It seems to favor the Sigma over the Sony GM, and I can't help but agree. The difference in bokeh and constrast are most impressive to me. It won't be long before I'll try to trade in my Tamron, I know that much
Looks pretty impressive in terms of IQ, especially considering the price difference, even the AF-C test looked surprisingly good, with the added bonus of the reduced MFD.
For now seems that there would really be little reason to go for the GM, as much as now there is basically no reason to prefer the Zony 35 F1.4ZA over the Sigma 35 F1.2, seems really that Sigma is giving Sony a run for its money.. (which is all for the better of course, the more competition there is, the better for us users).
Just got notice that mine shipped from B&H a week earlier than anticipated (thought it was supposed to ship on 12/17). Was hoping to catch some reviews before deciding if I wanted to keep the preorder, but I guess I’ll get time to shoot with it this coming weekend for some stuff I have going on and decide for myself.
Thanks for sharing. It looks pretty good, but from both this review and the YouTube video posted above the Sigma looks to be transmitting less light at 2.8? Anyone else see that or am I just imaging it?
wittyphrase wrote:
Thanks for sharing. It looks pretty good, but from both this review and the YouTube video posted above the Sigma looks to be transmitting less light at 2.8? Anyone else see that or am I just imaging it?
I don’t think you can judge light transmission from looking at a photo. The camera’s meter determines exposure by the actual light hitting it and adjusts accordingly. You’d need actual measurements.
I think this lens looks like an absolute winner for HALF the cost of the GM. It will be hard to wait until Thursday when FedEx drops mine off.
Interesting that Mark's review says something a bit different to the one in this thread - specifically noting 24 as a weak point where it is worse than the 24-70GM. I guess I will wait for additional reviews before I order.
Wait can you help me understand that because I feel like I’m missing something. If he’s doing a test and comparison of the two lenses, he’s using the same settings on the same camera - the camera isn’t making exposure decisions. It may not be as accurate as an actual measurement, but why else would two otherwise identical pictures have noticeable differences in brightness?
mudlake wrote:
I don’t think you can judge light transmission from looking at a photo. The camera’s meter determines exposure by the actual light hitting it and adjusts accordingly. You’d need actual measurements.
I think this lens looks like an absolute winner for HALF the cost of the GM. It will be hard to wait until Thursday when FedEx drops mine off.
Its a shame it looks a little weaker at the wide end. Although in saying that, Ive found I get better results on some of my lens copies then Marc gets on his. Possibly sample variation I guess... Im going to dive in as Ive already sold my GM. Ive enjoyed owning the 14-24mm and 35mm 1.2 immensely and I cant seem them dropping the ball on this one.
leungw wrote:
Seems to be a pattern for Sigma lenses? Discussion on the subject starts around 3:26 in the video below.
I don't know for the 24-70, but without a doubt my Sigma 14-24 FE is about half a stop slower than my Nikon 14-24 2.8. I've compared them at home in manual mode and +0.5 exp in C20 for the Sigma is needed to match the exposure of the 2 lenses.
Ayoul wrote:
I don't know for the 24-70, but without a doubt my Sigma 14-24 FE is about half a stop slower than my Nikon 14-24 2.8. I've compared them at home in manual mode and +0.5 exp in C20 for the Sigma is needed to match the exposure of the 2 lenses.
if you watched the video on the 24-70gm vs art a few posts prior, it looks like the art is about a 1/3 stop slower (or less) than the gm. It also seemed sharper at 24 and 70 than the gm, and at half the price.... clear winner.
wittyphrase wrote:
Wait can you help me understand that because I feel like I’m missing something. If he’s doing a test and comparison of the two lenses, he’s using the same settings on the same camera - the camera isn’t making exposure decisions. It may not be as accurate as an actual measurement, but why else would two otherwise identical pictures have noticeable differences in brightness?
You’re correct. If the camera is set to the exact same exposure settings in manual then you may be able to see a difference. The problem with this is that the light on the subject has to be the same for the exposures. But assuming the light was the same, you are right that you may be able to see a difference in the light transmission.
(which is all for the better of course, the more competition there is, the better for us users).
