Hmm another relatively fast 35mm option after all this years without one ? 65mm seems a very peculiar choice of focal length to me on the other hand...
I think the 24/3.5 and 35/2 look very nice for A7C (but missing the 28mm lens again). Wondering what the extra apparatus between aperture and focus rings on 35/2 and 65/2 is for, perhaps some kind of focus range control. Possibly those lenses could have some extra close focus capabilities.
I will certainly consider 24/3.5 and 35/2 for my A7C if they are priced nicely like the 45/2.8 and the size and weight are in the same class. I suppose 35/2 will be a bit bigger but hopefully still pretty light. If 35/2 is also having nice bokeh / rendering like 45/2.8 it could be pretty sweet.
Not really excited about 65/2 as I already have CV 65/2 and I don't find that focal length very appealing in general. Prefer 50mm and 75mm.
I agree that the 35/2 might be the one to watch, but I am unsure how impressive it'll be given that it's not in the Art line-up. If the price is right it might make for a really nice run-and-gun sort of lens.
zz wrote:
I agree that the 35/2 might be the one to watch, but I am unsure how impressive it'll be given that it's not in the Art line-up. If the price is right it might make for a really nice run-and-gun sort of lens.
I personally prefer Sigma's Contemporary series as everything in Art line-up is usually bigger than I'd like and not well matched with small cameras like A7C or Sigma fp. I'm happy with IQ of 45/2.8 DG DN.
My primary choice for 35mm on A7C is currently CV 35/1.2 SE and this 35/2 might be a nice alternative with AF. I currently have Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 as my only 35mm lens with AF and it's a bit too big for A7C. I had Sony 35/1.8 and 35/2.8 before but not anymore.
Holy shit. Man do I want that 35 to be good. And to have a good MFD. Gaaaaaaaaah. And sealing maybe, Sigma? Can we get fully sealed lenses?
I feel like they wouldn't be quite up to the magic that is my 20 G, but... if it's good enough I won't care too much. I've wanted something that's basically my 40 CF that's a bit slimmed down and ACTUALLY f2 for ages. While I'm sure the upcoming 35 GM will be more impressive optically I already don't bring my camera everywhere I probably would simply because juggling that + a really active kiddo just isn't possible like it was when I was solo all the time.
Anyone know what that middle ring is? Hoping it's like a macro ring and the 35 & 65 are both like, 1:2 lenses. If so... YIKES I'm getting both + a 7c as soon as I get employment again (COVID has been a bit rough on our home finances).
JVan_02 wrote:
Holy shit. Man do I want that 35 to be good. And to have a good MFD. Gaaaaaaaaah. And sealing maybe, Sigma? Can we get fully sealed lenses?
I feel like they wouldn't be quite up to the magic that is my 20 G, but... if it's good enough I won't care too much. I've wanted something that's basically my 40 CF that's a bit slimmed down and ACTUALLY f2 for ages. While I'm sure the upcoming 35 GM will be more impressive optically I already don't bring my camera everywhere I probably would simply because juggling that + a really active kiddo just isn't possible like it was when I was solo all the time.
Anyone know what that middle ring is? Hoping it's like a macro ring and the 35 & 65 are both like, 1:2 lenses. If so... YIKES I'm getting both + a 7c as soon as I get employment again (COVID has been a bit rough on our home finances). ...Show more →
There is visible text "0.27m/0.89FEET-Infinity" on that middle ring on 35/2 and some more invisible text further on left side so I'm also thinking that there are 2 focus ranges that can be controlled with that ring which means that there would be another closer focus range as well.
Wow. If the 35/2 and 65/2 will render anywhere as nice as the 45/2.8 they will definitely be my next lenses. I have the Samyang 35/1.8 at the moment and it is nice, but Sigma build quality and physical aperture ring are something I would really love. Just got the Sigma 105mm and fell in love. And I'm a big fan of focal legths between 55-75, so the 65/2 could fit my needs just perfect.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I think the 24/3.5 and 35/2 look very nice for A7C (but missing the 28mm lens again). Wondering what the extra apparatus between aperture and focus rings on 35/2 and 65/2 is for, perhaps some kind of focus range control. Possibly those lenses could have some extra close focus capabilities.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
There is visible text "0.27m/0.89FEET-Infinity" on that middle ring on 35/2 and some more invisible text further on left side so I'm also thinking that there are 2 focus ranges that can be controlled with that ring which means that there would be another closer focus range as well.
Just went on SAR and saw the larger images. GODDAMN.
Haven't been this pumped for a release... ever, really. Sealing + optics that are good enough Sigma, please. Going over it in my head now... and I don't hope the optics are like the 45 2.8. Before anyone skewers me, that lens is admittedly gorgeous—I just don't think the kind of hassle involved with juggling spherical aberration incedence vs distance is ideal for an everyday, anything (looks like a 1:2 reproduction ratio at least) lens.
If they could pull that look off without having to juggle distance though... goddamn.
j4nu wrote:
65mm seems a very peculiar choice of focal length to me on the other hand...
I'm not sure why this is seen as so strange. Everyone is very happy with the gaps between 20/21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm etc. but as soon as you put something between 50mm and 85mm it's suddenly unusual.
I'm sure people with standard zoom lenses shoot images at 65mm quite frequently.
edit: here are the relative gaps rounded to 2 decimal places:
The obvious outlier is the 35-40mm gap. The following series of focal lengths has a much more even set of similar gaps whilst retaining nice round numbers (which I suspect is behind a lot of this) however no-one seems to make a 30mm for full frame:
JVan_02 wrote:
Just went on SAR and saw the larger images. GODDAMN.
Haven't been this pumped for a release... ever, really. Sealing + optics that are good enough Sigma, please. Going over it in my head now... and I don't hope the optics are like the 45 2.8. Before anyone skewers me, that lens is admittedly gorgeous—I just don't think the kind of hassle involved with juggling spherical aberration incedence vs distance is ideal for an everyday, anything (looks like a 1:2 reproduction ratio at least) lens.
If they could pull that look off without having to juggle distance though... goddamn.
Yeah, I suppose if this 35/2 can focus very close it will not have same kind of spherical aberrations and emphasis on bokeh as 45/2.8, but would rather be optimized for highly detailed sharp rendering up close from wide apertures. Still hoping it will somehow manage to combine that with nice bokeh / rendering or I might not grow to like it as much as my 35/1.2 SE
35/2 on the RX1(R) also has 2 focus ranges and very nice rendering, though it will not go to macro range. Perhaps they can do something similar with this Sigma.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Yeah, I suppose if this 35/2 can focus very close it will not have same kind of spherical aberrations and emphasis on bokeh as 45/2.8, but would rather be optimized for highly detailed sharp rendering up close from wide apertures. Still hoping it will somehow manage to combine that with nice bokeh / rendering or I might not grow to like it as much as my 35/1.2 SE
Admittedly, this is how the 24 GM & 20 G work to my understanding: almost 0 incidence of SA in the plane of focus, strong SA outside it. However, Sony does that with XA magic that I don't think exists inside Sigma's portfolio. If they find a way to replicate the same effect without XA elements... well, damn, really. I suspect the best we can hope for is something along the APO-Lanthar (and to a lesser extent, the Batis) line: great color reproduction, strong global and micro contrasts, great cross field performance, and small to no incidence of CA in or out of the focus plane.
To be fair, this is complaining about only getting a close second/alternative first to a lens that in all probability will never exist (35 1.8 G).
Nice to have more options... but these are a bit boring. I would like a light weight high IQ tele. I guess these will sell better.
The 35/2 is interesting to me if good at f2 and has good AF.
I have the Tamron 35/2.8 which I wouldn’t give up for landscape. Will wait and see how the GM pans out, but I think the Sigma will be a lot cheaper.
Their 45 is more of a 43, so 60, 30, and 22 could have been a natural set. Maybe they wanted to avoid confusion with their APS-C lenses. I would be interested in a 32. There has been a lot of discussion here about the Pentax 31 F1.8 Limited recently. I am fairly happy with the Sony 2/28.
I literally just ordered another Tamron SP 60 F2 yesterday. The Sigma 60mm is a great little lens, but doesn't cover full-frame. And F2 is nice. I assume the Sigma will be much more affordable than the C/V APO.
Oh no. I built my kit around MF Loxia's because they'd last "forever" and I'd only be upgrading the camera.
Broke that promise to myself with a 45mm Sigma because I wanted something AF for the kids, and the haptics are perfect with DMF (it's like MF but with a helping hand).
? 65mm seems a very peculiar choice of focal length to me on the other hand...
zz wrote: