Seems to me the jury is still out on the 24 which is the closest to the 45. The samples looked pretty great in the Sigma link, but need more obviously.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Lovely samples!
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....Show more →
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Seems to me the jury is still out on the 24 which is the closest to the 45. The samples looked pretty great in the Sigma link, but need more obviously.
Love the rendering esp on your last photo. Good set, thanks for posting.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Seems to me the jury is still out on the 24 which is the closest to the 45. The samples looked pretty great in the Sigma link, but need more obviously.
I hope you are right and to be clear, I do think the new lenses have good rendering but I read somewhere (forgot the source) that they are all well corrected for aberrations. The MTF graphs shows high frequency resolution which seems to confirm that. So, just like the 35/2 and 65/2, I don't think the 24/3.5 will be under corrected for SA either.
Edit: Found it. It was from Sigma's CEO himself: (The link jumps to 22:39 min)
?t=1359
bjornthun wrote:
I wouldn’t care about the marketing labels (alphabet and letter soup) from Sony, Nikon, Canon, Sigma etc at all. Look at focal length, aperture and price instead. That’s much less confusing than pure marketing label nonsense.
That's certainly the way you have to evaluate Sony, because lines are just marketing and pricing. They've gotten better with physical consistency in their lines, but the optical quality still diverges quite a bit. Look at the expectations around the rumored GM 35. Will it be a solid, high-performing all-arounder like the 24? A beautifully flawed design like the 85? A resolution monster like the 135? Or will it be its own unique snowflake? Those are the kinds of questions your audience asks when your design philosophy is more per-lens than per-line, and I'm not putting them down for it. There are some truly impressive snowflakes out there with Sony's brand.
I'm not saying all S lenses are designed equally, but they are more similar than different, particularly in the f/1.8 primes, because they all make roughly the same compromises to achieve their design goals. The downside to that consistency is that it tends to melt snowflakes before they fully form. You get uniformly strong performers with no real stand-outs, but, if you use and like one of them, you won't have to ask yourself if the IQ and behavior is going to be substantially different with one of the others. Some shooters are attracted to that level of consistency.
The best thing about these lenses in my opinion is their build quality. They also look gorgeous. I almost bought the 45mm for these reasons, but the F2.8 and 45mm tamed my GAS a bit. Now I think I will get the 35mm unless the GM rumors are confirmed. The new Sigma 35mm f2 seems good enough though. Small, well-built, sharp, good autofocus, decent color rendition, not very bad bokeh... I think it's a good option. For me, it replaces both the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Loxia 35mm.
freaklikeme wrote:
That's certainly the way you have to evaluate Sony, because lines are just marketing and pricing. They've gotten better with physical consistency in their lines, but the optical quality still diverges quite a bit. Look at the expectations around the rumored GM 35. Will it be a solid, high-performing all-arounder like the 24? A beautifully flawed design like the 85? A resolution monster like the 135? Or will it be its own unique snowflake? Those are the kinds of questions your audience asks when your design philosophy is more per-lens than per-line, and I'm not putting them down for it. There are some truly impressive snowflakes out there with Sony's brand.
I'm not saying all S lenses are designed equally, but they are more similar than different, particularly in the f/1.8 primes, because they all make roughly the same compromises to achieve their design goals. The downside to that consistency is that it tends to melt snowflakes before they fully form. You get uniformly strong performers with no real stand-outs, but, if you use and like one of them, you won't have to ask yourself if the IQ and behavior is going to be substantially different with one of the others. Some shooters are attracted to that level of consistency....Show more →
I fully agree with you about Nikon F1.8S line. That is the hardest part for me to part with Z system. Especially for 35 and 85 even 50 get the best reputation. To achieve similar performance of 85S,(AF glasses) I have to pay top dollar up to Leica level. The new Panasonic f1.8 certainly is not that.
Canon's 35 and 85 are quite good but Bokeh of 35 really turn me off and 85mm is huge with different ergo, size and price level. It is just confusing to build a set upon.
Go back to topic.
I see may start thinking Bokeh is not that special about both sigma. I don't think so at all. We underestimate the achievement here, especially 35mm. In this focal land, I don't really see any glasses are really special until RX1 and later Nikon's 35S at much larger size but less quality (Leica SL cron is out of reach for most people).
People praise about bokeh of 45 Sigma include me, but for me the most special about that lens is also happen to be "neutral", it just do its job and never really draw attention on background under wide range of user cases. (there is nothing exciting or unpredictable) I see exact same treat here but a little more definition with a little more lively bokeh at the same time. Many would think that is granted and easy to achieve, maybe, but I actually think it was not a easy achievement for given size and price level considering so few modern glasses behaved like that. (Nikon 58G come to mind) A set of trade off and balance show good taste of designer.
I like the DPreview samples (of course not artistic level) much more than Sigma website show as lots of samples from sigma's impression link were under heavy processed, contrast is too high to my taste to judge rendering or color quality already. It kills the tone and smooth rendering I personally value.
Finger crossed, the least worry for me now are technical quality of both and I am sure both will be top notch. Render wise, I think many glasses will fail in those DPreview samples scenarios already in my book so I look forward to receive them. I have to admit size and build are huge selling point for me. If they are as big as 35mm f1.2, I already shut up even that one has awesome bokeh. The same reason I like 45 so much. This is a good set to build for AF and travelling for me. Sigma is killing it that I become a fan formally
freaklikeme wrote:
That's certainly the way you have to evaluate Sony, because lines are just marketing and pricing. They've gotten better with physical consistency in their lines, but the optical quality still diverges quite a bit. Look at the expectations around the rumored GM 35. Will it be a solid, high-performing all-arounder like the 24? A beautifully flawed design like the 85? A resolution monster like the 135? Or will it be its own unique snowflake? Those are the kinds of questions your audience asks when your design philosophy is more per-lens than per-line, and I'm not putting them down for it. There are some truly impressive snowflakes out there with Sony's brand.
I'm not saying all S lenses are designed equally, but they are more similar than different, particularly in the f/1.8 primes, because they all make roughly the same compromises to achieve their design goals. The downside to that consistency is that it tends to melt snowflakes before they fully form. You get uniformly strong performers with no real stand-outs, but, if you use and like one of them, you won't have to ask yourself if the IQ and behavior is going to be substantially different with one of the others. Some shooters are attracted to that level of consistency....Show more →
Exactly, those "consistent" qualities seem to be appealing to "some" shooters, but not others. I happen to like what Sony has been doing with their GM, only maybe I wish they compromise the GM 135 a bit to be similar to the GM 85. The GM 24 is very close to the GM 85 in the design goals. The only difference to me is that Sony had tightened the coma performance even more to fit the intended use of this focal length. And that's why I really like how Sony is flexible with the design goals for different focal lengths, instead of doing one set goal for all. Some will like the Nikon/Panasonic/Leica approach in making lenses in the same tiers to be similar in sizes (mainly for cost and QC), but I personally prefer what Sony/Canon/Sigma are doing with the various shapes/sizes and even IQ to fit the intended purposes (lower weight as a result). These are not cine lenses so I don't really see the need for a consistent shape (more confusing in a bag IMO). I'm happy with snowflakes I need in the Sony line-up and to a greater extent, other snowflakes from Sigma/CV. And if you look back to the Nikon F-mount line-up, this cookie cutter approach is also new to Nikon. I wouldn't say the G 58/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4 and 105/1.4 are similar in rendering. Different strokes for different folks of course.
With that said, I hope the Sigma 35/2 will be closer to their 45 in rendering, just cause we already have a sharp Sony 35/1.8 with okay rendering. Us Sony shooters do need someone to step up to make something like the Sonnar 35/2.
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 →
Yes, how dare we point out issues with expensive 'premium' items that companies want us to buy, how inconsiderate of us.
Honestly what a valueless thing to say that adds nothing to the conversation. I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but positions like these are just dumb. People have every right to critique or not buy a product that other people are trying to sell them. Honestly it's how these companies improve.
hiepphotog wrote:
Exactly, those "consistent" qualities seem to be appealing to "some" shooters, but not others. I happen to like what Sony has been doing with their GM, only maybe I wish they compromise the GM 135 a bit to be similar to the GM 85. The GM 24 is very close to the GM 85 in the design goals. The only difference to me is that Sony had tightened the coma performance even more to fit the intended use of this focal length. And that's why I really like how Sony is flexible with the design goals for different focal lengths, instead of doing one set goal for all. Some will like the Nikon/Panasonic/Leica approach in making lenses in the same tiers to be similar in sizes (mainly for cost and QC), but I personally prefer what Sony/Canon/Sigma are doing with the various shapes/sizes and even IQ to fit the intended purposes (lower weight as a result). These are not cine lenses so I don't really see the need for a consistent shape (more confusing in a bag IMO). I'm happy with snowflakes I need in the Sony line-up and to a greater extent, other snowflakes from Sigma/CV. And if you look back to the Nikon F-mount line-up, this cookie cutter approach is also new to Nikon. I wouldn't say the G 58/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4 and 105/1.4 are similar in rendering. Different strokes for different folks of course.
With that said, I hope the Sigma 35/2 will be closer to their 45 in rendering, just cause we already have a sharp Sony 35/1.8 with okay rendering. Us Sony shooters do need someone to step up to make something like the Sonnar 35/2....Show more →
I have to say there is nothing wrong with three Sony GM set. I think those three are top in their individual focal in my book. They have consistent build, high quality glass and rendering, though I think AF motor may favor later 24 and 135 more than 85. But Sony's 85 gm is the one I like most out of all 85mm out there even I never used one. I think with time passing by, 35 and 50 gm will complete the set. It is good idea to phase out their 50mm and 35mm f1.4 that are two outlier even 50 is awesome in its own way but just too different build and rendering.
And they have a clear design goal for their 35 and 85 f1.8. I am not a fan but have to admit they both are great tool for Pro. and then, there are another one 35mm f2.8 and 55mm f1.8
Nikon actually have a uniform design goal for their f1.4 pro line. 35mm, 58mm, 85mm and new 105mm are all from the same design goal actually,(I believe 35, 58 and 105 are from the same designer) though I have to say only 58mm is really shine in my view as there is nothing like that in modern glasses. It also happen to have a balance set of trade off with lovely size and weight. 105mm may be as good or better but I don't like huge size and AF for that focal.
Canon's L ring glasses are also fairly consistent I have to say no matter is from their old EF line or new RF line. Their new budget line of 35 and 85 are not totally convince me, but as you said it may indeed personal on this approach.
I like SL line or Pansonic f1.8 line idea but wish Panasonic can put extra effort for their f1.8 line.
Last, I wouldn't put sigma into Sony camp. this sigma I-seres is really a quite consistent set.
Teo Rey wrote:
Yes, how dare we point out issues with expensive 'premium' items that companies want us to buy, how inconsiderate of us.
Honestly what a valueless thing to say that adds nothing to the conversation. I'm sure you're not a stupid person, but positions like these are just dumb. People have every right to critique or not buy a product that other people are trying to sell them. Honestly it's how these companies improve.
I saw nothing out of line with what Holger said. Nothing that warrants such a harsh dismissal of his post.
What I took from their quote was that people need to keep their expectations in check when salivating over these new compact lenses. You can’t expect these lenses to perform with optic perfection considering the price point versus other offerings. If you want premium, then you’ll have to pay premium.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I saw nothing out of line with what Holger said. Nothing that warrants such a harsh dismissal of his post.
What I took from their quote was that people need to keep their expectations in check when salivating over these new compact lenses. You can’t expect these lenses to perform with optic perfection considering the price point versus other offerings. If you want premium, then you’ll have to pay premium.
That's fine, and to be fair it's always possible I misinterpreted Holger's statement to be more like the fanboys I see on places like SAR, which is why it felt so out of place here. Nothing wrong with keeping expectations in check, I just don't think anybody should take issue with critiquing the flaws of a commercial product, or how people go about making those critiques. Frankly, that kind of attitude is anti-consumer and just silly. If that's not what he was saying then I apologize, it's just a stance I feel very strongly about.
I already made a similar comment in the thread for the A7C - I would love to see a comparison of the 35/2 with the 24/1.4 GM on an APSC Body. I currently use either A6400 with the 24/1.4 GM when it has to be light or A7III with 35 1.4 ZA and small Sony Grip Extender (I can't stress enough how good that is for those heavier primes) when I need the DOF and light gathering capabilities of that FF sensor. Shooting mostly family and kids with that FL.
Now my question would be what would be the benefits of moving my lightweight setup to an A7C and the 35/2 from Sigma? My GAS itch would be scratched for some time, but I guess other than that the images I would get would be pretty similar, maybe the rendering of OOF backgrounds would be even a bit nicer on the A6400/24 GM combo.
I guess I'll wait until the 35 1.4 GM is announced and then (if it is better and smaller/lighter than my excellent copy of the 35 1.4 ZA ... (duckandcover) ) change the bigger prime, but keep the a6400/24GM as my lightweight 35FF equiv setup.
I wouldn't be too concerned about the occasional photo showing a slight hint of texture or onion ring in the bokeh highlights of the 35mm: every element in a lens has tolerances - including the polishing of individual elements, which means it will be just another variable within the gamut of sample variation; so, some lens samples might show a bit, others none at all. If you get a copy with a noticeable amount, swapping it for another often solves the problem.
As for cats eyes, well, unless you want to increase the diameter of the lens, this is rather unavoidable.
Looking at the reviews from people I trust (sorry DpReview that doesn't include you when it comes to lenses), I'd say Sigma has got the balance just about right with these new lenses. Interestingly, on Sigma's global website, it's only the 24mm where Sigma specifically calls out the bokeh quality of the lens: it may turn out that, contrary to everyone's expectations, the 24mm is the spiritual twin of the 45mm, although I'd agree with Fred, that the wide-open MTF of the 24mm wouldn't necessarily suggest that.
But the 45 showed a similar MTF from what you posted above, and is sorta well corrected down a stop. Not picking a fight, just won't let you kill my hope!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I hope you are right and to be clear, I do think the new lenses have good rendering but I read somewhere (forgot the source) that they are all well corrected for aberrations. The MTF graphs shows high frequency resolution which seems to confirm that. So, just like the 35/2 and 65/2, I don't think the 24/3.5 will be under corrected for SA either.
Edit: Found it. It was from Sigma's CEO himself: (The link jumps to 22:39 min)
?t=1359
Flaxx74 wrote:
I already made a similar comment in the thread for the A7C - I would love to see a comparison of the 35/2 with the 24/1.4 GM on an APSC Body. I currently use either A6400 with the 24/1.4 GM when it has to be light or A7III with 35 1.4 ZA and small Sony Grip Extender (I can't stress enough how good that is for those heavier primes) when I need the DOF and light gathering capabilities of that FF sensor. Shooting mostly family and kids with that FL.
Now my question would be what would be the benefits of moving my lightweight setup to an A7C and the 35/2 from Sigma? My GAS itch would be scratched for some time, but I guess other than that the images I would get would be pretty similar, maybe the rendering of OOF backgrounds would be even a bit nicer on the A6400/24 GM combo.
I guess I'll wait until the 35 1.4 GM is announced and then (if it is better and smaller/lighter than my excellent copy of the 35 1.4 ZA ... (duckandcover) ) change the bigger prime, but keep the a6400/24GM as my lightweight 35FF equiv setup.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
But the 45 showed a similar MTF from what you posted above, and is sorta well corrected down a stop. Not picking a fight, just won't let you kill my hope!
The 45/2.8 C has lower MTF than the other three new I-series lenses, 24/3.5 C, 35/2 C and 65/2 C. This even though all MTFs are given for maximum aperture only and the 45/2.8 C is a normal lens and the next slowest of the four. Even the 24/3.5 has a better MTF than the 45/2.8. The 65/2 has a particularly strong MTF competing with the Sony and Zeiss 85/1.8 lenses. There has to be a reason why the 45/2.8 C has a lower MTF than the other three I-series lenses and undercorrected spherical abberation might be it.
bjornthun wrote:
The 45/2.8 C has lower MTF than the other three new I-series lenses, 24/3.5 C, 35/2 C and 65/2 C. This even though all MTFs are given for maximum aperture only and the 45/2.8 C is a normal lens and the next slowest of the four. Even the 24/3.5 has a better MTF than the 45/2.8. The 65/2 has a particularly strong MTF competing with the Sony and Zeiss 85/1.8 lenses. There has to be a reason why the 45/2.8 C has a lower MTF than the other three I-series lenses and undercorrected spherical abberation might be it.
Maybe it was designed for subjects that are too sharp for a modern sensor.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I saw nothing out of line with what Holger said. Nothing that warrants such a harsh dismissal of his post.
What I took from their quote was that people need to keep their expectations in check when salivating over these new compact lenses. You can’t expect these lenses to perform with optic perfection considering the price point versus other offerings. If you want premium, then you’ll have to pay premium.
On point...both you and Holger.
It's a similar phenomena to the a7c. A compact iteration of camera gear is always going to involve compromises...its unrealistic to hold smaller/cheaper gear to the same technical standard of big expensive gear. The physics are what they are, so compromises have to be made. The thing is with regards to the process of actually shooting photographs, pure technical perfection isn't always the priority. Sometimes the process of shooting and carrying gear are a priority. The best camera is the one you have with you, and carrying large equipment isn't always practical. So you compromise where you can, and realistically, the technical compromises rarely inhibit the ability to produce great photos. My Sigma 35 1.2 has its place, but when shooting casually, I'd rather deal with the occasional onion ring bokeh than lug that thing around.
Lots of comparisons to the Sonnar 35F2 and 24GM. Need to temper expectations here too....The Sonnar is larger than it looks because the rear elements extend into the body and is basically mounted flush against the sensor...can't do that with an ILC. 24GM is quite a bit larger than the Sigma 35 F2....a lot of unutilized glass and sensor area if you're buying that lens purely to shoot in crop mode.
Size comparison between Loxia 21 (roughly the same size as the Sigma 25 F2/FE 35 1.8) 24GM, and 35 1.4ZA
, but the F2.8 and 45mm tamed my GAS a bit. Now I think I will get the 35mm unless the GM rumors are confirmed. The new Sigma 35mm f2 seems good enough though. Small, well-built, sharp, good autofocus, decent color rendition, not very bad bokeh... I think it's a good option. For me, it replaces both the Sony 35mm f1.8 and the Loxia 35mm. 
... (duckandcover) ) change the bigger prime, but keep the a6400/24GM as my lightweight 35FF equiv setup. 