This topic is in the 2020 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2020Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
p.8 #1Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
LBJ2 wrote
Yakkosmurf wrote
LBJ2 wrote
Not that anybody cares. I've got a very good copy of the Sony FE 35 F1.4 seems to me even better on the A7rIV 61 MPs too.There are some downsides that don't bother me. Onion ring bokeh for example can be pronounced with this lens, but once again how many people choose highlighted Bokeh balls as the subject of their image/composition?
FWIW, I owned one of the original shipments of this lens that I was actually happy with. Not too long ago I dropped that lens OMG scary BTW and Sony replaced with a new lens rather than fix the one I dropped. I was shocked at how much better my new copy is compared to the one I dropped. This lens as I mentioned looks even better with the A7rIV 61MPs IMO.
Anyway, lot to like about the FE Sony/Zeiss 35 1.4 "look"it pops and nice color IMO, just avoid very highlighted Bokeh balls with this lens or be prepared to rub out the too highlighted bokeh balls in post which is something I typically do with any lens regardless. IMO very highlighted bokeh balls even smooth can be very distracting.
For me I really like the FE 35 F1.4 and FE 50 1.4 for my event kit. Both images below are the FE 35 1.4 @ 1.4.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/90/1972390.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/75/1972375.jpg
It's so crunchy imo.
This is the issue with sample images, the processing changes the rendering, sometimes significantly.
The sooc rendering of the Sigma 35mm f1.2 is so, so much smoother than most of the other options. Yes it's bigger, but it draws silky, always.
The 24GM too, much nicer.
Even the 2/28 FE, very nice.
From my experience the Zony has a nicer less rough or clinical rendering than the Sigma 1.2, although the latter is very sharp. Sigma also has that yellow tint.
There’s sharpness and the other is rendering. i prefer rendering than world beater sharpness lens so thats why I love lenses like the Zony 35, Nokton 40 and Leica 35 Summarit.
Jul 23, 2020 at 11:44 AM
p.8 #2Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
HelBen85 wrote:
I think there are a lot of good 35mm lenses, but I still see a need.
I am looking for a lens in the 35-40mm range for travel that is as small and light as possible, perhaps with an open aperture of around f2.
It should be a native lens for Sony FE. It should make beautiful aperture stars and should be perfectly sharp from f2.8 to the corners and above all evenly sharp (field curvature as low as possible). Ideally, it should be a manual lens.
Areas of application would include panoramas: I like to take panoramic shots in the range of...Show more →
Well, if you're willing to Kolari mod your camera and (as it seems) are used to MF... just get the 35 1.7 ultron.
I think there are a lot of good 35mm lenses, but I still see a need.
I am looking for a lens in the 35-40mm range for travel that is as small and light as possible, perhaps with an open aperture of around f2.
It should be a native lens for Sony FE. It should make beautiful aperture stars and should be perfectly sharp from f2.8 to the corners and above all evenly sharp (field curvature as low as possible). Ideally, it should be a manual lens.
Areas of application would include panoramas: I like to take panoramic shots in the range of...Show more →
Well, if you're willing to Kolari mod your camera and (as it seems) are used to MF... just get the 35 1.7 ultron.
Jul 23, 2020 at 03:00 PM
p.8 #3Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The CV 35 1.7 Ultron we put front filters on them . I forgot what they are called but from memory I opened up the lens and took shims out to correct the focus for infinity . We have several threads on that maybe last year. Anyway I loved the 35mm 1.7 its a great look lens with really nice bokeh. If interested Fred and I both have test posted on the forum to look at that whole process. Go to front page of Sony forum to search and maybe put year 2018 in the engine.
Now the CV 35 1.7 and the Zeiss ZM 35mm take the same correction and same thing you remove a shim and set your new focus. You need either a Hawk or CV adjustable adapter to do this also. Its some work but results are quite lovely.
In other words you have to be one picky ass lens whore to go through all that. But it is so worth it and its fun
So you dont have to modify the sensor at least in this case . Now you all just tested my memory so go look for the threads to confirm it.
Again losts of tests and images on both the Zeiss and Voigtlander . Once they started coming out with FE lens mounts I moved on to them . But the CV 40 1.2 is also killer nice as well as the 50 1.2 so there are options. If you have to have AF than given all my experience trying all of them. Id almost get the new Sigma 1.2 . Not shot it yet but looks really sweat. I was never that fond of there 1.4. I know others will bury me for that comment but it always felt a little sterile in look overall. But we are being fairly picky here too.
Now the CV 35 1.7 and the Zeiss ZM 35mm take the same correction and same thing you remove a shim and set your new focus. You need either a Hawk or CV adjustable adapter to do this also. Its some work but results are quite lovely.
In other words you have to be one picky ass lens whore to go through all that. But it is so worth it and its fun
So you dont have to modify the sensor at least in this case . Now you all just tested my memory so go look for the threads to confirm it.
Again losts of tests and images on both the Zeiss and Voigtlander . Once they started coming out with FE lens mounts I moved on to them . But the CV 40 1.2 is also killer nice as well as the 50 1.2 so there are options. If you have to have AF than given all my experience trying all of them. Id almost get the new Sigma 1.2 . Not shot it yet but looks really sweat. I was never that fond of there 1.4. I know others will bury me for that comment but it always felt a little sterile in look overall. But we are being fairly picky here too.
Jul 23, 2020 at 03:47 PM
p.8 #4Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The Ultron 1.7 is a nice lens but it's nearly impossible to get an adapter wich allows you to focus to infinity when you attach a 5m pcx filter. I buit the 5m pcx filter but still do not have an adapter which works on infinity.
Jul 23, 2020 at 07:09 PM
p.8 #5Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
You need to remove a shim or it won't work at all. Than you need a adjustable adapter like the Hawk or Voigtlander . You need both. Seriously a lot of work on doing this has been done by many members , go back and do the homework. Thats if you want to do this. PITA absolutely but still fun with nice results. The research has been done for all. Just need to go back and find the data and all the tests and images
Jul 23, 2020 at 08:15 PM
p.8 #6Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
If I could find instructions on how to to remove a shim on the 1.7 Ultron I would do it. Until now I only found people which have been lucky to buy an adapter which lets them focus to infinity out of the box - like fredmiranda or bastiank . I was not that lucky with 9 tries until now.
Jul 24, 2020 at 04:13 AM
p.8 #7Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GMPhotography said:
The CV 35 1.7 Ultron we put front filters on them . I forgot what they are called but from memory I opened up the lens and took shims out to correct the focus for infinity . We have several threads on that maybe last year. Anyway I loved the 35mm 1.7 its a great look lens with really nice bokeh. If interested Fred and I both have test posted on the forum to look at that whole process. Go to front page of Sony forum to search and maybe put year 2018 in the engine.
Now the CV 35 1.7...Show more →
See, this just seems like too much work, lol. Course, I say that as the father of a two year old and an engineering grad student on page 70 of an estimated 100 odd pages into the first draft of my thesis—so perhaps I have a bit less time than some :P
GMPhotography said:
Again losts of tests and images on both the Zeiss and Voigtlander . Once they started coming out with FE lens mounts I moved on to them . But the CV 40 1.2 is also killer nice as well as the 50 1.2 so there are options. If you have to have AF than given all my experience trying all of them. Id almost get the new Sigma 1.2 . Not shot it yet but looks really sweat. I was never that fond of there 1.4. I know others will bury me for that comment but it always felt a...Show more →
I'm a bit torn. Since I've started printing photos from my 40 CF... I can't imagine a better lens IQ wise. Explicitly: while this is certainly not the best lens from a technical perspective in the 35-40 range, on 24 mp I can resolve skin texture and vellus and androgenic hair detail pretty reliably—and it manages to preserve nice lens "character" defects like slight glow on high contrast edges in harsh backlighting, unusual flare patterns while being not very prone at all to flaring normally, and inherent polarization(?) of light in some situations that makes reflective surfaces (i.e. eyes) uniquely reflective without getting a global image "haze" you'll get with some other excellent character lenses like the 40 1.2, etc. I'd argue that these "character" traits are a lot more visible (and thus more useful) than resolution in most cases, so long as the rest of the image can maintain an excellent standard. Printer tech really hasn't caught up to the latest and greatest technical performance in most cases.
However, since I've been gifted a 20 1.8 G... I really appreciate Sony's new AF motors, and how I can get a lens with a technical performance at that level at that size... without having to automatically stop down to do so. It's really quite something. I think on the whole I might prefer a 35-40G to the Batis 40 as a whole package due to the increased reliability, even if I am not quite as fond of the images. In an opposing stance, I don't think I could ever justify purchasing one of the Sigma ART line... due to the size. I just simply wouldn't use the thing, haha.
Think that's the whole point of this thread, really. Certainly, the 35 1.2 FE is an AWESOME 35 in the sense that it produces absolutely stellar output, and the 35 1.8 FE is similarly awesomely reliable—but then you have CA at f11 and the sealing could be more robust. Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask: why don't we have the perfect reportage 35 that has a) no significant optical weaknesses, b) excellently sturdy build quality, c) great AF, and d) isn't so big that it stands out. 3 of those 4 can be offered with the 35 1.2 FE, 2.5 with the 40 CF (no weaknesses in good lighting), 2 with the 35 1.8 FE and 35 1.7 ultron, but nothing offers all 4.
The CV 35 1.7 Ultron we put front filters on them . I forgot what they are called but from memory I opened up the lens and took shims out to correct the focus for infinity . We have several threads on that maybe last year. Anyway I loved the 35mm 1.7 its a great look lens with really nice bokeh. If interested Fred and I both have test posted on the forum to look at that whole process. Go to front page of Sony forum to search and maybe put year 2018 in the engine.
Now the CV 35 1.7...Show more →
See, this just seems like too much work, lol. Course, I say that as the father of a two year old and an engineering grad student on page 70 of an estimated 100 odd pages into the first draft of my thesis—so perhaps I have a bit less time than some :P
GMPhotography said:
Again losts of tests and images on both the Zeiss and Voigtlander . Once they started coming out with FE lens mounts I moved on to them . But the CV 40 1.2 is also killer nice as well as the 50 1.2 so there are options. If you have to have AF than given all my experience trying all of them. Id almost get the new Sigma 1.2 . Not shot it yet but looks really sweat. I was never that fond of there 1.4. I know others will bury me for that comment but it always felt a...Show more →
I'm a bit torn. Since I've started printing photos from my 40 CF... I can't imagine a better lens IQ wise. Explicitly: while this is certainly not the best lens from a technical perspective in the 35-40 range, on 24 mp I can resolve skin texture and vellus and androgenic hair detail pretty reliably—and it manages to preserve nice lens "character" defects like slight glow on high contrast edges in harsh backlighting, unusual flare patterns while being not very prone at all to flaring normally, and inherent polarization(?) of light in some situations that makes reflective surfaces (i.e. eyes) uniquely reflective without getting a global image "haze" you'll get with some other excellent character lenses like the 40 1.2, etc. I'd argue that these "character" traits are a lot more visible (and thus more useful) than resolution in most cases, so long as the rest of the image can maintain an excellent standard. Printer tech really hasn't caught up to the latest and greatest technical performance in most cases.
However, since I've been gifted a 20 1.8 G... I really appreciate Sony's new AF motors, and how I can get a lens with a technical performance at that level at that size... without having to automatically stop down to do so. It's really quite something. I think on the whole I might prefer a 35-40G to the Batis 40 as a whole package due to the increased reliability, even if I am not quite as fond of the images. In an opposing stance, I don't think I could ever justify purchasing one of the Sigma ART line... due to the size. I just simply wouldn't use the thing, haha.
Think that's the whole point of this thread, really. Certainly, the 35 1.2 FE is an AWESOME 35 in the sense that it produces absolutely stellar output, and the 35 1.8 FE is similarly awesomely reliable—but then you have CA at f11 and the sealing could be more robust. Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask: why don't we have the perfect reportage 35 that has a) no significant optical weaknesses, b) excellently sturdy build quality, c) great AF, and d) isn't so big that it stands out. 3 of those 4 can be offered with the 35 1.2 FE, 2.5 with the 40 CF (no weaknesses in good lighting), 2 with the 35 1.8 FE and 35 1.7 ultron, but nothing offers all 4.
Jul 24, 2020 at 04:23 AM
p.8 #8Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Need to remember when we where putting front filters on there Was no 35 1.8 Sony . Just the 35 2.8 and the 35 1.4. No CV 40 or 50 either. Today if you asked me is it worth it than I would say no. Unless you where hellbent on trying it .
Frankly it’s easy to get sharp fast lens in the modern day development of lenses and the 35 1.8 is a classic example of that but if you are looking at rendering as your bottom line than it’s not going to be the lens for that so much. Yea it’s nice but not like a great 1.4 or 1.2
It’s about trade offs. Most who like rendering as primary function than look at there kits, they have CV glass as that’s the easy way to get nice rendering. But there manual lenses . If you have to have AF than it’s either hope like hell to get a good Sony 35 1.4 ( I went through five) or maybe look at the Sigma 1.4 or 1.2
There are some options like adapting Canon glass and Tamron, Tokina and other 3rd party but to be honest that’s all a kluge now. I’m in the camp is they need to address this again in a GM series and even a 1.4 is fine. Need to kill the onion rings and now they can they have the newer glass grinding machines to get that done and much better AF motors. Heck I’d pay 1800 bucks for a killer modern day 35 1.4 . Seriously there 50 1.4 is to die for it’s that good. There 85 1.4 is also but they are both lacking the really fast AF motors like there 135 and such. It’s really time to revisit these lenses in version II. I could not use the 85 1.4 indoors shooting model shoots as the AF sucks in lower light Or just modeling light. Lens is just to slow for fast paced models. Anyway we have come a long way but there still needs that shooters have that needs to be addressed.
This all is not new we’ve been begging a long time for a 35 mm. They started with the 1.8. If you use it correctly you can get some great images. Tips on that are watch your backgrounds and adjust your subject distances and backgrounds. Try for more separation
Frankly it’s easy to get sharp fast lens in the modern day development of lenses and the 35 1.8 is a classic example of that but if you are looking at rendering as your bottom line than it’s not going to be the lens for that so much. Yea it’s nice but not like a great 1.4 or 1.2
It’s about trade offs. Most who like rendering as primary function than look at there kits, they have CV glass as that’s the easy way to get nice rendering. But there manual lenses . If you have to have AF than it’s either hope like hell to get a good Sony 35 1.4 ( I went through five) or maybe look at the Sigma 1.4 or 1.2
There are some options like adapting Canon glass and Tamron, Tokina and other 3rd party but to be honest that’s all a kluge now. I’m in the camp is they need to address this again in a GM series and even a 1.4 is fine. Need to kill the onion rings and now they can they have the newer glass grinding machines to get that done and much better AF motors. Heck I’d pay 1800 bucks for a killer modern day 35 1.4 . Seriously there 50 1.4 is to die for it’s that good. There 85 1.4 is also but they are both lacking the really fast AF motors like there 135 and such. It’s really time to revisit these lenses in version II. I could not use the 85 1.4 indoors shooting model shoots as the AF sucks in lower light Or just modeling light. Lens is just to slow for fast paced models. Anyway we have come a long way but there still needs that shooters have that needs to be addressed.
This all is not new we’ve been begging a long time for a 35 mm. They started with the 1.8. If you use it correctly you can get some great images. Tips on that are watch your backgrounds and adjust your subject distances and backgrounds. Try for more separation
Jul 24, 2020 at 05:57 AM
p.8 #9Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
obwohl wrote:
If I could find instructions on how to to remove a shim on the 1.7 Ultron I would do it. Until now I only found people which have been lucky to buy an adapter which lets them focus to infinity out of the box - like fredmiranda or bastiank . I was not that lucky with 9 tries until now.
I need Fred’s memory here. I thought I found the shims on it . I think there was 3. I believe I unscrewed the front element than used the Hawk adapter. Pardon my memory here.
If I could find instructions on how to to remove a shim on the 1.7 Ultron I would do it. Until now I only found people which have been lucky to buy an adapter which lets them focus to infinity out of the box - like fredmiranda or bastiank . I was not that lucky with 9 tries until now.
I need Fred’s memory here. I thought I found the shims on it . I think there was 3. I believe I unscrewed the front element than used the Hawk adapter. Pardon my memory here.
Jul 24, 2020 at 06:12 AM
p.8 #10Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GMPhotography said:
This all is not new we’ve been begging a long time for a 35 mm. They started with the 1.8. If you use it correctly you can get some great images. Tips on that are watch your backgrounds and adjust your subject distances and backgrounds. Try for more separation
There is always going to be someone taking better pictures than you ever will with some vintage/old/low quality gear you will never even consider :P . After ~20 years of this as a hobby mostly, though, I just want gear that works exactly how I want it, and gets out of the way. To me, that meant my qualities a-d, and while Sony has that covered in many fls either through first party or third party offerings—they haven't covered it completely to my satisfaction in the standard range.
The only manufacturer who has is Nikon with their 35 and 50 1.8s lenses... sort of. While the 50 is beyond reproach optically speaking, I'd still say the 35 is closer to what I want than the 35 1.8 FE and the Batis 40 2 in that while I don't think the image is quite as nice as the 40 and the AF isn't as good as Sony's 35, the 35s has AF that should only be limited by Nikon's current body offerings and should improve quite a bit with the Z6s and Z7s. While we can see from DPReview's comparison that the FE lens is higher resolving, we can see also that the CA never goes away on the FE lens either. Additionally, the 35 1.8s is much more sturdily built—almost to the level of the Batis.
After handling the 20, as I've said before, I have full confidence that if Sony were ever to release a 35-40G lens it would probably be the last standard lens I'd ever use. Just a few days ago I had absolutely 0 hope that one would ever come out... but maybe Sony might consider offering more G series lenses for its AP photogs. So like 15 percent now
EDIT: Can't get the link to work. Widget from this page.
This all is not new we’ve been begging a long time for a 35 mm. They started with the 1.8. If you use it correctly you can get some great images. Tips on that are watch your backgrounds and adjust your subject distances and backgrounds. Try for more separation
There is always going to be someone taking better pictures than you ever will with some vintage/old/low quality gear you will never even consider :P . After ~20 years of this as a hobby mostly, though, I just want gear that works exactly how I want it, and gets out of the way. To me, that meant my qualities a-d, and while Sony has that covered in many fls either through first party or third party offerings—they haven't covered it completely to my satisfaction in the standard range.
The only manufacturer who has is Nikon with their 35 and 50 1.8s lenses... sort of. While the 50 is beyond reproach optically speaking, I'd still say the 35 is closer to what I want than the 35 1.8 FE and the Batis 40 2 in that while I don't think the image is quite as nice as the 40 and the AF isn't as good as Sony's 35, the 35s has AF that should only be limited by Nikon's current body offerings and should improve quite a bit with the Z6s and Z7s. While we can see from DPReview's comparison that the FE lens is higher resolving, we can see also that the CA never goes away on the FE lens either. Additionally, the 35 1.8s is much more sturdily built—almost to the level of the Batis.
After handling the 20, as I've said before, I have full confidence that if Sony were ever to release a 35-40G lens it would probably be the last standard lens I'd ever use. Just a few days ago I had absolutely 0 hope that one would ever come out... but maybe Sony might consider offering more G series lenses for its AP photogs. So like 15 percent now
EDIT: Can't get the link to work. Widget from this page.
Jul 24, 2020 at 07:19 AM
p.8 #11Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
20 years. Your a newbie.
45 as a Pro. I'm ancient
45 as a Pro. I'm ancient
Jul 24, 2020 at 08:36 AM
p.8 #12Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The Sigma 35 1.2 has three "official" problems: distortion, flare, vignetting. I don't own this lens. How do the actual users of this lens handle these problems?
Jul 24, 2020 at 08:57 AM
p.8 #13Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GMPhotography said:
20 years. Your a newbie.
45 as a Pro. I'm ancient
https://media1.tenor.com/images/6ea81e8f6d7d395c4d11ae542cf1f81c/tenor.gif
20 years. Your a newbie.
45 as a Pro. I'm ancient
https://media1.tenor.com/images/6ea81e8f6d7d395c4d11ae542cf1f81c/tenor.gif
Jul 24, 2020 at 09:00 AM
p.8 #15Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
GMPhotography wrote:
I need Fred’s memory here. I thought I found the shims on it . I think there was 3. I believe I unscrewed the front element than used the Hawk adapter. Pardon my memory here.
I'm pretty sure that Voigtlander Ultron lenses like the CV 28/2 and CV 35/1.7 do not have shims behind the mount. For these lenses to work with PCX front lenses, one must find an 'out-of-spec' adapter that is a tiny bit shorter, so the lens can focus at infinity with the PCX attached.
Usually cheaper brands have lower tolerance.
The CV 35/1.7 Ultron has superb performance at center but even with the PCX, resolution is not that high towards the corners.
I'm sure it performs way better on a Leica body just like the CV 28/2 Ultron does.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1647789/0?keyword=leica#28
obwohl wrote
If I could find instructions on how to to remove a shim on the 1.7 Ultron I would do it. Until now I only found people which have been lucky to buy an adapter which lets them focus to infinity out of the box - like fredmiranda or bastiank . I was not that lucky with 9 tries until now.I'm pretty sure that Voigtlander Ultron lenses like the CV 28/2 and CV 35/1.7 do not have shims behind the mount. For these lenses to work with PCX front lenses, one must find an 'out-of-spec' adapter that is a tiny bit shorter, so the lens can focus at infinity with the PCX attached.
Usually cheaper brands have lower tolerance.
The CV 35/1.7 Ultron has superb performance at center but even with the PCX, resolution is not that high towards the corners.
I'm sure it performs way better on a Leica body just like the CV 28/2 Ultron does.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1647789/0?keyword=leica#28
Jul 24, 2020 at 12:49 PM
p.8 #16Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
obwohl wrote:
The Sigma 35 1.2 has three "official" problems: distortion, flare, vignetting. I don't own this lens. How do the actual users of this lens handle these problems?
I haven’t really noticed these much. The lens profile in LR cleans up Distortion easily, I usually leave the vignetting alone as it means I don’t need to add it back in later. I’ve caught flare once in a while but it flares much less than some of my other lenses (24-70 GM is a flare monster).
It is larger and heavier than other 35mm primes. I don’t like to call it “big and heavy” period because that’s so relative; but when people ask if that lens has “the most zoom” of all my lenses and it is sitting next to the 135GM.....it isn’t “normal” for a 35mm
The Sigma 35 1.2 has three "official" problems: distortion, flare, vignetting. I don't own this lens. How do the actual users of this lens handle these problems?
I haven’t really noticed these much. The lens profile in LR cleans up Distortion easily, I usually leave the vignetting alone as it means I don’t need to add it back in later. I’ve caught flare once in a while but it flares much less than some of my other lenses (24-70 GM is a flare monster).
It is larger and heavier than other 35mm primes. I don’t like to call it “big and heavy” period because that’s so relative; but when people ask if that lens has “the most zoom” of all my lenses and it is sitting next to the 135GM.....it isn’t “normal” for a 35mm
Jul 24, 2020 at 03:55 PM
p.8 #17Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
obwohl wrote:
The Sigma 35 1.2 has three "official" problems: distortion, flare, vignetting. I don't own this lens. How do the actual users of this lens handle these problems?
The distortion flare and vignetting are no worse than most good 35mm lenses. They just aren’t as amazingly controlled as everything else about this lens.
In my view the lens has only two problems: size and weight. But I doubt it could be as fast and good as it is and be smaller.
As for distortion flare and vignetting, the lens has such high resolution that distortion correction is essentially lossless when you need it. Flare is mostly better than my beloved Loxia 35, and holding a hand to shade it always fixes flare from sun out of the frame. Vignetting is something I rarely correct at f1.2, but you can if you want!
The Sigma 35 1.2 has three "official" problems: distortion, flare, vignetting. I don't own this lens. How do the actual users of this lens handle these problems?
The distortion flare and vignetting are no worse than most good 35mm lenses. They just aren’t as amazingly controlled as everything else about this lens.
In my view the lens has only two problems: size and weight. But I doubt it could be as fast and good as it is and be smaller.
As for distortion flare and vignetting, the lens has such high resolution that distortion correction is essentially lossless when you need it. Flare is mostly better than my beloved Loxia 35, and holding a hand to shade it always fixes flare from sun out of the frame. Vignetting is something I rarely correct at f1.2, but you can if you want!
Jul 24, 2020 at 04:01 PM
p.8 #18Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The Sigma 35/1.2 doesn't flare any more than other similar lenses.
The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it is proof it's not that heavy.
It's lighter than my 105/1.4, 70-200, 24-70 -you know, other popular lenses that are regularly used.
Go get yourself one.
The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it is proof it's not that heavy.
It's lighter than my 105/1.4, 70-200, 24-70 -you know, other popular lenses that are regularly used.
Go get yourself one.
Jul 24, 2020 at 04:48 PM
p.8 #19Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
Bob_S wrote:
The Sigma 35/1.2 doesn't flare any more than other similar lenses.
The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it...Show more →
I have the Sony 12-24 GM coming instead, I want 12mm where you can really do some neat stuff when focusing on near objects and for architecture and indoor photos of buildings.
Also which is slightly contradicting my first sentence when you already have the 16-35GM that accepts filters its hard to get excited about buying a whole new lens for 2mm.
I have every reason to believe that the Sony will at least equal the Sigma from 14-24 and will AF better and improved ghosting etc. Cost is not a consideration with me only getting what I want in a lens.
The Sigma 35/1.2 doesn't flare any more than other similar lenses.
The distortion is simple, it's a +6 (pincushion) for me but I almost never use it because I rarely use the lens for architecture.
I never remove the vignetting because it's beautiful, it's subtle but draws attention in and it's only shading, there's no colour cast or any other issues.
At f2.8 it's free of any issues and razor sharp edge to edge.
At any f stop it's got gorgeous rendering.
So it's only the size and weight which aren't an issue unless you're anaemic, the fact thousands of people own and use it...Show more →
I have the Sony 12-24 GM coming instead, I want 12mm where you can really do some neat stuff when focusing on near objects and for architecture and indoor photos of buildings.
Also which is slightly contradicting my first sentence when you already have the 16-35GM that accepts filters its hard to get excited about buying a whole new lens for 2mm.
I have every reason to believe that the Sony will at least equal the Sigma from 14-24 and will AF better and improved ghosting etc. Cost is not a consideration with me only getting what I want in a lens.
Jul 24, 2020 at 05:05 PM
p.8 #20Why don’t we have an AWESOME 35 yet?
The Tamron 35mm F2.8 FE is an AWESOME 35
The photos from the lens are quite good, lens is affordable; awesome
The photos from the lens are quite good, lens is affordable; awesome
Jul 24, 2020 at 05:48 PM