p.10 #1 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
GabrielPhoto wrote:
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.
Will do! I will have to find a willing subject though! I’m looking forward to reading your 28 Art review, the files it puts out are really something extraordinary. Versus my Q2, id take the a7r3 and 28 Art any day. It’s a different length but I think it even trumps the 24GM. According to Sigma MTF charts, the 28 Art also kills the 40/1.4. I think Roger Cicala also confirms that.
p.10 #2 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Cool. Thanks for the follow up!
Also, one of the biggest things that is tough about reviewing lenses is that those of us that do it generally only get one copy. Maybe two or three in some cases.
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:
p.10 #3 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Bastian, would you think the field curvature would be a dealbreaker for pano'd Milky Way shots? (assuming a 40-50% overlap)
Truthfully I'd love a great fast 28 so I may replace my Rokinon 24 with the 7artisans, but I hate the fact that it's not a native mount (even with the E-mount version corrected for the filter stack)
p.10 #4 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
NRKStudio wrote:
Will do! I will have to find a willing subject though! I’m looking forward to reading your 28 Art review, the files it puts out are really something extraordinary. Versus my Q2, id take the a7r3 and 28 Art any day. It’s a different length but I think it even trumps the 24GM. According to Sigma MTF charts, the 28 Art also kills the 40/1.4. I think Roger Cicala also confirms that.
The 28mm is indeed sharper in the center and mid frame it seems but as it approaches the edges the 40mm remains sharper. Amazing lenses that Sigma is putting out. Cant wait to try it!
jwhatts wrote:
Bastian, would you think the field curvature would be a dealbreaker for pano'd Milky Way shots? (assuming a 40-50% overlap)
Won't be a problem.
But for Milky Way pano I would stop down to f/1.4 or f/2.0.
Light gathering capability in the corners is pretty much the same as f/1.2, but exposure is more even across the frame.
p.10 #7 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
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....Show more →
I do not agree about your almost APO level claim.. It's simply not true.
First of all, you would be surprised what's corrected in camera these days. Get yourself some Leica SL lenses and pull out the baked in-camera digital corrections and you'll be shocked. I've done this with a number of recent lenses over the last few years and it's shocking how much digital correction is relied upon by lens manufacturers.
And as for LaCA and LoCA the 35Sigma shows both.. But I said LoCA because Fred was talking about LoCA. And frankly I think it handles LaCA better than LoCA.
Most of the LoCA is corrected by LR upon import but neither LoCA or LaCA are corrected in-camera right now because Panasonic and Sigma aren't really communicating. So I see a lot of it shooting JPG files and upon inspection in camera via the LCD.
p.10 #8 · 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.
Yes in LR it lessens the LoCA and LaCA significantly with its "embedded profile". Though it does not do it in camera like the SL lenses do on SL bodies. I think it's a lack of communication between Sigma and Panasonic right now since most of the SL lenses' baked in digital corrections worth with the Panasonic (I say most as I still have issues with the 16-35 digital corrections showing up, or rather not showing up in the EVF and the 35SL digital corrections aren't showing up at all on the Panasonic body).
p.10 #9 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
I do not agree about your almost APO level claim.. It's simply not true.
Did you actually read what I have written and did you have a look at the comparsion shots to the Art 1.4?
Do you know how to differentiate between the different types of loCA?
For lateral CA I always take a comparison shot without electronic contacts between lens and camera,
which makes a big difference with some lenses.
Doing so I never saw a notable difference in loCA.
May you be able to show one such case where there is a notable difference in loCA with/without embedded profile?
Maybe there is something I missed.
PS: No, I have zero intentions in getting a Leica SL or any of the current SL lenses by Leica or Panasonic.
p.10 #10 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
Yes in LR it lessens the LoCA and LaCA significantly with its "embedded profile". Though it does not do it in camera like the SL lenses do on SL bodies. I think it's a lack of communication between Sigma and Panasonic right now since most of the SL lenses' baked in digital corrections worth with the Panasonic (I say most as I still have issues with the 16-35 digital corrections showing up, or rather not showing up in the EVF and the 35SL digital corrections aren't showing up at all on the Panasonic body).
The always on profile sometimes significantly reduces LaCA.
Which is why some people test lenses with the contacts covered so as not to activate it.
BUT AFAIK the Lightroom profile doesn’t touch LoCA. This is because of the nature of it - it’s a destructive correction that requires choices to be made about what colour fringes matter and what trade offs to accept. That’s why the dropper tool is manually operated for LoCA. One day there may be an AI tool for this, but not yet from Adobe at least.
p.10 #11 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
DavidBM wrote:
The always on profile sometimes significantly reduces LaCA.
Which is why some people test lenses with the contacts covered so as not to activate it.
BUT AFAIK the Lightroom profile doesn’t touch LoCA. This is because of the nature of it - it’s a destructive correction that requires choices to be made about what colour fringes matter and what trade offs to accept. That’s why the dropper tool is manually operated for LoCA. One day there may be an AI tool for this, but not yet from Adobe at least.
[
It's either baked in or LR is fixing it if it's not visible in the 35s that you Sony users have. The 60TL does this and it's quite visible in photos (greyed out fringing).
p.10 #12 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
BastianK wrote:
Did you actually read what I have written and did you have a look at the comparsion shots to the Art 1.4?
Do you know how to differentiate between the different types of loCA?
For lateral CA I always take a comparison shot without electronic contacts between lens and camera,
which makes a big difference with some lenses.
Doing so I never saw a notable difference in loCA.
May you be able to show one such case where there is a notable difference in loCA with/without embedded profile?
Maybe there is something I missed.
PS: No, I have zero intentions in getting a Leica SL or any of the current SL lenses by Leica or Panasonic....Show more →
How do you want me to test for it? LoCA so tin foil balled up is sufficient?
p.10 #13 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
How do you want me to test for it? LoCA so tin foil balled up is sufficient?
Best would be a scene where there is purple fringing and bokeh fringing is visible, like this one:
Purple fringing on the railing
Bokeh fringing in the out of focus areas
It is not necessarily easy to find a scene like that, but maybe you can think of one.
It seems a reader will send me his 40mm 1.4 Art this week, and I will do a comparison to 35mm 1.2 Art and 35mm 1.4 Art.
While doing so I intend to go to that place as well and will also take a shot there without electronic contact between camera and lens, to see if there are any differences.
p.10 #14 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
adamdewilde wrote:
It's either baked in or LR is fixing it if it's not visible in the 35s that you Sony users have. The 60TL does this and it's quite visible in photos (greyed out fringing).
It's perfectly possible that Leica has profiles that tell other programs to fix LoCA (I know that telltale look of grey fringes).
My only claim is that Sony don't offer those compulsory profiles for LoCA for (presumably) the reaosons I mentioned. They compulsorily fix LaCA, optionally fix vignetting and distortion. LR's message says "This file contains a built in profile for chromatic abberation" but it's only lateral, not longitudinal, chromatic abberation; I have tested it with disabled contacts and LaCA gets worse, but not LoCA, at least on the images I've tested.
Two caveats:
(1) I have no idea about other makes of camera body; maybe Leica does it - the grey margins suggests so - and if that's the case it is a very bad idea, as manual control of LoCA is much better.
(2) People I trust say that C1 unlike Lightroom may make an attempt at automatic LoCA reduction.
Didn't want to embed as there are large sizes. EDIT: Apparently FM doesn't want me to post links.
This one is of a cat... When I bent down the aperture ring shifted to f/1.4 (its not stiff) and I think the reflection in the big front element scared the cat as he made a crazy face (I've cleaned up the CA a bit, and edited it, this is just for fun):
p.10 #17 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
zhangyue wrote:
The first one is loCA and laCA combined. As mentioned, it’s not APO level or 135 art level, but For 35mm and f1.2, it’s actually not bad.
Yeah it's good considering it's a 35FOV f/1.2 lens. It's the size I'm not happy with also I'm having some problems with the S1 and the two Sigma lenses too.. Though not as bad as with the 35SL.
Didn't want to embed as there are large sizes. EDIT: Apparently FM doesn't want me to post links.
This one is of a cat... When I bent down the aperture ring shifted to f/1.4 (its not stiff) and I think the reflection in the big front element scared the cat as he made a crazy face (I've cleaned up the CA a bit, and edited it, this is just for fun):
Weird. My comparison shots so far have not shown what you are depicting here. The Sony 35/1.4 ZA showed massive CAs compared to the Sigma (I provided some of the samples here in the beginning). Of course I can generate some CAs in extreme situations, but less compared to the other 35s I owned (Sony 35/1.4, Canon 35/1.4ii, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Samyang 35/1.4). So far I am seeing more of what Bastian is seeing in his review.
p.10 #19 · Sigma 35/1.2 Art E-mount rolling review at phillipreeve.net
Holger wrote:
Weird. My comparison shots so far have not shown what you are depicting here. The Sony 35/1.4 ZA showed massive CAs compared to the Sigma (I provided some of the samples here in the beginning). Of course I can generate some CAs in extreme situations, but less compared to the other 35s I owned (Sony 35/1.4, Canon 35/1.4ii, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Samyang 35/1.4). So far I am seeing more of what Bastian is seeing in his review.
Two thoughts.. 1) Sony/Sigma is doing something in body. 2) I have a slightly out of spec lens?
