Fred Miranda wrote:
Both lenses are optimized for mid to long distance.
At f/2.8 they are very similar at center but the Voigtlander wins slightly on contrast. At mid-zone, the Voigtlander 40/1.2 E-mount does better. It's one of the reasons I love this lens since my subjects are usually framed on this area.
At the extreme corners, the Sigma does noticeably better with less astigmatism.
I know it's not fair or apples to apples but can you compare the 45 2.8 to your 50mm 1.4. I love my 50mm 1.4 paired with the 24GM but if this can come close in rendering it may be worth it for the size and weight savings. Compromises.....compromises....
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I know it's not fair or apples to apples but can you compare the 45 2.8 to your 50mm 1.4. I love my 50mm 1.4 paired with the 24GM but if this can come close in rendering it may be worth it for the size and weight savings. Compromises.....compromises....
If you refer to rendering alone, I'm pretty sure the Sigma 45/2.8 will be way smoother. (both at f/2.8)
Here is rendering comparison between CV 50/1.2 and FE 50/1.4.
Maybe slightly off topic but certainly related and I really think folks are feeling this way in recent months . What happened was when the Sony 24mm hit the streets the mindset has changed somewhat as folks are realizing that APSC with the 24 is actually really good. Let’s face facts we have yet to get a 35 that has gotten close to perfect in size, weight, speed and IQ.every 35 has a compromise . I went through 5 Sony 35 1.4 and many others had the same issues the 2.8 is a little slow and third party nothing really special. What changed was everyone want the Sony 24mm in exactly the same 35 mm suit. It’s great at size, weight and a IQ . So what folks have been doing and now with the A7rIV coming it’s a 26mpx crop camera. We are going to see even more use of the 24 in crop mode. Now for me it’s kind of hard buying a 35 as that’s a bread and butter event lens. So what do you buy a 45/50 maybe . Honestly outside the 50 1.4 nothing is that great. Good useable and maybe worth buying but not great. It’s makes these threads and comparisons interesting but seriously I’m kind of torn on this 35/40/45/50/55 AF lens for work.
My MF kit is just ducky not worried about that.
But in AF this makes it hard. Yes you can get a competent lens here but not a great one .which leads me back to the 50 1.4 . With the A7rIV the 24mm , 50 ,85,135 it’s almost nirvana and a great 35mm to boot in crop mode. You sit and think about what I just laid out you just may agree. Again competent but not kick ass
GMPhotography wrote:
Maybe slightly off topic but certainly related and I really think folks are feeling this way in recent months . What happened was when the Sony 24mm hit the streets the mindset has changed somewhat as folks are realizing that APSC with the 24 is actually really good. Let’s face facts we have yet to get a 35 that has gotten close to perfect in size, weight, speed and IQ.every 35 has a compromise . I went through 5 Sony 35 1.4 and many others had the same issues the 2.8 is a little slow and third party nothing really special. What changed was everyone want the Sony 24mm in exactly the same 35 mm suit. It’s great at size, weight and a IQ . So what folks have been doing and now with the A7rIV coming it’s a 26mpx crop camera. We are going to see even more use of the 24 in crop mode. Now for me it’s kind of hard buying a 35 as that’s a bread and butter event lens. So what do you buy a 45/50 maybe . Honestly outside the 50 1.4 nothing is that great. Good useable and maybe worth buying but not great. It’s makes these threads and comparisons interesting but seriously I’m kind of torn on this 35/40/45/50/55 AF lens for work.
My MF kit is just ducky not worried about that.
But in AF this makes it hard. Yes you can get a competent lens here but not a great one .which leads me back to the 50 1.4 . With the A7rIV the 24mm , 50 ,85,135 it’s almost nirvana and a great 35mm to boot in crop mode. You sit and think about what I just laid out you just may agree. Again competent but not kick ass ...Show more →
You hit the nail on the head for me. I plan to just use the 24GM in crop on the Riv to cover the 35mm. I was comfortable at 18mp, 26mp is icing on the cake. Your right about the 50 1.4 . That and the 24GM really covers most of the everyday type shooting for me. I picked up a tamron 17-28 for AF on the wide end. But this 45mm 2.8 might be a good pick up as well "if" the AF is working well. I can live with the 2.8 especially since it appears they didn't focus on clinical sharpness but the way the lens renders. The size and weight is very attractive. Right now it just appears the AF reliability might be holding it back for me. It is in stock at Hunt's so I might drop by tomorrow and pick one up. Just give it a try and put it head to head with the 50mm 1.4. I know it probably can't match the rendering but if it is close enough and Eye AF is good I'd probably keep it.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If you refer to rendering alone, I'm pretty sure the Sigma 45/2.8 will be way smoother. (both at f/2.8)
Here is rendering comparison between CV 50/1.2 and FE 50/1.4.
I'm really only half way decent with a 35mm scene if I can get within 2m of seeing it. It's a beautiful lens, but a bit less normal for a normal for my tastes (my GF inherited it).
Getting back on topic: @fredmiranda@, I'm so close to pulling the trigger, but those ghosts give me pause. Are they typically present in the frame regardless of where the sun is in it (or just outside of it)? Do they ever get bigger?
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Funny you mention that - I got that lens bundled with a few other lenses and an M6. The C Biogon 35/2.8 is the *only* lens from the bundle I didn't sell, and has been my #1 most-used lens on the M6 for a couple months now. Astonishing how little love the lens gets on the Interwebs, though maybe everyone just goes for the faster ZM 35.
It's better than ok on digital, but some FC. On film it's SUBLIME. Wide open, you get this really amazing combination of sharpness, pop and ultra-smooth bokeh - the kind where it still gives the background some form and context. And it's TINY.
GMPhotography wrote:
Not sure this is the greatest comparison its like Apples and Peaches. They really are two very different type of lenses. Frankly I would have both for completely different shooting scenarios. But I understand folks like to know this data. For me something like this I would have both. I have the Sony 24mm for my work lens but travel landscape and for me than I have the CV 21.
One big thing with building a system is build a system not a one or two lens at a time per say but build on what kind of kit you want at the end of it 3,4,5 lens kit . Most folks mix this up with MF glass and AF glass. I have separate kits even though like the Sony 24 could and is a great landscape type lens. The Sigma here seems to be a general purpose type lens . Which works nicely for hobbyist that want a good lens...Show more →
Great post! I could imagine owning both as I'm building two sets of lenses. One is AF for more casual (family, friends and dogs) and event based use. The second is MF for when I want to be more considered and slow and sink into my warm bth that is the photographic experience. I have AF and MF primes at 24, 35, 50, 85 and 135mm. They are very different kits.
Yes no question the FE 50/1.4 ZA is the most special on this range. It's also a much faster lens capable of more blur for subject isolation and less noise in low light. I'm now curious to see how they compare at f/2.8 in rendering.
I have the feeling the Sigma 45/2.8 will have nicer rendering but the Sony will give that contrast punch to the subject.
I thoroughly enjoy your reviews and comparisons, thanks for what you do! You were the influence that made me take the plunge on the CV 40/1.2 - zero regrets.
I'm increasingly curious about comparisons.
For example, I'd imagine that most people who would buy the FE 50/1.4 ZA are interested in the performance wide open and are open to paying $1,500. I'd also imagine that the reason to consider the Sigma 45/2.8 is completely different.
I'd imagine that the person (me) who buys the CV40/1.2 has very different reasons to the person looking at the Sigma 45/2.8
What do you think? Really open to have my mind changed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I have the feeling the Sigma 45/2.8 will have nicer rendering but the Sony [50/1.4] will give that contrast punch to the subject.
FWIW, I've been enjoying the ZM 35/1.4 that I've used almost exclusively for the past four months, despite what some have noted as sharpness and high microcontrast that might be something less than conducive for portraits. I don't think that I'd mind that the Sigma has less "contrast punch" than the Sony or some other lenses, since my use for an autofocus walk-around lens would be different from my use case for the ZM 35 or for other lenses with various different characteristics that I enjoy. Thanks for your thorough reviews that inform such decisions.
Sharp enough for portrait, little to no LoCA, smooth backgrounds - what's not to like? Yes I know - the Canadian stores still don't have it in stock...
vdo1 wrote:
Sharp enough for portrait, little to no LoCA, smooth backgrounds - what's not to like? Yes I know - the Canadian stores still don't have it in stock...
Planning to pick one up today to give it a try. In the perfect world F2 would have been better
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Planning to pick one up today to give it a try. In the perfect world F2 would have been better
The lens is so compact/light at f/2.8. It reminds me of carrying the FE 35/2.8 ZA. (except with outstanding rendering and CA control).
If this lens was 40/2 instead, it would be a great alternative to the Batis for those who care about rendering. Probably it would be more more popular but also more expensive, bigger and heavier. -- I would not mind though.
Honestly I wish the new Sony FE 35/1.8 behaved like this new Sigma Contemporary.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The lens is so compact/light at f/2.8. It reminds me of carrying the FE 35/2.8 ZA. (except with outstanding rendering and CA control).
If this lens was 40/2 instead, it would be a great alternative to the Batis for those who care about rendering. Probably it would be more more popular but also more expensive, bigger and heavier. -- I would not mind though.
Honestly I wish the new Sony FE 35/1.8 behaved like this new Sigma Contemporary.
What if Sony has a GM 50/1.4 STF up their sleeve... complete with "close focus" like the 100....
So, how "soft" the 45mm really is? 'Cause by looking at the picture below from Sigma, it doesn't look like it's a sharpness monster, but it also doesn't have any "double vision" rendering, which is another highly sought characteristic.
Sigma seem to be real good in making lenses for this particular focal length.
DP2 Merrill had a great 45mm lens, also F2.8.
Their 30mm (effective 45mm) for crop bodies is another great lens.
Now this.
vdo1 wrote:
What if Sony has a GM 50/1.4 STF up their sleeve... complete with "close focus" like the 100....
So, how "soft" the 45mm really is? 'Cause by looking at the picture below from Sigma, it doesn't look like it's a sharpness monster, but it also doesn't have any "double vision" rendering, which is another highly sought characteristic.
What I really like about the FE 100/2.8 STF is that the background/foreground rendering is still recognizable while being butter smooth (perhaps a tad too gaussian for my taste). It is great for travel when we want the background to be incorporated into the scene instead of just blurred out.
The 45/2.8 works similarly with a high level of smoothness and not so much blur from the relatively slow aperture.
what's not to like? (
I like it and would already take it (available from us) but I'm somewhat poor and first want to sell everything that is in this range of 40-50mm (cheap EF 40/50, Voigt 40/2)
I'm still feeling like I'd prefer the CV 40 for the faster aperture, but I like this Sigma's rendering too and AF may be handy for my use case. Maybe the right answer is to get both...
Aug 14, 2019 at 03:20 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
To each their own, of course, but I've been through quite a few lenses, and trust me - there's something really special about that one. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the design of the Biogon C 35/2.8 were related to the RX1 35 Sonnar everyone raves about - definitely has a similar vibe.
d.s. wrote:
I'm really only half way decent with a 35mm scene if I can get within 2m of seeing it. It's a beautiful lens, but a bit less normal for a normal for my tastes (my GF inherited it).
Getting back on topic: @fredmiranda@@@, I'm so close to pulling the trigger, but those ghosts give me pause. Are they typically present in the frame regardless of where the sun is in it (or just outside of it)? Do they ever get bigger?
