Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #19 · Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART Lens for Sony E-mount only $799! | |
GHarris wrote:
Well, I don't know. The Sigma 135 is all kinds of superb. The only things to criticise about it are the autofocus speed (which is actually OK, but the Sony 135 is so much more exceptionally good at it) and the weight.
The Sony 135 already does whatever a new Sigma 135 might do. There isn't much of a gap in the market for it, aside from price, maybe. Sigma lenses usually undercut directly comparable, equally-good-or-better Sony equivalents, but... they also usually come out first. I'm not sure how attractive it is for Sigma to knowingly release something that is only as good as the already-existing best, but a bit cheaper.
To me there's more of a gap at 50mm. That must sound like a joke, given how many 50mm lenses there are out there. But there aren't any fully perfected, large-aperture, autofocus 50mm lenses. The Sony ZA was an early pre-draft of the later GM lineup, and didn't have the refinements that came later - its autofocus wasn't as good as it ought to be, it doesn't have a programmable button on the lens body. If you want the best you can get at 50mm, at the moment you just can't have it: you either have to go for an optically perfect manual focus lens like the Voigtlander f/2, or an optically perfect but slow-focussing 50mm ZA, or a fast-focussing but optically imperfect (albeit very good) Zony 55mm f/1.8. Given the significance of the 50mm focal length, this is a strange gap. But of course, the gap arose *because* 50mm is important - the 50mm focal length got everyone's "first draft" effort for the E-mount before all the best lessons had been learned and implemented in later lenses.
Sigma's own 50mm f/1.4 was one of their earliest Art lenses and, besides the only-okay autofocus, has been optically surpassed, just a tad, by everything that came since (I remember the release of Nikon's Z mount 50mm f/1.8 lens being defined by how much better it was than the old Sigma, for example). If Sigma were to release a fully polished 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2, with rock-solid, lightning fast autofocus, optics as perfected as its best new lenses, and on-body buttons and aperture wheels etc., it would be providing something for the Sony E-mount that does not yet exist. That's what was so striking about the Sigma 14-24 at the time of its release, or the Sigma 35 f/1.2, or the Sigma Art 135mm, for that matter, when it was new. The equally polished, or in some cases better, Sony (or any) alternative lens just did not exist.
I have been surprised that a new Sigma 50mm has not already come out. It seemed like the obvious next step, to me, after the 35mm f/1.2, and I was hoping to see it. But I notice how much people complain when Sigma brings out a big heavy lens (despite the reasons for the bulk) and how much appetite there is, instead, for the new small lens designs, so if there's anything that kills the idea I suppose that might be it....Show more →
I also think the 135/1.8 Art SLR is outstanding. I shot with it side by side with the GM and my only complaint was size and weight.
I don't even think AF is a negative for it. It's very accurate even in low light.
My point is that Sigma had an outstanding 85/1.4 Art SLR design adapted to the E-mount (extension tube) and now they released a much smaller/compact mirrorless version (DG DN). I hope this happens to their 135mm as well. Same IQ, smaller package. These lenses do not benefit from the mirrorless shorter flange distance but somehow Sigma found a way to miniaturize their optical designs and still maintain a high level of image quality. There will be some compromises in distortion and optical vignetting but there is no free lunch. 
|
