p.7 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Look, I'm not saying that the 35/1.2 isn't sharper (or better in most every way)..I'm sure it is...but your dollar bill crops away from center (especially inner midframe) look significantly softer than what I see on mine. Here are three images, one mostly centered, one near the outer midframe, and one at a typical off-center portrait location, all at f/1.4:
Now, I'm not saying these are flawless sharpness, but it certainly is better than 'not so great.' and significantly clearer than the crops of the bills in your comparison. And yes, they are not 42MP, and that will stress the lens harder, but not enough to make up the difference that you're showing with your copy of the lens.
p.7 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jman13 wrote:
Now, I'm not saying these are flawless sharpness, but it certainly is better than 'not so great.' and significantly clearer than the crops of the bills in your comparison. And yes, they are not 42MP, and that will stress the lens harder, but not enough to make up the difference that you're showing with your copy of the lens.
My reviews are an open book. Sharpening settings, distance, subject, everything is disclosed.
You can run that very same test, then we can compare and discuss.
I am sure your Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is perfectly capable of taking fine shots, so is mine (I still have one).
Sharpness at portrait distance is still only okay when you leave the center (or "not so great" as I put it). Same is true for the Sony FE 35mm 1.4 ZA or Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4. So that lens is in good company.
I was surprised by that result of the 35mm 1.4 as well, therefore I had it double checked with 2 other owners.
But that is the difference: I actually did check.
As said, if this is a subpar sample of the lens, it is very easy to prove me wrong. Everyone is invited to do so.
I am not going through that whole "The Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4 has no midzone dip" discussion again, only to find out at the end that I was right from the beginning.
p.7 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
MavisFipp 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."
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. ...Show more →
The difference is not between f1.4 and f1.2. I tested A/B shots on the 35mm f1.2 shooting at both f1.4 and f1.2 and I cannot tell the difference apart.
Funny you mentioned the 85mm gm vs f1.8. I chose the 85mm f1.8 because I can barely tell the difference. The rendering of the 85 mm f1.8 is pretty decent.
There is no rendering difference shooting f1.2 and f1.4 on the same lens. But the rendering difference between the sigma f1.4 art or the sigma 40mm art and this f1.2 lens is huge. Much larger than the difference between the 85mm gm and f1.8
The sigma 35mm f1.4 and 40mm art renders highlights in circles with hard edges at mid distance which is just horrible. It is very obvious.
p.7 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
You can run that very same test, then we can compare and discuss.
Ok. Here are my crops, 100% crops at f/1.4, ~1m, the 'inner midzone' is approx 25% in from each edge (center of this crop is around 1550pixels from the frame edge on a 6000 pixel wide image). http://www.jordansteele.com/2019/s35_crop_im.jpg
These were handheld...I don't have my tripod handy and can't spend the time to do a proper tripod mounted test at the moment.
Direct comparison to your 35/1.4, with the crops reduced by 75% to account for the resolution difference. In theory, the 42mm downsampled file should provide an advantage since it's over sampled. My crop on left, your crop on right.
p.7 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jman13 wrote:
Ok. Here are my crops, 100% crops at f/1.4, ~1m, the 'inner midzone' is approx 25% in from each edge (center of this crop is around 1550pixels from the frame edge on a 6000 pixel wide image). http://www.jordansteele.com/2019/s35_crop_im.jpg
These were handheld...I don't have my tripod handy and can't spend the time to do a proper tripod mounted test at the moment.
Direct comparison to your 35/1.4, with the crops reduced by 75% to account for the resolution difference. In theory, the 42mm downsampled file should provide an advantage since it's over sampled. My crop on left, your crop on right.
...Show more →
Will rerun that with my 24mp camera and pick the same positions for crops as you did.
Not sure I get to it today, but definetly tomorrow.
Interesting results.
p.7 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Jordan, do you do center focus and crop or refocus at corner? I had the exact same lens and corner until f2.8 acceptable to me if I am picky. The lens have field curvature. Focus at corner will give different result which will not show in your samples posted before but I am not sure about dollar bill one here.
Jman13 wrote:
Ok. Here are my crops, 100% crops at f/1.4, ~1m, the 'inner midzone' is approx 25% in from each edge (center of this crop is around 1550pixels from the frame edge on a 6000 pixel wide image). http://www.jordansteele.com/2019/s35_crop_im.jpg
These were handheld...I don't have my tripod handy and can't spend the time to do a proper tripod mounted test at the moment.
Direct comparison to your 35/1.4, with the crops reduced by 75% to account for the resolution difference. In theory, the 42mm downsampled file should provide an advantage since it's over sampled. My crop on left, your crop on right.
p.7 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Since this is showing sharpness at 'portrait distances', it's focused on the bill, as when doing portraits, you'd focus on the subject and not at some Central point that is at your subjects distance.
p.7 #8 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
The difference is not between f1.4 and f1.2. I tested A/B shots on the 35mm f1.2 shooting at both f1.4 and f1.2 and I cannot tell the difference apart.
Funny you mentioned the 85mm gm vs f1.8. I chose the 85mm f1.8 because I can barely tell the difference. The rendering of the 85 mm f1.8 is pretty decent.
Goes to show how different our expectations and needs are because when I tested 85mm 1.8s vs 1.4s like the Sigma and GM, the difference in bokeh and subject isolation were very obvious to me. In fact, that is the reason I didnt keep the Samyang which is 1.4 but the bokeh did not meet my needs like the GM and Sigma Art did. (kept the Sigma in the end).
p.7 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I thought we were talking about his sharpness comparison in review, though I am also not sure Bastian’s setup for dollar bill shooting. I assumed he put multiple bill (or move either the bill target or camera aiming angle without refocus) on wall and focus at center, hence the sharpness difference (mid field or corner) was due to field curvature. In his review, Sigma art 35 f1.4 did well on center and I wouldn't call that a dud.
Sigma Art f1.4 is very sharp at center and it has better CA performance than both Zeiss ZF Classic I had.
Corner sharpness cross frame without refocus for fast glass mainly for night star shooting for me. I think only Zeiss Milvus can competed this sigma f1.2 here.
I personally don’t buy this lens for sharpness. It is a overrated spec for me and it’s cheap nowadays. I do care CA for modern lens and care the most bokeh which it did well for both. (CA is not APO level though)
Jman13 wrote:
Since this is showing sharpness at 'portrait distances', it's focused on the bill, as when doing portraits, you'd focus on the subject and not at some Central point that is at your subjects distance.
p.7 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
My reviews are an open book. Sharpening settings, distance, subject, everything is disclosed.
You can run that very same test, then we can compare and discuss.
I am sure your Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is perfectly capable of taking fine shots, so is mine (I still have one).
Sharpness at portrait distance is still only okay when you leave the center (or "not so great" as I put it). Same is true for the Sony FE 35mm 1.4 ZA or Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4. So that lens is in good company.
I was surprised by that result of the 35mm 1.4 as well, therefore I had it double checked with 2 other owners.
But that is the difference: I actually did check.
As said, if this is a subpar sample of the lens, it is very easy to prove me wrong. Everyone is invited to do so.
I am not going through that whole "The Zeiss ZM 35mm 1.4 has no midzone dip" discussion again, only to find out at the end that I was right from the beginning....Show more →
When we were all testing the 5m PCX on the 35/1.4 ZM, I looked at center and corners and remember when you mentioned that mid-zone dip. (Either caused by the PCX or just amplifying a characteristic of the lens). You were right and that ruined that lens for me, especially when shooting wide open.
Honestly, I prefer having a lens with weaker extreme corners than weaker mid-zone where I usually place my subject at.
p.7 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
When we were all testing the 5m PCX on the 35/1.4 ZM, I looked at center and corners and remember when you mentioned that mid-zone dip. (Either caused by the PCX or just amplifying a characteristic of the lens). You were right and that ruined that lens for me, especially when shooting wide open.
Honestly, I prefer having a lens with weaker extreme corners than weaker mid-zone where I usually place my subject at.
Fully agree. Center and more importantly mid-zone areas are crucial for my work vs having a perfect sharpness across the frame with no field curvature. As long as it gets sharp where my subject is, I am happy.
p.7 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
wind30 wrote:
The difference is not between f1.4 and f1.2. I tested A/B shots on the 35mm f1.2 shooting at both f1.4 and f1.2 and I cannot tell the difference apart.
Funny you mentioned the 85mm gm vs f1.8. I chose the 85mm f1.8 because I can barely tell the difference. The rendering of the 85 mm f1.8 is pretty decent.
There is no rendering difference shooting f1.2 and f1.4 on the same lens. But the rendering difference between the sigma f1.4 art or the sigma 40mm art and this f1.2 lens is huge. Much larger than the difference between the 85mm gm and f1.8
The sigma 35mm f1.4 and 40mm art renders highlights in circles with hard edges at mid distance which is just horrible. It is very obvious. ...Show more →
I see a clear difference with my Sigma 35 Art 1.2. It gets sharper, but also rendering changes, as has been demonstrated by Fred Miranda here, too.
The Sigma 35/1.2 is shipping right now. Once someone has some sample images, please start an image thread for this lens.
My review copy should arrive next week.
p.7 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GMPhotography wrote:
Anyone have a 135 just for size and please take those stupid hoods off
Don't have the 135 as I prefer the other Sigma beast in the 105.
As far as the hoods go, I leave them on for size comparison as that is how I ultimately carry them. I can repost another without with these two particular lenses if anyone is interested though.
Fred Miranda wrote:
A little bigger.
The Sigma 35/1.2 is shipping right now. Once someone has some sample images, please start an image thread for this lens.
My review copy should arrive next week.
Just a smidgen larger.
I will say though, this thing feels way better balanced than the other large lenses I have mounted on these bodies.
p.7 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Guy, the Sigma 35/1.2 will be about the same size and weight as your FE 135/1.8 GM. (Just a little bigger and heavier)
Thanks Fred it was a little hard to get a read on it. Getting a little too big for me but certainly in others wheel house. I'm not sure the Sony is the one either. It maybe better than my Sigma 35 1.4. I'm going to test it. Yet to do it
p.7 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Just did a test in a dark room to see whether it could achieve AF in super low light since this is kind of a sore spot for some of the other Sigma lenses I have mounted in the past.
I'm happy to find that at 1/80th shutter, ISO 40,000, wide open at f/1.2, it was able to accurately achieve autofocus albeit slower than in good light. Good news for me as I find myself wanting images in these highly undesirable conditions pretty regularly.
