zhangyue wrote:
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 ...Show more →
That's what I meant. They seem to have very good rendering (with solid axial CA correction) but transition zone is not quite as smooth compared to what the 45/2.8C offers. It looks like they have different trade-offs which can make a difference in images depending on distance and background complexity.
I agree that the 45/2.8 stopped down is excellent. (link)
One thing to note, that I missed initially and only realized when pointed out by Guy in one of his posts, is that these series is missing the function button. Out of the "Contemporary DG DN" series, only 100-400 has it...
j4nu wrote:
So far, it doesn't seem to be the holy grail everyone expected but the Sonnar also has some onion rings to it AFAIR...
Personally, I think I like the samples from dpr (from panasonic no less) more than SY35...
rhawidantas wrote:
To me the biggest shame is the sun stars. I was hoping something like Loxia/Voigtlander but its not even close.
I’d like that too, but I wasn’t hoping for it. Sigma have always prioritised roundness of bokeh balls (requires curved blades) over maximally defined stars (requires straight blades). Can’t have both, though the cv AL 50s mechanism gives a cunning compromise which is surely patented,
A usual people can't be happy. Nice compact lenses with very good performance, which will be able to take great images. But the focus is on flaws - but onion ring bokeh, but cats eye, but NFD bokeh, but mid zone bokeh, but ....
What do people expect? Otus like performance for 700 Euros in a small and light weight design? No aberrations but super smooth bokeh, no cats eyes, no onion ring bokeh? How is that gonna happening?
Whenever my expectations are too high I look at Albert Dros' Sony 16-35/4 images, made with a lens many think inferior to modern primes. These new lenses easily allow for fantastic images. Everything is a compromise.
Holger wrote:
A usual people can't be happy. Nice compact lenses with very good performance, which will be able to take great images. But the focus is on flaws - but onion ring bokeh, but cats eye, but NFD bokeh, but mid zone bokeh, but ....
What do people expect? Otus like performance for 700 Euros in a small and light weight design? No aberrations but super smooth bokeh, no cats eyes, no onion ring bokeh? How is that gonna happening?
Whenever my expectations are too high I look at Albert Dros' Sony 16-35/4 images, made with a lens many think inferior to modern primes. These new lenses easily allow for fantastic images. Everything is a compromise....Show more →
Well, I see it from a different side.
We now have (after years of drought ) 3 very similar AF compact semi-fast 35mm lenses. Pointing out those things is simply a way to differentiate between them and make informed choice easier. And then it comes down to personal preferences, e.g. for me MFD performance matters because I often take shots like that.
I don't think anyone's realistically disappointed that a small lens does not match the performance of Otus or Sigma f1.2 behemoth .
Mostly with @Holger on this one though. These lenses are fantastic, jewel like optics that will probably only be one-upped by lenses three times their price or maybe in 5-10 years some G-series replacement.
Holger wrote:
A usual people can't be happy. Nice compact lenses with very good performance, which will be able to take great images. But the focus is on flaws - but onion ring bokeh, but cats eye, but NFD bokeh, but mid zone bokeh, but ....
What do people expect? Otus like performance for 700 Euros in a small and light weight design? No aberrations but super smooth bokeh, no cats eyes, no onion ring bokeh? How is that gonna happening?
Whenever my expectations are too high I look at Albert Dros' Sony 16-35/4 images, made with a lens many think inferior to modern primes. These new lenses easily allow for fantastic images. Everything is a compromise....Show more →
Exactly, everything's a compromise. Isn't that why we tend to ponder and discuss the individual compromises and mull over them in detail? So we can choose the compromises and flaws we can live with, and avoid the ones we can't?
Just a different perspective...
Edit: Oh and I love my 45/2.8C, as well as what I'm seeing from these new ones. Trying to fit them in my lineup now, might switch out a few.
For images making, any of lenses will do. We are talking different thing here
It is highly personalized view point (especially considering preference regarding different flaws) with interesting discussion that make this hobby fun
Trades off they are for sure. I don’t expect this one get anywhere close to Sony’s 35mm f1.8 AFC performance. That could be a break or make point for many include pros I would say than rendering difference.
On the other hand, pick cat eyes or size/price, I am with this one.
twelveish wrote:
Exactly, everything's a compromise. Isn't that why we tend to ponder and discuss the individual compromises and mull over them in detail? So we can choose the compromises and flaws we can live with, and avoid the ones we can't?
Just a different perspective...
Edit: Oh and I love my 45/2.8C, as well as what I'm seeing from these new ones. Trying to fit them in my lineup now, might switch out a few.
Anxious as well. Until then, to get inspired, I brought out the 45/2.8C today on a walk with my favorite model. I was like, "here, can you stand in front of this impossibly busy background so I can try something?"
Sigma fp (Kolari UT Mod) and Sigma 45mm f/2.8 Contemporary. Click for larger and EXIF info, but these were mostly wide open.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2kcv1i3]
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm curious to see how the perform as well. Should get production models at the beginning of January.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Anxious as well. Until then, to get inspired, I brought out the 45/2.8C today on a walk with my favorite model. I was like, "here, can you stand in front of this impossibly busy background so I can try something?"
I'm afraid the 45/2.8C will be a lonely AF classic though. I don't think the new Series "I" lenses followed its mold.
From the samples presented today, I get the impression they were designed with resolution as main priority. On the bright side, this design choice will likely help with focusing accuracy since SA is better corrected.
Perhaps it was a good idea for Sigma as they can sell more lenses this way but I'm afraid they may disappoint those expecting a similar look to the 45/2.8C. The good news is that rendering seems neutral (not harsh) which is a plus compared to the competition.
.
