I've noticed that a lot of the review photos taken with this lens are just poor, not optically but from a photographer's point of view making it very hard to see how it would perform in the view. I've been noticing that more and more, making it harder to decide whether or not something is appealing.
I guess I'll have to wait for Dustin's review as usual, since Christopher Frost only put out a review for the 65 as we speak.
Actually the release dates leaked by Nokishita are accurate for Japan market. In Japanese version of Sigma Stage presentation those specific dates were given (12/18 for 35/2 and 65/2 and 1/22 for 24/3.5) along with Japan market pricing. The magnetic cap holder will also released on 12/18.
FJR1 wrote:
Just finished watching the I Series announcement by Sigma's CEO. Interesting lenses.
The lenses have an all metal construction including the hood.
The lenses will come with two lens caps--a plastic one and a metal, magnetic one.
Availability has shifted a bit:
24mm--mid-January 2021
35mm--early January 2021
65mm--early January 2021
@j4nu yeah I see it now. Looks like some SA up close, but that's not always a bad thing. If it's anything like the 40 CF, you can just close down to 2.2-2.5 and not worry about it—and at that close you're not going to be missing much DoF.
The 40 CF & Sigma's 35 seem to have a similar performance so far as I can see, with the 35 having a bit better bokeh and the 40 being a bit better corrected so far as I've been seeing. Most importantly in the Sigma's favor is that due to a lack of forced aperture behavior (& probably less incidence of SA) it should be much better at low light performance despite the equivalent aperture aaaaand as it's not overinflated it'll be a much better match to the α7C than the 40. In the 40's favor is confidently robust sealing and MFD.
My first thought is looks good but not great from the DPreview gallery. A bit more preferable than the Samy and Sony.
The overall draw seems fairly smooth comparatively. I don’t see any harsh transitions but not photos that feature an f2 mid zone transition (unless I missed it).
The OOF focus areas look better than the Sony and Samy with no noticeable Nisen bokeh in the corners, which the FE has especially and drives me nuts.
Onion rings look better than the Samy, similar to the Sony (which is to say not really noticeably IMO unless you’re hunting for them). Bokeh is mostly circular though, outlining seems not an issue.
Cat’s eye looks easily better than the Samy too, and closer to the Sony.
Looks sharp with nice colors, build quality and aesthetic looks lovely. Seems like a solid option but no RX1 Sonnar. I’ll try one and probably prefer it to the Samy or Sony but not keep it. Unless I want AF, I still like my Pentax 31 ltd and CV 35 1.2iii.
I’ll be happy to try a copy and hopefully be surprised, but I’ll wait for the GM and (hopelessly) the RX1R3.
Can someone tell me Abbott’s findings? I hate video reviews 😂
So judging by the early reviews, people don't notice onion rings as they are not mentioned in Dustin's review either ... but to his credit, his samples don't look too bad in that regard.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
My first thought is looks good but not great from the DPreview gallery. A bit more preferable than the Samy and Sony.
The overall draw seems fairly smooth comparatively. I don’t see any harsh transitions but not photos that feature an f2 mid zone transition (unless I missed it).
The OOF focus areas look better than the Sony and Samy with no noticeable Nisen bokeh in the corners, which the FE has especially and drives me nuts.
Onion rings look better than the Samy, similar to the Sony (which is to say not really noticeably IMO unless you’re hunting for them). Bokeh is mostly circular though, outlining seems not an issue.
Cat’s eye looks easily better than the Samy too, and closer to the Sony.
Looks sharp with nice colors, build quality and aesthetic looks lovely. Seems like a solid option but no RX1 Sonnar. I’ll try one and probably prefer it to the Samy or Sony but not keep it. Unless I want AF, I still like my Pentax 31 ltd and CV 35 1.2iii.
I’ll be happy to try a copy and hopefully be surprised, but I’ll wait for the GM and (hopelessly) the RX1R3.
Can someone tell me Abbott’s findings? I hate video reviews 😂 ...Show more →
Yes, Sigma seems to be the winner rendering-wise.
I'm not sure about the onion rings and cats eyes. The latter especially look pretty extreme...
Still, CAs look to be on another level compared to Sony and SY and that's something I find valuable...
I know I'll end up trying one, but that questionable MFD performance together with onion rings puts a serious dent in this 35mm ...
j4nu wrote:
So judging by the early reviews, people don't notice onion rings as they are not mentioned in Dustin's review either ... but to his credit, his samples don't look too bad in that regard.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
My first thought is looks good but not great from the DPreview gallery. A bit more preferable than the Samy and Sony.
The overall draw seems fairly smooth comparatively. I don’t see any harsh transitions but not photos that feature an f2 mid zone transition (unless I missed it).
The OOF focus areas look better than the Sony and Samy with no noticeable Nisen bokeh in the corners, which the FE has especially and drives me nuts.
Onion rings look better than the Samy, similar to the Sony (which is to say not really noticeably IMO unless you’re hunting for them). Bokeh is mostly circular though, outlining seems not an issue.
Cat’s eye looks easily better than the Samy too, and closer to the Sony.
Looks sharp with nice colors, build quality and aesthetic looks lovely. Seems like a solid option but no RX1 Sonnar. I’ll try one and probably prefer it to the Samy or Sony but not keep it. Unless I want AF, I still like my Pentax 31 ltd and CV 35 1.2iii.
I’ll be happy to try a copy and hopefully be surprised, but I’ll wait for the GM and (hopelessly) the RX1R3.
Can someone tell me Abbott’s findings? I hate video reviews 😂 ...Show more →
I prefer your comments that any video review.
Thanks for posting. I didn't even see samples images yet.
I've just checked the 35/2's samples and rendering looks smooth and pleasant but perhaps not quite same level of SA under correction I see on the 45/2.8 images. Axial CA seems well controlled but specular highlights inner structure is not clean.
There are not many samples at mid and long distance on that gallery where we can really tell how the transition zone behaves. So far, I'm happy with it but want to see more samples.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I prefer your comments that any video review.
Thanks for posting. I didn't even see samples images yet.
You're welcome. I just saw them on my iPhone, so I need to sit down and look sincerely on my monitor. Looks better than the Samy/Sony though.
For those curious, here are some Samy 35 1.8 test photos for OOF area where you can see onion rings, much quicker degradation into cat's eye, some minor Nisen bokeh in the corners, horrible flare/ghosting, MFD @1.8 and 2.8 SA difference and very good coma correction.
With the 35, I see one photo (Xmas tree in the back) where the onion rings are noticeable but almost all of the others, specular highlights are actually quite nice. Odd. There are even other dreaded 'lights in the background' shots that look good. Wonder what gives in that one photo? Bokeh balls, whatever, if I cared I'd use my 100STF. But I don't. They're decent for a fast lens; they're all going to have 'footballs' to some degree wide open.
I'd say the biggest drawback I've seen so far is that OOF areas in the foreground appear to have harsher bokeh, almost a bit of doubling. Not sure that would matter, but overall shots look quite nice.
Dave Sanders wrote:
With the 35, I see one photo (Xmas tree in the back) where the onion rings are noticeable but almost all of the others, specular highlights are actually quite nice. Odd. There are even other dreaded 'lights in the background' shots that look good. Wonder what gives in that one photo? Bokeh balls, whatever, if I cared I'd use my 100STF. But I don't. They're decent for a fast lens; they're all going to have 'footballs' to some degree wide open.
I'd say the biggest drawback I've seen so far is that OOF areas in the foreground appear to have harsher bokeh, almost a bit of doubling. Not sure that would matter, but overall shots look quite nice. ...Show more →
What photo number are you seeing doubling in?i am on my phone but very curious.
In the photo with the poodle standing on his hind legs there are some very very slight Nisen bokeh in the upper left corner, but you really have to stretch to see it, so doesn’t qualify as being an issue IMO, even for a picky person like me.
...
... but to his credit, his samples don't look too bad in that regard.
...