p.5 #1 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Fred Miranda wrote:
I think David is talking about two different corrections:
1) Automatic lens profile: Some lenses like the Sigma 35/1.2 have an automated lens profile embedded in the RAW file. This cannot be turned off when using LR. It should not be a reason for much concern since it only corrects for lateral CA and therefore it's pretty much lossless.
2) LR's lens profile: Lightroom has custom lens profiles made for most native lenses. It will fix vignetting, distortion and CA. This can be turned off or be automatically added to our images when importing them into LR.
NOTE: This is also a checkmark option for correcting chromatic aberration (LaCA) in LR and this option should not be used if a lens profile is already embedded in the RAW file. It may double correct the image for LaCA and in some cases make things worse....Show more →
Thanks Fred. That's exactly what I meant. I'm afraid my cold has meant that I have defaulted to jargon we use at work: "obligate profile" makes little sense outide of that context (of course it means the compulsory profile you can't turn off, which is embedded in the RAW file, as opposed to the Lightroom profile, which is created by Adobe by testing the lens,
So to get it clear for everyone what you can do with these two sorts of profile:
COMPULSORY PROFILE
This is contained in the firmware of some lenses, communicated to the camera, which then embeds it in the RAW file to be implemented by RAW converters, including LR, ACR or C1.
Work-arounds: you can tape the contacts so the lens can't tell the camera about it (of course you lose AF etc!). Or you can use a non-standard "pure" RAW converter like DCRAW or a number of others which will ignore it.
What these correct can depend on Camera settings. You CANNOT turn off LaCA correction, but I don't see why you would want to. Sometimes these profiles include vignetting or distortion **if those corrections are turned on in camera, but not otherwise**
LIGHTROOM PROFILES (NON-COMPUSORY)
These are created by Adobe for each lens (similar ones are created by others for C1 or DXO) and are applied to the RAW file when the RAW converter. They can be made default on import or not, and can be turned on and off manually.
Work arounds: you can make your import profile not include them (I do this, I see no reason to correct distortion unless it matters for the particular image)
If you have turned it off on import, you can manually turn it on for an image, and if you have it on for import, you can turn it off for an image.
You can also adjust the degree of distortion or vignetting control: moving a slider the right increases the default correction, to the left decreases it.
p.5 #2 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
I am able to turn off the manufacturer profiles within lenses within Capture One. There's a checkbox. For the 35mm f1.2, for example, Capture One automatically applied distortion correction, which I was then able to easily disable if I wanted. . . . Is this different from what you're calling the compulsory profile, David?
p.5 #4 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Great photos and post processing, you are very talented!
I am very close to pulling the trigger on the Sigma 35mm/1.2 given all the positive feedback on this forum and elsewhere and appreciate the extensive review and comparison Bastiaan did.
Has anyone done a comparison of the rendering head to head vs. non-Sigma lenses? In particular, any of the following which tend to get good marks from everyone here?
24 GM
CV40/1.2
CV50/1.2
50/1.4 ZA
Sigmas have always had top marks for sharpness but bias to a very 'clinical' look, no doubt due to the few aberrations. The images posted here have been excellent, but would love to see head to head with the above to understand if this is finally the fast, AF 35 many of us have been looking for!
p.5 #10 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Great shots David.
If I'm not mistaken, I think you also used to have the Sony 35/1.4? How are you finding the Sigma in comparison -- are the better sharpness & lower CA far and away the main differences, or is the rendering much different as well?
p.5 #12 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
MrTMan wrote:
Great shots David.
If I'm not mistaken, I think you also used to have the Sony 35/1.4? How are you finding the Sigma in comparison -- are the better sharpness & lower CA far and away the main differences, or is the rendering much different as well?
Thanks!
You’re quite right I’ve owned the Sony 35/1.4. I think the rendering is very different, but I’m struggling to articulate the differences. I sense a greater presence with subjects captured with the Sigma. I have also owned the Zeiss Distagon T* 35/1.4 ZE, which has always been my gold standard for bokeh (personal preference). I like the Sigma 35/1.2 bokeh as much, but not more; it’s just quite different.
There are several rendering qualities about the Sigma 35/1.2 vs. Sony 35/1.4 I would like to articulate, but there are too many lens experts in this forum that I feel entirely out of my depth to do so. I’ll just stop with this: The Sigma 35mm 1.2 Art is the 35mm lens I’ve been searching for.
I’ve owned the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZE, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Canon 35L II, Sony 35/1.4 ZA, and Tamron 35/1.8 and the new Sigma stands out above that crowd (just stating personal preference. I’m not making an absolute-truth assertion). It’s big, it’s heavier, but it feels fine and comfortable in my hands.
p.5 #14 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Man, I had myself convinced I was just going to settle for the Sony 35 f/1.8 and be done with it but this thread is really giving me pause. I don't want such a big lens, but the images are gorgeous...
p.5 #15 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
I heard someone recently use this lens as an example of what "3D pop" really is. And I have to agree. I've always felt that term was something kind of amorphous - a very broad way of simply saying "I like the way this lens looks," but this lens does actually look 3D to me.
That picture of the statue of kids on the bench above posted by Mr. Arbogast appears to be literally coming out of the screen. Think I'm going to rent this.
p.5 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
formula4speed wrote:
Man, I had myself convinced I was just going to settle for the Sony 35 f/1.8 and be done with it but this thread is really giving me pause. I don't want such a big lens, but the images are gorgeous...
Kind of where im at too but i saw some images and i stopped dead in my tracks. Ive been around forever and seriously there are not many Mojo lenses out there so you need to stop and look.
