I was looking at that 65 f/2...it's got interesting competition on each side of it focal length-wise in a similarly sized package between the Sony 55 1.8 and Samyang 75 1.8. The Sony would be similar $$ if bought used, the Samyang obviously a lot cheaper. Maybe the IQ will be good enough to put the Sigma on top and split the difference in FL.
Fred, that looks like a random pattern resulting from imperfect polishing. The "onion rings" come from mold fabrication, they look like a spiral or concentric circles (they are produced due to the discrete steps in controlling the mold cutting knife).
nehemiahphoto wrote:
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.
In the shot of the dog with the fence...as the OOF fence moves to the foreground, the bokeh gets harsher. Like I said, perhaps a bit of doubling?
The bokeh in the foreground gets a bit nervous. Now, that said, the first is not objectionable at all when looking at the overall photo and the 2nd is an extreme case and I doubt would ever show up in everyday photos. But something to look out for as more samples roll in.
Watched Dustin's review; that has left me feeling very nicely about this lens. Sharp, even at f/2. But there's a bump in contrast stopping down and I think when that happens, it always bodes well for wide open rendering of people. His samples reinforce my opinion that the onion rings are not particularly noticeable and the bokeh is really quite nice.
j4nu wrote:
Cameralabs posts pictures of christmas lights and doesn't even mention the onion rings...
Makes me wonder about transparency ...
First thing I noticed, onion rings and cats eye.Folks look for reputable testers
Anyway I'm questioning is the 35 better than our own 35 1.8 which certainly is not the image king of the world but damn stinking good. I have that now and on the 65 I have the Samyang 75 1.8 and that tested very nicely. I posted BB on that one on the Laowa 14 thread
Now they look really nice physically and price is very reasonable but I cant see switching things out for them. When I see onion rings it make me want to throw up. Cats eye is not so bad but obviously we need to see real testing. I'm not even going to look at the crap posted. I'll pass for now. Too many other options
GMPhotography wrote:
First thing I noticed, onion rings and cats eye.Folks look for reputable testers
Anyway I'm questioning is the 35 better than our own 35 1.8 which certainly is not the image king of the world but damn stinking good. I have that now and on the 65 I have the Samyang 75 1.8 and that tested very nicely. I posted BB on that one on the Laowa 14 thread
Now they look really nice physically and price is very reasonable but I can see switching things out for them. When I see onion rings it make me want to throw up. Cats eye is not so bad but obviously we need to see real testing. I'm not even going to look at the crap posted...Show more →
I only really see onion rings in one photo, the rest it's tough to see. Worth looking at the galleries.
Now, I know it's not getting the attention, the 65 looks REALLY nice. Dpreview's gallery has some real 'torture test' shots for background nastiness, intentional or not, and it handles them with aplomb. Clean bokeh, no doubling, no harsh outlining or onion rings. Well controlled CA. Circular bokeh balls if that's your thing. It looks to be very, very sharp.
Overall, it looks to be killer. I'll have to check out some more galleries and a review or two.
Dave Sanders wrote:
In the shot of the dog with the fence...as the OOF fence moves to the foreground, the bokeh gets harsher. Like I said, perhaps a bit of doubling?
The bokeh in the foreground gets a bit nervous. Now, that said, the first is not objectionable at all when looking at the overall photo and the 2nd is an extreme case and I doubt would ever show up in everyday photos. But something to look out for as more samples roll in.
Watched Dustin's review; that has left me feeling very nicely about this lens. Sharp, even at f/2. But there's a bump in contrast stopping down and I think when that happens, it always bodes well for wide open rendering of people. His samples reinforce my opinion that the onion rings are not particularly noticeable and the bokeh is really quite nice. ...Show more →
I don’t really see it in that dog photo, even though I’m looking for it where you say, but maybe I’m just missing it. In the upper left-hand corner we see this. I don’t think it’s doubling, just not massively extracted. I am actually pretty happy about the rendering thus far. There are some cat’s-eye, but it does look pretty reasonable to me, unless you want large front elements..
It’s all about reasonable trade-offs!!!
Thanks for the summary on Abbot’s video. That is encouraging.
I checked DPreview gallery and Sigma Global Special impression.
I like both 35mm and 65mm rendering actually. Cat eyes is disappointing but I don't expect they can get these right as size is priority. I haven't seen many lenses free of cat eyes problem. Onion ring is never a big issue for me as long as they are not aggressive.
I especially care 35mm rendering. Like many for 35mm, I don't need bokeh quantity but quality. More blur is not as important as smooth neutral rendering of scene. I think this sigma is at least as good as Nikon 35mm S in my eyes which is my 2nd favorite 35mm lens in term of rendering next to RX1. I don't need see more reviews myself to know this lens is a good buy. The Samples are enough for me to draw conclusion.
To my surprise, both are actually very high performance glasses. Cherry on top. It is so pity sigma FP doesn't have flip screen, otherwise FP with a few Contemporary glass is awesome setup for arm length shooting. Maybe get a S5 myself for that role, even I don't need a viewfinder
The 35mm F2 looks nice. If it came out 6 months ago I might have picked it up but for now I see no reason to replace the Sony F1.8 with it. In fact, while at the start the Sony was honestly overpriced the discounts it has received has really brought it in line with the other F1.8's. More and more I'm noticing that the Sony is growing on me and staying glued to my body for general purpose shooting. It's light, autofocuses quiet and confident in both photo and video, manually focuses extremely well too.
Now that 65mm.... That's interesting. I've always wanted to try the Voigtlander 65mm as my first camera was a Canon Rebel with 40mm F2.8 pancake. This is quite a similar focal length and I do kind of miss it.
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.
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.
In the shot of the dog with the fence...as the OOF fence moves to the foreground, the bokeh gets harsher. Like I said, perhaps a bit of doubling?
...
The bokeh in the foreground gets a bit nervous. Now, that said, the first is not objectionable at all when looking at the overall photo and the 2nd is an extreme case and I doubt would ever show up in everyday photos. But something to look out for as more samples roll in. ...Show more →
That's standard behavior for undercorrected SA. The 45/2.8 does that too. It is quite nasty for out-of-focus foregrounds. When Sigma says optimized for bokeh, they only mean out-of-focus backgrounds.
zhangyue wrote:
I checked DPreview gallery and Sigma Global Special impression.
I like both 35mm and 65mm rendering actually. Cat eyes is disappointing but I don't expect they can get these right as size is priority. I haven't seen many lenses free of cat eyes problem. Onion ring is never a big issue for me as long as they are not aggressive.
I especially care 35mm rendering. Like many for 35mm, I don't need bokeh quantity but quality. More blur is not as important as smooth neutral rendering of scene. I think this sigma is at least as good as Nikon 35mm S in my eyes which is my 2nd favorite 35mm lens in term of rendering next to RX1. I don't need see more reviews myself to know this lens is a good buy. The Samples are enough for me to draw conclusion.
To my surprise, both are actually very high performance glasses. Cherry on top. It is so pity sigma FP doesn't have flip screen, otherwise FP with a few Contemporary glass is awesome setup for arm length shooting. Maybe get a S5 myself for that role, even I don't need a viewfinder ...Show more →
It's early to say but from the images I've seen so far, I don't see that smooth transition zone the 45/2.8C is famous for, and that goes for both new 35mm and 65mm lenses. We should know more as more images emerge.
Having said that, they have pleasant rendering and I think they do better than the current options. Perhaps Sigma corrected SA a tad more for their faster f/2 lenses giving them higher resolution wide open, which could mean more accurate focus at close-distance. (less SA)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I don’t really see it in that dog photo, even though I’m looking for it where you say, but maybe I’m just missing it. In the upper left-hand corner we see this. I don’t think it’s doubling, just not massively extracted. I am actually pretty happy about the rendering thus far. There are some cat’s-eye, but it does look pretty reasonable to me, unless you want large front elements..
It’s all about reasonable trade-offs!!!
Thanks for the summary on Abbot’s video. That is encouraging.
Reasonable trade-offs, this is the key! Apart from looking pretty sharp, Dustin usually gives a nicely balanced view. His samples suggest, to me at least, that Sigma made a different set of tradeoffs with the 35 than they did with the 45 but that they're just as reasonable. It looks to be very sharp at f/2 over most of the frame; by f/5.6 it's sharp all the way to the corners. He says, apart from the 35/1.2, there aren't many lenses with better wide-open sharpness across the frame. High praise.
There's a nice contrast bump at f/2.8 and again at f/4 so I think we'll see a nice wide open rendering for people, sharp but not harsh. Focused at MFD it looks like there is some field curvature. Bokeh in his real-world shots looks very nice. I think they may have struck a nice balance here.
QuietOC wrote:
That's standard behavior for undercorrected SA. The 45/2.8 does that too. It is quite nasty for out-of-focus foregrounds. When Sigma says optimized for bokeh, they only mean out-of-focus backgrounds.
Yes, typically that's the case. I haven't noticed that with the 45, to be honest. I just took a few shots around the house with some heavy OOF foregrounds and there really isn't much objectionable there. I need to go outside for the dreaded 'blades of grass' or 'tree branches' test. A bright foreground may do it too.
In general, though, I'm unconcerned about how a lens does with complicated foreground bokeh. If I'm going to have something OOF in my foreground, usually it's fairly clean structurally. Everyone's usage varies, of course.
Dec 01, 2020 at 12:49 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Depending on how brave I'm feeling this Winter, I may attempt a DIY mod for a flip screen on my Sigma fp. Kolari posted pictures of the teardown when they did my UT conversion and it doesn't look like it would be impossible. I agree that it's really frustrating not to have on the fp.
zhangyue wrote:
I checked DPreview gallery and Sigma Global Special impression.
I like both 35mm and 65mm rendering actually. Cat eyes is disappointing but I don't expect they can get these right as size is priority. I haven't seen many lenses free of cat eyes problem. Onion ring is never a big issue for me as long as they are not aggressive.
I especially care 35mm rendering. Like many for 35mm, I don't need bokeh quantity but quality. More blur is not as important as smooth neutral rendering of scene. I think this sigma is at least as good as Nikon 35mm S in my eyes which is my 2nd favorite 35mm lens in term of rendering next to RX1. I don't need see more reviews myself to know this lens is a good buy. The Samples are enough for me to draw conclusion.
To my surprise, both are actually very high performance glasses. Cherry on top. It is so pity sigma FP doesn't have flip screen, otherwise FP with a few Contemporary glass is awesome setup for arm length shooting. Maybe get a S5 myself for that role, even I don't need a viewfinder ...Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's early to say but from the images I've seen so far, I don't see that smooth transition zone the 45/2.8C is famous for, and that goes for both new 35mm and 65mm lenses. We should know more as more images emerge.
Having said that, they have pleasant rendering and I think they do better than the current options. Perhaps Sigma corrected SA a tad more for their faster f/2 lenses giving them higher resolution wide open, which could mean more accurate focus at close-distance. (less SA)
THere is slightly trade off I can see in term of optic performance and rendering. If you look MTF of both glass, they are in another league compare to 45mm. 45mm has one of rare balance in modern glasses, it has little CA, minimal FC and consistent sharpness even with SA. however, it will never offer super crisp sharpness even stop down compare to other top glasses I have but I don't really need that for it.
For both 35mm and 65mm, they are tilt to the balance of more toward to raw optical performance, in the meantime, it keep relative good looking background. I especially like Sigma pay attention to LaCA and LoCA for their budget line. Nikon did the same thing on their f1.8 line where Sony fail to do (in my honest opinion for both 35 and 85), I just care this much more personally than onion ring or cat eyes, especially WO shooting, I hate those bokeh fringing in far away background such as mountain and horizon line etc...ZM35mm f1.4 is another strong offender here come to my mind. This is also the reason I am quite disappointed with Panasonic new 85mm f1.8. It is just not enough somehow. I always have doubt about that lens since I preorder it anyway but samples were not good enough, especially compare to Nikon f1.8S one, this really frustrated me. This make me instantly put down my hope of their f1.8 line actually.
I dont know others, but most glasses can turn me off just by viewing DPreview samples. I do see a few extreme corner nervousness in 35mm images, but I know where I should limit my expectation
What the heck is going on in photo 9 in the dpreview gallery?
The red speckled pattern I thought was the the building decal is some odd ghosting it looks like.
@zhangyue I agree 100% on bokeh quality vs. quantity. 35mm @f2 with a clean balanced rendering is great for me. This looks better than the Sony or Samyang (neither of which impresses me), so I’ll pre-order this.
The press release says it’s good for coma so it will make a very good option for me with the weather sealing, coma for astro and build and better flare resistance than the Sony and Samy. CA both axial and lateral look much better corrected as well.
The more I look, the more I like it. It’s not a draw that draws attention to itself, but one that appears balanced and transparent. I’d like a little more emphasis on rendering and less on correction, but this seems nice.
I wasn’t too impressed with the colors and contrast of the FE 35 or Samy. Very curious to process some files from this Sigma 35/2.
QuietOC wrote:
That's standard behavior for undercorrected SA. The 45/2.8 does that too. It is quite nasty for out-of-focus foregrounds. When Sigma says optimized for bokeh, they only mean out-of-focus backgrounds.
As far as I know, that's a physical property of spherical aberrations - their effect on bokeh inverses at the focal plane. If you under-correct you get pleasant background, and basically "over-corrected" foreground, and vice-versa over-corrected lenses have great foreground bokeh.
There are some illustrations of what SA does to point-light sources (over-correction causes "outlining" and under-correction almost STF-like smooth, gaussian blurred disks), it does the inverse on the opposite side of focal plane.
...
