p.9 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Matt Kerby wrote:
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.
p.9 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
It was fun to see it compared to the 35/2.8 ZA!
Lovely samples. Getting my copy on Monday.
Yeah, I don't think one will replace the other
Looking forward to your thoughts and tests...I love that they seem to have figured out how to control the CA when shooting this thing wide open...Nothing like my old Canon 1.2's.
p.9 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
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.
---------------------------------------------
Agreed. I actually didn't see any which surprised me. I don't miss the Canon 35 mk2 at all now....Show more →
Great samples. The loca for this lens shows up the most with overexposed white on black. U need the black to really see it as it is not as bad as the za
p.9 #5 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I just had the chance to hold one of those bricks at a store. S**t, it's big and bad . For me and my wallet, handholding an actual copy in store was great, though, as it punched some reason into me. I really don't need f1.2. Immediately after the 35 1.2 I checked out the 35 1.4, which seemed small in comparison, even though it's quite a long lens too. Still not sure whether I should get an AF 35mm lens, but if I do, it will probably come down to the Sigma 35 1.4 versus the Sony 35 1.8. No brick for me .
p.9 #6 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I'm also hesitant just because of the weight, not so much the size. I had and loved the Milvus 35mm 1.4 when I was still using Nikon and used it for a while with an adapter on the A7RIII. In the end it was just not a good fit between the two, terribly front heavy and cumbersome to in use.
Now this Sigma is both smaller and lighter than this combo but not by much, so I wonder if it would ultimately suffer the same fate than my Milvus lens....
p.9 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Seeing the samples above, I'm pretty amazed that the acuity of the lens makes subjects 'pop' so much that the distracting mid-distance backgrounds seem less distracting in comparison...
p.9 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Sigma should use this set for their samples...
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Some more snaps. Lots of stuff on the move with either my daughter or both of us moving at a solid pace. AF speed is plenty good for a f/1.2 lens.
Second to last shot was me trying to induce flare. It did shockingly well.
p.9 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
I’m running into occasional eye-af issues with the 35/1.2 wide open. It’s not capturing focus even at 1/200sec at both close and middle distance (10-15’), though the subjects’ eyes or face are outlined with the green box.
Its happened a few times so far, it may be user error, but the 28/1.4 Art and my 55/1.8 FE just don’t miss the shot under similar parameter.
Time will tell. It’s hard to replicate the parameters to properly test it. I’ll update soon if I can nail down the situations when/if it occurs.
p.9 #13 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
I’m running into occasional eye-af issues with the 35/1.2 wide open. It’s not capturing focus even at 1/200sec at both close and middle distance (10-15’), though the subjects’ eyes or face are outlined with the green box.
Its happened a few times so far, it may be user error, but the 28/1.4 Art and my 55/1.8 FE just don’t miss the shot under similar parameter.
Time will tell. It’s hard to replicate the parameters to properly test it. I’ll update soon if I can nail down the situations when/if it occurs.
Suggestion. Place your subject against a wall and the camera on a solid tripod and take at least 10 shots or more with the 28mm and the 35mm to see what you get. At least that is how I have been testing Eye AF issues to make sure is not human error.
I am getting the 28mm loaner for a review and waiting for my copy of the 35mm 1.2 to compare them too.
p.9 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
A lot of LoCA on the L-mount copy I own. Probably because the digital corrections aren't being recognised by the S1 yet.
That's interesting. For those using Lightroom, a lens profile is added automatically (no option to turn this off) for some lenses. Definitely all Sony lenses. I wonder if the Sigma 35/1.2 has automated 'always on' profile showing in Lightroom as well.
p.9 #15 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
A lot of LoCA on the L-mount copy I own. Probably because the digital corrections aren't being recognised by the S1 yet.
I don't know of any lens profiles that can automatically and properly correct loCA.
I would be greatly surprised, if this was different for L-mount cameras.
The profiles in E-mount lenses will usually not correct for loCA, unless what you think is loCA is in fact a combination of loCA and laCA.
Talking about the 35mm 1.2's loCA correction:
LoCA can come in different forms, but unfortunately few sources differentiate and even less reviewers do.
With fast lenses I found two forms to be especially bothersome:
"Purple fringing", which appears close to the plane in focus
And "bokeh CA" or "bokeh fringing" which happens in the out of focus areas
Correction of purple fringing of the 35mm 1.2 is almost on APO level.
Correction of bokeh fringing is not, but still better than 35mm 1.4 Art and also better than 35mm 1.4 ZA.
In the last update of my review I added a comparison to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art, where the differences are very obvious.
This is also the reason, why people will come to different conclusions on the loCA correction of this lens.
p.9 #16 · 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 →
Weekend is almost over and I just noticed I still owe you to get back to this!
But maybe a little backstory first:
After I reviewed the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (E-mount, very well centered) I thought that it was a somewhat better performer back in the day on my Nikon D800.
My first hunch was that maybe the filterstack is to blame, so I then asked Roger Cicala from lens rentals a few weeks ago.
He told me that of all the Sigma Art lenses only the 35mm 1.4 shows different off center performance on the E-mount cameras.
But he did not think that it is a filterstack issue but rather a flange distance issue.
Unfortunately we also know that the E-mount cameras are not exactly a prime example of flange distance accuracy.
So before I conducted this test I already had a hunch that maybe your camera is a better fit to the lens than my A7rII.
As we are about to see, this is true for my A7III as well.
So also in my case the lens looks better on the A7III than on the A7rII:
Center:
Inner midframe:
Outer midframe:
Corner:
These are the times, where I wonder what sense it makes to review lenses.
A game of tolerances is a game you always loose.
p.9 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
Weekend is almost over and I just noticed I still owe you to get back to this!
But maybe a little backstory first:
After I reviewed the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (E-mount, very well centered) I thought that it was a somewhat better performer back in the day on my Nikon D800.
My first hunch was that maybe the filterstack is to blame, so I then asked Roger Cicala from lens rentals a few weeks ago.
He told me that of all the Sigma Art lenses only the 35mm 1.4 shows different off center performance on the E-mount cameras.
But he did not think that it is a filterstack issue but rather a flange distance issue.
Unfortunately we also know that the E-mount cameras are not exactly a prime example of flange distance accuracy.
So before I conducted this test I already had a hunch that maybe your camera is a better fit to the lens than my A7rII.
As we are about to see, this is true for my A7III as well.
So also in my case the lens looks better on the A7III than on the A7rII:
These are the times, where I wonder what sense it makes to review lenses.
A game of tolerances is a game you always loose....Show more →
THis is interesting because it now makes sense why from limited test shots I was finding my R3 having better sharpness across the frame than my R2 before I sold it.
p.9 #18 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's interesting. For those using Lightroom, a lens profile is added automatically (no option to turn this off) for some lenses. Definitely all Sony lenses. I wonder if the Sigma 35/1.2 has automated 'always on' profile showing in Lightroom as well.
Should be able to strip it out if you use RawTherapee? I believe Snapsy does this a bit to get to the uncorrected RAW files, at least those corrections where the camera isn't 'adjusting' the RAW before writing it to flash.
p.9 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
johnctharp wrote:
Should be able to strip it out if you use RawTherapee? I believe Snapsy does this a bit to get to the uncorrected RAW files, at least those corrections where the camera isn't 'adjusting' the RAW before writing it to flash.
p.9 #20 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I was only referring to Lightroom.
Cool- it's useful to be able to make comparisons with unmolested RAW files in order to understand how a particular camera and lens (and aperture and ISO setting) combination will react to different levels of processing- and to take a stab at explaining why, if the results aren't as expected.
