p.10 #1 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
BokehBeauty wrote:
Funny, the first image of the two has nice depth to me, and the seconds lacks it. Do you have an explanation, or do I see pink elephants?
I don't think you're seeing things. It's probably the actual depth (or lack of) in the scenes. There's appreciable distance between the subject and the background in the first image and I'm not right on top of her, So there's a tiny bit of foreground, she's in the middle and the building is in the background. I've also darkened the background in post.
In the second everything is just about even. There's no separation. It was ivy/plants, etc. growing over a chainlink fence separating the yards of local homeowners from the studio parking lot. The fence was inches behind her head.
Here's another one with even greater distance between subject and background, but I'm shooting much closer to him.
p.10 #4 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
wittyphrase wrote:
I don't think you're seeing things. It's probably the actual depth (or lack of) in the scenes. There's appreciable distance between the subject and the background in the first image and I'm not right on top of her, So there's a tiny bit of foreground, she's in the middle and the building is in the background. I've also darkened the background in post.
In the second everything is just about even. There's no separation. It was ivy/plants, etc. growing over a chainlink fence separating the yards of local homeowners from the studio parking lot. The fence was inches behind her head.
Here's another one with even greater distance between subject and background, but I'm shooting much closer to him.
I think the smooth gradation of the shadows in the face of the lady of the first picture made the depth most apparent for me. I see it less here. So not a characteristic of the lens but of the scene.
p.10 #5 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
abase21 wrote:
@MrTman@ - I own both and must say, the different is not worth the money and the weight (in my opinion). I`m not a expert, but today I did some comparison and decided not to sell the Zony..
I just thought I'd mention, I got to do a (very unscientific) comparison between the Sigma and my spectacular copy of the Zony, and I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. The Sigma is clearly the better lens, but the Zony held up a lot better than I thought it would in comparison.
For environmental portraits, I think the Sigma's advantages relative to the Zony are subtle rather than dramatic -- with the Sigma most noticeably benefiting from less CA, no onion rings, and the slightly extra blur that comes from f/1.2 vs. f/1.4. Color/contrast, center sharpness and rendering are all a touch better on the Sigma, but we're talking about a fairly subtle improvement. Though I'll emphasize the disclaimer that my testing was based on some quick shots in a camera store.
p.10 #7 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
All I can say is I had 4 copies of the Zeiss and 2 rented ones and all of them behave like the mtf measurements from Lensrental which shows how fast sharpness drops away from the center. The sigma is not only much sharper in the center but it keeps the sharpness high across the frame.
Regards
MrTMan wrote:
I just thought I'd mention, I got to do a (very unscientific) comparison between the Sigma and my spectacular copy of the Zony, and I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. The Sigma is clearly the better lens, but the Zony held up a lot better than I thought it would in comparison.
For environmental portraits, I think the Sigma's advantages relative to the Zony are subtle rather than dramatic -- with the Sigma most noticeably benefiting from less CA, no onion rings, and the slightly extra blur that comes from f/1.2 vs. f/1.4. Color/contrast, center sharpness and rendering are all a touch better on the Sigma, but we're talking about a fairly subtle improvement. Though I'll emphasize the disclaimer that my testing was based on some quick shots in a camera store. ...Show more →
p.10 #8 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
While I haven't done scientific tests, I have never been a fan of FF 35 mm lenses because it is a focal length that usually has a lot of compromises.
The Sigma has...
1) Ridiculous sharpness edge to edge wide open. I can not find any significant weakness in my image edges considering a 35 mm focal length.
2) Exceptional rendering especially at its open apertures. f/1.2 through f/2 is phenomenal, usually a weak point for 35 mm lenses
3) Near native autofocus
The only downside is its size. Fortunately, most of the weight is near the body so it handles well, albeit heavy.
Has anyone purchased this on Greentoe? I'm curious how big of a discount you can land there as I am going to be picking up a copy once my rental ends.
p.10 #9 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
GabrielPhoto wrote:
All I can say is I had 4 copies of the Zeiss and 2 rented ones and all of them behave like the mtf measurements from Lensrental which shows how fast sharpness drops away from the center. The sigma is not only much sharper in the center but it keeps the sharpness high across the frame.
Regards
Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't commenting earlier on sharpness away from the center, and I agree that the Sigma is unquestionably a better lens in every respect (and probably especially with respect to cross-the-frame sharpness).
My only point was that the incremental improvement with respect to *center* sharpness, contrast, and rendering vs. the Zony was more subtle than I had thought it would be, for environmental portraits in which the subject is in the center. But the Sigma is certainly the lens I would choose if I didn't already own the Zony.
p.10 #10 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
shakenmartuni wrote:
While I haven't done scientific tests, I have never been a fan of FF 35 mm lenses because it is a focal length that usually has a lot of compromises.
The Sigma has...
1) Ridiculous sharpness edge to edge wide open. I can not find any significant weakness in my image edges considering a 35 mm focal length.
2) Exceptional rendering especially at its open apertures. f/1.2 through f/2 is phenomenal, usually a weak point for 35 mm lenses
3) Near native autofocus
The only downside is its size. Fortunately, most of the weight is near the body so it handles well, albeit heavy.
Has anyone purchased this on Greentoe? I'm curious how big of a discount you can land there as I am going to be picking up a copy once my rental ends....Show more →
I had a buddy get one through GT. I think it was about 150 off. Almost made me wish I would've waited a month as opposed to getting one right out of the gate. But then I looked at my image stream for that time period and realized I would've probably paid more than retail.
---------------------------------------------
MrTMan wrote:
Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't commenting earlier on sharpness away from the center, and I agree that the Sigma is unquestionably a better lens in every respect (and probably especially with respect to cross-the-frame sharpness).
My only point was that the incremental improvement with respect to *center* sharpness, contrast, and rendering vs. the Zony was more subtle than I had thought it would be, for environmental portraits in which the subject is in the center. But the Sigma is certainly the lens I would choose if I didn't already own the Zony.
At least with regard to the copies of the Zony I had, they were damn near the worst fast 35s I've had for the Sony system. About the only thing they did well was for subjects that were within several feet to MFD and within the central region of the frame. For environmental portraits with a bit of distance, especially with subjects away from center, mine were trash. The resolution dropped so much with subjects away from center that I often wondered whether or not it slightly missed focus (on completely stationary subjects).
This new Sigma has just been rock solid for me for almost 2 months now. IQ and AF have been exactly what I've wanted in my fast 35 for a long time. All of the previous options had things to offer that I liked, but they also came with caveats that were rather annoying. The only thing I think anyone can really gripe about with the new Sigma is the size/weight. I'm not a little guy though and have been accustomed to the weight/handling of fast 35s + adapter. This Sigma feels better than all those setups.
As far as my fast 35 preferences go (since moving to Sony), I've basically tried most of the AF options (that I know of) and would rate them as follows:
1. Sigma 35/1.2 Art
2. Canon 35/1.4 mk2
3. Sigma 35/1.4 Art
4. Zony 35/1.4/Canon 35/1.4 mk1 - close battle.
p.10 #11 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
MrTMan wrote:
Sorry, to be clear, I wasn't commenting earlier on sharpness away from the center, and I agree that the Sigma is unquestionably a better lens in every respect (and probably especially with respect to cross-the-frame sharpness).
My only point was that the incremental improvement with respect to *center* sharpness, contrast, and rendering vs. the Zony was more subtle than I had thought it would be, for environmental portraits in which the subject is in the center. But the Sigma is certainly the lens I would choose if I didn't already own the Zony.
Oh yes while the Sigma is indeed sharper in the center, the Zeiss was also a sharp lens in the center I agree. My problem with it aside from the onion rings, was that I dont normally center my subjects for my environmental portraits so that is when I realized the Zeiss was not for me.
p.10 #13 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
At least with regard to the copies of the Zony I had, they were damn near the worst fast 35s I've had for the Sony system. About the only thing they did well was for subjects that were within several feet to MFD and within the central region of the frame. For environmental portraits with a bit of distance, especially with subjects away from center, mine were trash. The resolution dropped so much with subjects away from center that I often wondered whether or not it slightly missed focus (on completely stationary subjects).
This new Sigma has just been rock solid for me for almost 2 months now. IQ and AF have been exactly what I've wanted in my fast 35 for a long time. All of the previous options had things to offer that I liked, but they also came with caveats that were rather annoying. The only thing I think anyone can really gripe about with the new Sigma is the size/weight. I'm not a little guy though and have been accustomed to the weight/handling of fast 35s + adapter. This Sigma feels better than all those setups.
As far as my fast 35 preferences go (since moving to Sony), I've basically tried most of the AF options (that I know of) and would rate them as follows:
1. Sigma 35/1.2 Art
2. Canon 35/1.4 mk2
3. Sigma 35/1.4 Art
4. Zony 35/1.4/Canon 35/1.4 mk1 - close battle. ...Show more →
I second all of this.
p.10 #14 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
I've had my 35mm f1.2 for a couple of days now, exquisite lens. But it does have a focussing squeak. Mainly when going from shorter to longer distances focussing. I've let the store know and they have asked me to talk to their service department early next week as there is a public holiday tommorrow. The sound is like a sharp squeak, not overly loud but my wife, when i was taking photos of the kids, said 'I thought your camera's were silent (A9 electronic shutter), but that squeak noise she thought was the focus confirmation, which I never have on... not a HUGE problem by any stretch of the imagination but doesn't bode too well for Sigma's quality control on such a lens... anyone else notice this squeak on their lens?
p.10 #15 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
I didn't notice that, but my Sigma 35 1.2 just stopped autofocusing after just a few actuations (between 100 and 200). I returned it. And I read a few reports (on this forum I think) about AF inconsistancy at long distances. This story about AF consistency or noise, and worst of all my personal case, is kind of a turnoff, actually. For now, I stay with my not-very-good-but-at-least-reliable Zony... Until I find some more reports about the quality control of this lens, especially regarding AF.
p.10 #16 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
To be fair, I think you can google ANY lens and find stories of issues...all I can say is mine has been fantastic with extremely accurate AF wherever I place my subject which makes me very happy.
We shall see if more reports come up.
p.10 #17 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Ayoul wrote:
I didn't notice that, but my Sigma 35 1.2 just stopped autofocusing after just a few actuations (between 100 and 200). I returned it. And I read a few reports (on this forum I think) about AF inconsistancy at long distances. This story about AF consistency or noise, and worst of all my personal case, is kind of a turnoff, actually. For now, I stay with my not-very-good-but-at-least-reliable Zony... Until I find some more reports about the quality control of this lens, especially regarding AF.
As with anything, it'll always be easier to find negative experiences since that's when most will ever provide feedback (myself included).
Really too bad about your experience with the lens. Traded in my Zeiss almost a month ago and easily have over 1000 shots. So far so good regarding AF, noise, and experience with the lens. So add me to the positive side so far!
p.10 #18 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
The images in this thread are striking. The look and possibilities that this lens provides are enticing...
but...
What's it like to mount and carry this bazooka on an A7 series body? How does the lens handle? I have the Sony 135 GM which is close in size and weight - does the Sigma 35/1.2 handle similarly?
p.10 #19 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
The lens is big and heavy, there is no mistaking it.
If you come from a DSLR background, then this lens isn't that bad. Most of the weight is closer to the body.
However, you can not single hand hold the camera/lens.
I rented it for 2 weeks from LensRentals and fell in love with it. The image quality is unreal for a 35 mm perspective. The lens has a very unique rendering in its open apertures that are not like other 35 mm lenses I have used, even comparing apples to apples when stopped down. In fact, I just opened my own copy of the lens today.
I love the 35 mm vantage point, but for people/portraits, 35 mm on Sony has been tricky as others have pointed out. 35 mm f/1.2 is what you really need for a good background blur of people in context. Most 35 mm lenses seem to either be unsharp, have poor rendering, or are too slow to blur the background. The only compromise with this lens is weight.
p.10 #20 · Sigma 35mm f/1.2 Art E Mount Lens Image Thread
Huckles wrote:
I've had my 35mm f1.2 for a couple of days now, exquisite lens. But it does have a focussing squeak. Mainly when going from shorter to longer distances focussing. I've let the store know and they have asked me to talk to their service department early next week as there is a public holiday tommorrow. The sound is like a sharp squeak, not overly loud but my wife, when i was taking photos of the kids, said 'I thought your camera's were silent (A9 electronic shutter), but that squeak noise she thought was the focus confirmation, which I never have on... not a HUGE problem by any stretch of the imagination but doesn't bode too well for Sigma's quality control on such a lens... anyone else notice this squeak on their lens?...Show more →
I would exchange the lens. I rented one from LensRentals that had this squeak and they said it was abnormal. I received my own copy of the lens today and it is perfectly silent focusing. I have been testing it for several hours to make sure as the rental lens made an obvious noise when moving focus long range. My copy of the lens seems to be just fine, though I will test it for several days. Bad focus motors happen, the warranty on the lens is long and Sigma usually stands by their products.
