a backup for the 35L and to save my back because I don't need f/1.4 when shooting drunk dancing.
p.3 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I see there is no real information/benefit in this argument anymore so I will pass.
The only difference between is you praise only Sony for whatever reason which is hardly a surprise or offering any real value.
I can certainly seeing value of 24gm just like I see value of canon RF f1.2 or Nikon S lenses or in this case sigma lens to the point which why I buy it.
it is getting old to joke about Lens size and weight as those are original complains about GM glasses or joking who will get “expensive elite” L glasses or Leica gear.
I like the fact you are so Happy about your system and choice. I am really happy for you. Loyal customers like you are all company hope to have
I regret the factor I mention how canon design their RF glasses or how I brought L Mount or E Mount into this discussion even I am as a L Mount customer . I shouldn’t forget this is not alt forum only thread, discuss like this is forbidden that lead to no good ending.
Bye.
hiepphotog wrote:
It's interesting that you use that ratio since I don't believe Canikon marketing talk ever brought that up (maybe Fuji did IIRC). The simple thing is with digital camera, you don't want light coming out of the last element with steep angle of incident or you have to deal with stuff like the Leica M lenses on the E-mount. Certainly you want that last element to project something that wouldn't be deflected by the smaller mount than the intended design. Even with diagram, you still need ray tracing software to really know how light rays will behave, but I say it's something to be expected for all of these lenses.
Again, having a f/1.2 prime or a f/2 zoom or even a ginormous manual 0.95 lens is not indicative of the potential of a larger mount diameter here. Like Fred said, if there was any doubt that Sony couldn't have an AF f/1.2 prime on the E-mount, Sigma proved that wrong.
What then does this "potential" advantage of having a bigger mount? None of the Z-mount primes show it cause they're already bigger and heavier than the Canon and Sony equivalent. No one here is surprised about the fact that the S 50/1.8 performs better than the Sony (huge surprise if it doesn't), but the minor improvement with the increase in size and weight is nothing to boast about. Just like when that Nikkor S 50/0.95 shows up, would anyone here predict that it would perform worse than the Leica 50/0.95 or the Mitakon?
Same holds for the new Canon RF 50 and 85. They're better than any f/1.2 lenses out there shouldn't be a surprise or suggest that it's because of a bigger mount. Both are among the biggest and heaviest lenses in their class, so it's as expected. I do agree that Canon smokes the competition in term of glass design. I already have the RF 50 and will get the RF 85 DS.
Truth is, neither Canon nor Nikon has done anything closer to what Sony accomplished with the GM 24/1.4. It's among the smallest and lightest lenses in its class while offering superior performance than all. I would argue that the GM 135/1.8 accomplished the same thing (still among the lightest and smallest , but apparently Sony can't cheat physics. That's really the true statement of why one wants to switch to the mirrorless for size and weight reason.
Now if Canikon can design f/1.2 primes as small and light as Sony f/1.4 primes while having as good IQ or better, they would truly prove their point of having bigger mount. I'm not seeing that. Heck, that Z-mount 50/1.2 seems to be even bigger than the RF 50/1.2.
Well, Sigma already showed that it's possible to have a f/1.2 WA prime on the E-mount (what possible limitations?). Sony's mission has always been providing a small and light system (at the cost that some here whined about like ergos, heat issue, etc.) as showed in all the interviews so far. They did their survey and they know what matter most. I would be really surprised if they decide to release a bloated design from now on just to win a pissing contest. I like fast primes, but I know the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal at best. I also frequent the Canon room here, and the impact of those RF f/1.2 seems to be lukewarm. Size, weight and cost..... The "rich" few won't sustain a system unless you're a boutique brand like Leica that is owned by a hedgefund company and one eccentric millionaire ...Show more →
p.3 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've noticed that as well when inspecting Bastian's full size files. It happens at center as well so not strictly related to optical vignetting. The bokeh outlining is not symmetric and it's something I've never seen before either.
Have you seen it in other samples from different copies?
Here is one more sample:
Weird I don’t recall seeing this. Do u know if it occurs only a a fix focus distance? What conditions?
I noticed some imperfections but it’s usually scene related
p.3 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
BTW, in one of Chinese review, they do mention that this lens focus faster on S1 than Sony Ar3 used.
Quote and translated in English by me.
“ somehow, it’s AF feels slightly less faster than f1.4 glass. Given AFc only requiring minor adjust each time, it still feel pretty fast (A7r3). On Panasonic S1, however, AF is very fast. No wonder sigma is one of members of L Mount. “
They didn’t mention which f1.4 glasses they compared, and they didn’t mention it is in which mode on S1 though.
Given this thread in alt forum now, I think it is useful info for any people with L camera want to order it.
I don’t know other L users but this is the first L lens worth the hassle for me, not only for rendering, but also price and build quality. I look forward foveon sigma FF camera, if I can’t have ergonomic L camera I want, it better have some specialty, sigma FF might fit the bill. ...Show more →
do you have the link the the review above? I am curious about about the comments on the AF.
p.3 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Hopefully coma is good. This is so sharp at 1.2 ... if coma is pretty good this will be a great astro lens. This plus the GM 24 + Tokina 20 f2 + Laowa 15 is a heck of a astro kit
p.3 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Ok! Only for the sake of L Mount users also are interested in this lens. I have no intention to bring down AF of e Mount version. And it is preproduction sample.
p.3 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
It's interesting that you use that ratio since I don't believe Canikon marketing talk ever brought that up (maybe Fuji did IIRC). The simple thing is with digital camera, you don't want light coming out of the last element with steep angle of incident or you have to deal with stuff like the Leica M lenses on the E-mount. Certainly you want that last element to project something that wouldn't be deflected by the smaller mount than the intended design. Even with diagram, you still need ray tracing software to really know how light rays will behave, but I say it's something to be expected for all of these lenses.
Again, having a f/1.2 prime or a f/2 zoom or even a ginormous manual 0.95 lens is not indicative of the potential of a larger mount diameter here. Like Fred said, if there was any doubt that Sony couldn't have an AF f/1.2 prime on the E-mount, Sigma proved that wrong.
What then does this "potential" advantage of having a bigger mount? None of the Z-mount primes show it cause they're already bigger and heavier than the Canon and Sony equivalent. No one here is surprised about the fact that the S 50/1.8 performs better than the Sony (huge surprise if it doesn't), but the minor improvement with the increase in size and weight is nothing to boast about. Just like when that Nikkor S 50/0.95 shows up, would anyone here predict that it would perform worse than the Leica 50/0.95 or the Mitakon?
Same holds for the new Canon RF 50 and 85. They're better than any f/1.2 lenses out there shouldn't be a surprise or
suggest that it's because of a bigger mount. Both are among the biggest and heaviest lenses in their class, so it's as expected. I do agree that Canon smokes the competition in term of glass design. I already have the RF 50 and will get the RF 85 DS.
Truth is, neither Canon nor Nikon has done anything closer to what Sony accomplished with the GM 24/1.4. It's among the smallest and lightest lenses in its class while offering superior performance than all. I would argue that the GM 135/1.8 accomplished the same thing (still among the lightest and smallest , but apparently Sony can't cheat physics. That's really the true statement of why one wants to switch to the mirrorless for size and weight reason.
Now if Canikon can design f/1.2 primes as small and light as Sony f/1.4 primes while having as good IQ or better, they would truly prove their point of having bigger mount. I'm not seeing that. Heck, that Z-mount 50/1.2 seems to be even bigger than the RF 50/1.2.
Well, Sigma already showed that it's possible to have a f/1.2 WA prime on the E-mount (what possible limitations?). Sony's mission has always been providing a small and light system (at the cost that some here whined about like ergos, heat issue, etc.) as showed in all the interviews so far. They did their survey and they know what matter most. I would be really surprised if they decide to release a bloated design from now on just to win a pissing contest. I like fast primes, but I know the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is minimal at best. I also frequent the Canon room here, and the impact of those RF f/1.2 seems to be lukewarm. Size, weight and cost..... The "rich" few won't sustain a system unless you're a boutique brand like Leica that is owned by a hedgefund company and one eccentric millionaire ...Show more →
Actually the 55 Sonnar is slightly sharpen than 50S but the latter have better aberations control. I do agree that the 50s may have a nicer rendering? Nikon scored a home run with their 24-70 but whether this due to bigger mount, I dont know..
Lets see in the few years to come, which approach is favored by the consumers. Sensible very good 1.4 lenses or super 1.2 heave lenses.
p.3 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
Ok! Only for the sake of L Mount users also are interested in this lens. I have no intention to bring down AF of e Mount version. And it is preproduction sample.
p.3 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
frezeiss wrote:
Actually the 55 Sonnar is slightly sharpen than 50S but the latter have better aberations control. I do agree that the 50s may have a nicer rendering? Nikon scored a home run with their 24-70 but whether this due to bigger mount, I dont know..
Lets see in the few years to come, which approach is favored by the consumers. Sensible very good 1.4 lenses or super 1.2 heave lenses.
According to Jim Kasson, the 50s is sharper than the Zony.
JK's lens tests always seem iffy to me but we're also talking about a lens + camera comparison (at different FOV no less). I will wait for Roger's test. Nonetheless, would you be surprised if the Z 50/1.8 is sharper than the FE 55/1.8? The darn lens is bigger and heavier by a significant margin.
