p.6 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Adorama just charged my card...Getting a little excited...Although, still having a lot of fun shooting with my CV 40/1.2..It will be interesting to see which lens I choose...I fricken love the CV.
p.6 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Matt Kerby wrote:
Adorama just charged my card...Getting a little excited...Although, still having a lot of fun shooting with my CV 40/1.2..It will be interesting to see which lens I choose...I fricken love the CV.
p.6 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I didn't realize the 35mm ART 1.4 had that much Coma in the corners as that lens is known for not having much coma so I can definitely live with that amount of coma. (Plus it looks like it is really contained in the VERY corners.)
I think the Canon II is a little better than the Sigma, but I'll take the great sharpness and extra half-stop of light.
p.6 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
I try to keep the updates coming (there has been one almost every day, so worth checking back from time to time) and today I added sharpness close, focus shift and loCA close sections.
Focus shift (at minimum focus distance) is quite interesting:
On stopping down to f/2.0 it shifts a bit towards the camera, on stopping down to f/2.8 it shifts away from the camera again.
Not sure I have seen that behaviour in a lens yet and usually it shifts to the back on stopping down, not to the front.
It is hardly field relevant though, the subject does not drop out of the focal plane and people will most likely use this lens at working aperture.
At anything but mfd this is completely meaningless anyway.
So best see it as a sidenote by someone who has reviewed way too many lenses and just found something unusual ...Show more →
Great review. I think sigma got this lens right. It’s not perfect in anything but does very well in all the tests. That is what people want as it’s usually an unacceptable flaw that makes u give up a lens.
p.6 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I own “the insanely heavy” Sigma 40mm F1.4 (a repackaged cine lens). The new 35 mm F1.2 is lighter which makes me wonder whether if has enough glass to rival the 40. Obviously, there’s a 5mm difference in FL as well as a little more light (but only in the center of frame).
p.6 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
SoundHound wrote:
I own “the insanely heavy” Sigma 40mm F1.4 (a repackaged cine lens). The new 35 mm F1.2 is lighter which makes me wonder whether if has enough glass to rival the 40. Obviously, there’s a 5mm difference in FL as well as a little more light (but only in the center of frame).
The new 35/1.2 is a mirrorless design with more elements than the 40/1.4. Not sure which is better CA corrected but I much prefer the 35/1.2's rendering at mid-distance.
Seriously...a prime with 17 elements. Where is this gonna go? Sigma is designing lenses with more elements than the Otus!
As far as I know, the only other Sigma primes with the same number of elements are the 28/1.4 and 105/1.4 lenses.
p.6 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
SoundHound wrote:
I own “the insanely heavy” Sigma 40mm F1.4 (a repackaged cine lens). The new 35 mm F1.2 is lighter which makes me wonder whether if has enough glass to rival the 40. Obviously, there’s a 5mm difference in FL as well as a little more light (but only in the center of frame).
I owned the 40mm for months and now the 35mm. Both is sharp but from mtf the 40mm is sharper.
To me, the only relevant differences are the 40mm has literally zero ca of any kind but poor mid distance rendering.
35mm has more ca but better rendering. I much prefer the 35mm for the rendering and it’s weight and handling like aperture ring and button. The 35mm is not just lighter, the weight is much better distributed. U have to use both lens to appreciate the difference.
p.6 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
I try to keep the updates coming (there has been one almost every day, so worth checking back from time to time) and today I added sharpness close, focus shift and loCA close sections.
Focus shift (at minimum focus distance) is quite interesting:
On stopping down to f/2.0 it shifts a bit towards the camera, on stopping down to f/2.8 it shifts away from the camera again.
Not sure I have seen that behaviour in a lens yet and usually it shifts to the back on stopping down, not to the front.
It is hardly field relevant though, the subject does not drop out of the focal plane and people will most likely use this lens at working aperture.
At anything but mfd this is completely meaningless anyway.
So best see it as a sidenote by someone who has reviewed way too many lenses and just found something unusual ...Show more →
Thanks for the updates and wow those are amazing test shots. How is the AF accuracy and speed? I am 70% convinced to cancel my 35/1.8 pre-order and pick this one up instead. It's an environmental portrait beast.
p.6 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
twentysevenone wrote:
Thanks for the updates and wow those are amazing test shots. How is the AF accuracy and speed? I am 70% convinced to cancel my 35/1.8 pre-order and pick this one up instead. It's an environmental portrait beast.
I was using A7III with Firmware 3.0 yesterday. Wide field AF with real time eye AF, AF-C.
I read some info here and elsewhere of people having eye AF accuracy issues with FW 3.01, so I am not updating for the time being.
All shooting was done at f/1.2, it was a dimly lit alley.
I experienced no hunting and eye-AF miss rate (wrong eye) was about 5%, like is the case with my other AF lenses (Sony FE 85mm 1.4 GM and Canon EF 200mm 2.0 L IS via metabones).
I do know some people like to shoot their fast and erratically moving children or dogs.
I have no such use case and therefore cannot comment on how it works here.
p.6 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I'm curious about the difference in subject isolation between 1.2 and 1.4 at 35mm. (I've seen a couple of examples but they seem to be at close distance so the impact is not that big, and I have to say that the 1.2 at medium to far distance looks amazing.)
If my calculations are correct 35/1.2 should give you the same subject isolation as the 55/1.8 at ƒ1.8 while the 35/1.4 would be 55mm at ƒ2.2.
** If there were similar offerings in IQ, one at 1.2 and one at 1.4, which one would you prefer (right now the ƒ1.2 weighs in at 1,090g, let's say that the ƒ1.4 would be similar to the 85GM at 820g)
p.6 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
MavisFipp wrote:
I'm curious about the difference in subject isolation between 1.2 and 1.4 at 35mm. (I've seen a couple of examples but they seem to be at close distance so the impact is not that big, and I have to say that the 1.2 at medium to far distance looks amazing.)
If my calculations are correct 35/1.2 should give you the same subject isolation as the 55/1.8 at ƒ1.8 while the 35/1.4 would be 55mm at ƒ2.2.
** If there were similar offerings in IQ, one at 1.2 and one at 1.4, which one would you prefer (right now the ƒ1.2 weighs in at 1,090g, let's say that the ƒ1.4 would be similar to the 85GM at 820g)
1.2 worth it, does it give you that edge?...Show more →
You don't buy this lens solely because it is f/1.2 or because you think it gives a tiny bit of subject isolation more (and that only in the center of the frame) over the f/1.4 lenses.
You buy it, when you think there is something about the available 35mm 1.4 lenses that sucks:
Sony FE 35mm 1.4 ZA: sample variation / loCA / sharpness / onion ring bokeh / handling (non linear MF, no focus hold button)
Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art: not so great sharpness at portrait distance / not as smooth bokeh / onion ring bokeh
Samyang 35mm 1.4 AF: sample variation / loCA / sharpness(?) / subpar handling due to minimum possible amount of buttons (zero)
Canon EF 35mm 1.4L II: adapted lens / on paper barely any improvement over Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 for double the price
The question whether this Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art is better or worse than a fictional 35mm 1.4 GM is completely futile at this point, as it does not exist.
p.6 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
"You don't buy this lens solely because it is f/1.2 or because you think it gives a tiny bit of subject isolation more (and that only in the center of the frame) over the f/1.4 lenses."
Fair enough, I was just curious (and maybe as you say it's not fair right now since the other variations your list have their own set of quirks that makes the choice between the new Sigma and it's competitor a multidimensional one).
I guess I was contemplating if there could be a similar comparison made as between the 84GM and 84/1.8, where I payed a premium in both weight and $ for that edge when it comes to how it renderes the image with the GM.
p.6 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Bastian, I'm convinced you have a dud of a Sigma 35/1.4, because unless you're shooting at the corner, in no way would I described it as "not so great sharpness" at portrait distances.
BastianK wrote:
You don't buy this lens solely because it is f/1.2 or because you think it gives a tiny bit of subject isolation more (and that only in the center of the frame) over the f/1.4 lenses.
You buy it, when you think there is something about the available 35mm 1.4 lenses that sucks:
Sony FE 35mm 1.4 ZA: sample variation / loCA / sharpness / onion ring bokeh / handling (non linear MF, no focus hold button)
Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art: not so great sharpness at portrait distance / not as smooth bokeh / onion ring bokeh
Samyang 35mm 1.4 AF: sample variation / loCA / sharpness(?) / subpar handling due to minimum possible amount of buttons (zero)
Canon EF 35mm 1.4L II: adapted lens / on paper barely any improvement over Sigma Art 35mm 1.4 for double the price
The question whether this Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art is better or worse than a fictional 35mm 1.4 GM is completely futile at this point, as it does not exist....Show more →
p.6 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jman13 wrote:
Bastian, I'm convinced you have a dud of a Sigma 35/1.4, because unless you're shooting at the corner, in no way would I described it as "not so great sharpness" at portrait distances.
Everyone who has a 42mp camera, a 1$ bill and a tripod he can put 1,0 m away from that dollar bill is invited to prove me wrong.
Just saying I am wrong or I have a dud without proof is a bit easy, ain't it?
