p.8 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
That’s good to know that it focuses in low light. However most of the previous sigma lenses like the 85, 135, etc., work a lot better now with version 2.0. You will find that if you update the Sigma firmware version on the lenses, they focus more accurately and twice as fast. I’m sure this was covered in the Sigma firmware update thread....
p.8 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Joeb359 wrote:
this just looks like a beautiful lens but here in the UK the 35 1.4 is down to 650
anyone in the UK been able to get hold of the new 1.2 yet?
in terms of the weight. i have no issue carrying around the 100-400GM. is it of similar weight?
Not quite what you were asking, but the grey-market import site e-infinity were listing them as "in stock" a few days ago so I placed an order and it arrived today. The last thing I expected was to receive the grey-market lens earlier than others in the UK watching UK shops - I have something I might need it for in a couple of weeks and since the release announcement last month I had been wondering whether it was likely to be listed on the grey sites, and arrive, in time for that.
p.8 #3 · 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
Here's a quick image of the two side by side. No hoods or caps on. The camera on the left is an A7Rii, the one on the right is an A7Sii. Sigma 35mm 1.2 on the left, Canon-mount Sigma 135 f/1.8 on the right, fitted using an MC-11 adapter.
p.8 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GHarris wrote:
Here's a quick image of the two side by side. No hoods or caps on. The camera on the left is an A7Rii, the one on the right is an A7Sii. Sigma 35mm 1.2 on the left, Canon-mount Sigma 135 f/1.8 on the right, fitted using an MC-11 adapter.
How does it handle compared to the 135mm? Since the 135mm has heavier front elements, I would imagine that the 35mm's weight is closer to the body body, perhaps...?
p.8 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GHarris wrote:
Here's a quick image of the two side by side. No hoods or caps on. The camera on the left is an A7Rii, the one on the right is an A7Sii. Sigma 35mm 1.2 on the left, Canon-mount Sigma 135 f/1.8 on the right, fitted using an MC-11 adapter.
p.8 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
MAubrey wrote:
How does it handle compared to the 135mm? Since the 135mm has heavier front elements, I would imagine that the 35mm's weight is closer to the body body, perhaps...?
Yes, the 35 handles more comfortably. It feels balanced. As you say, the 135mm is front-heavy and that makes it feel heavier / clumsier.
The 35mm is still a 1kg lens but it's OK, all the same. It handles alright. Feels comfortable enough for me.
When I try to balance the two pictured rigs, camera attached, etc. - try to make them pivot on one finger cupping the lens from left to right - the 135mm's balance point is distinctly further forward. I'll try to describe, based on the photo in my previous post.
Front to back, the 135's balance point seems to be about where you can see the words "SIGMA" and "135mm 1:1.8 DG".
Whereas the 35mm's balance point is on, or just forwards (up, in the photo) from, the end of its mount "neck". Just barely on or in front of the point where the lens stops getting wider after the narrow lens mount. It's more than one and a half cm or, if I'm trying to be spuriously precise, maybe 1.7 cm further back (closer to the camera) than the balance point on my 135 with MC-11.
As a reminder - the quoted spec for the 135mm Art, at least my Canon model, is a weight of 1130 grams. The MC-11 weighs an additional 125 grams on top (I don't know what the weight of the Sony-mount native 135mm Sigma would have been, whether the native Sony neck/mount is heavier or lighter than an MC-11). The 35mm f/1.2 is quoted as weighing 1090 grams all-in.
p.8 #8 · 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.
Exactly. I couldn't care less about corners wide open. I rarely do astrophotography, and never with a 35mm lens. So what subject will be in the corner? But an environmental portrait, the most usual case for wide open moderate wides for me, will almost *never* have eyes in the centre, and will usually have them in the mid zone! So midzone is crucial for wide open work...
p.8 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I got the 35/1.2 and the 45/2.8 for the L mount though not Sony. I wonder if there are slight difference in the bokeh due to the mount clearance? I only say this because the back mount is not rounded like you'd expect it's somewhat notched as in it has a strange warp to the circle.
35 is too big though, argh I hate that trend. And the 45 is awesome great size both built really well but I feel the 45 from my very brief testing is optically so so... Nothing like the SL f/2 primes.
p.8 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I was wondering if the 45 performed better in L mount vs E, and I guess the answer is no.
adamdewilde wrote:
I got the 35/1.2 and the 45/2.8 for the L mount though not Sony. I wonder if there are slight difference in the bokeh due to the mount clearance? I only say this because the back mount is not rounded like you'd expect it's somewhat notched as in it has a strange warp to the circle.
35 is too big though, argh I hate that trend. And the 45 is awesome great size both built really well but I feel the 45 from my very brief testing is optically so so... Nothing like the SL f/2 primes.
p.8 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
hiepphotog wrote:
Thank you for sharing. How is the AF speed on the A9?
Speed is good. I haven't shot any action or erratic movement yet but hope to soon. Nothing blaringly noticeable about speed yet. I did notice that it had a little bit of trouble when I was at angles where it got a significant amount of direct light from that kitchen window though. I was also shooting without the hood at the time so will need to shoot more in the wild to confirm whether it is a significant issue with backlit scenes.
---------------------------------------------
Fred Miranda wrote:
Great LoCA correction. Did you see much before editing? The FE 35/1.4 ZA would not fare well here.
Agreed. I actually didn't see any which surprised me. I don't miss the Canon 35 mk2 at all now.
p.8 #16 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Speed seems good but wouldn't say instantaneous or anything crazy like that. I think the communication between Panasonic and Sigma is better than Leica and Panasonic. I wonder if it's because Sigma has a lot of experience being the third party guy??
Will also try to shoot some action or fast moving street scenes over the next few days and will report back.
EDIT: I have to say the 45 being so small makes a great case for the Sigma FP.. It'll essentially be a 45mm FOV camera smaller than the Q. My only wish would have been to spend a bit more on the lens if they could have squeezed out an F/2 aperture with it being not bigger (glass is small seems like they would have enough room to keep the size but go f/2 w/bigger elements).
p.8 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GHarris wrote:
Yes, the 35 handles more comfortably. It feels balanced. As you say, the 135mm is front-heavy and that makes it feel heavier / clumsier.
The 35mm is still a 1kg lens but it's OK, all the same. It handles alright. Feels comfortable enough for me.
When I try to balance the two pictured rigs, camera attached, etc. - try to make them pivot on one finger cupping the lens from left to right - the 135mm's balance point is distinctly further forward. I'll try to describe, based on the photo in my previous post.
Front to back, the 135's balance point seems to be about where you can see the words "SIGMA" and "135mm 1:1.8 DG".
Whereas the 35mm's balance point is on, or just forwards (up, in the photo) from, the end of its mount "neck". Just barely on or in front of the point where the lens stops getting wider after the narrow lens mount. It's more than one and a half cm or, if I'm trying to be spuriously precise, maybe 1.7 cm further back (closer to the camera) than the balance point on my 135 with MC-11.
As a reminder - the quoted spec for the 135mm Art, at least my Canon model, is a weight of 1130 grams. The MC-11 weighs an additional 125 grams on top (I don't know what the weight of the Sony-mount native 135mm Sigma would have been, whether the native Sony neck/mount is heavier or lighter than an MC-11). The 35mm f/1.2 is quoted as weighing 1090 grams all-in....Show more →
Thanks. That's super helpful. I have the same set up as you with the 135mm in EF mount and the MC-11--as well as the 24-35mm f/2 Art in EF mount, which with the MC-11 is 1065g. I'll have to compare where the balancing point is for that combo, but I think that'll give me a good sense of how the new 35mm f/1.2 feels on my camera.
p.8 #18 · 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.
This was one of the reasons that I ended up getting the NKIR thin sensor mod, that was more extreme than Kolari by removing the cover glass entirely. It did wonders for both the ZM 35mm and also the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2. Because of that, I'm more hesitant about getting this new lens. I'm enjoying a much sharper (than on a stock sensor) 35mm f/1.2 wide open and debating how much I'd benefit from AF.
p.8 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Just received mine this morning...It's huge, it's sharp as hell (even wide open), focus is fast and spot on so far, wow...really nice. This is a very well made chunk of engineering, just have to wait and see if the weight hinders use. Thought I'd post some size comparisons.
