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!
If the 24/3.5 has that amazing MTF performance and renders like the 45/2.8, it will be an instant buy for me. However, realistically, I don't see how Sigma can accomplish this feat. I think they prioritized resolution for the new lenses.
Like you, I still have hope and will review all three lenses.
I'm probably closer to buying a 45/2.8C than the 35/2 after the samples have come out. Will patiently wait for reviews, but I'm not getting the same kind of feel as I did when I first saw mobile samples from the 24 GM, 45/2.8C, CV 40, Sigma 35/1.2.
Ready for the 35/1.4 GM next! My CV 40 sleeps easy tonight.
akashyap wrote:
I'm probably closer to buying a 45/2.8C than the 35/2 after the samples have come out. Will patiently wait for reviews, but I'm not getting the same kind of feel as I did when I first saw mobile samples from the 24 GM, 45/2.8C, CV 40, Sigma 35/1.2.
Ready for the 35/1.4 GM next! My CV 40 sleeps easy tonight.
Rendering dream set with AF:
24/1.4 GM, Sigma 45/2.8 C, 85/1.4 GM and 135/1.8 "ZA". However, it's not very compact.
Then you'll do great with the 65. Seems it doesn't not have the wide open glow of the Loxia.
That is if you can enjoy the FL difference.
50 is one of my least used FLs. It's a weird gaping between 35 and 70 to me.
The new Sigmas would be amazing Loxia replacements due to their build quality,iq and size. Sun stars sadly not included.
Chaliel wrote:
That's exactly what I do not like of my Loxia 50mm, the sunstars.
I do not want to see those publicity fake Christmas stars on my photos!
I see well controlled CA (both lateral and axial), nice rendering (not harsh, although not very smooth at transition zone) and high resolution from wide open with some improvement at f/2.8.
Rendering is more pleasant for the background compared to the foreground.
These samples do not seem to be heavily processed and rendering seems much better with lower contrast compared to the ones on Sigma's blog and other reviews. It's worth a look.
I see well controlled CA (both lateral and axial), nice rendering (not harsh, although not very smooth at transition zone) and high resolution from wide open with some improvement at f/2.8.
Rendering is more pleasant for the background compared to the foreground.
These samples do not seem to be heavily processed and rendering seems much better with lower contrast compared to the ones on Sigma's blog and other reviews. It's worth a look....Show more →
Honestly, at this price and build, and compared to the competition, I am pretty impressed. Looks better compared to the Sony and Samy than I was thinking after looking at this review. I think Sigma will sell a ton of these.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Honestly, at this price and build, and compared to the competition, I am pretty impressed. Looks better compared to the Sony and Samy than I was thinking after looking at this review. I think Sigma will sell a ton of these.
Same here. It's not a small difference. Compared to the Sony, it wins on CA correction and rendering, especially towards the corners. Much lower coma and astigmatism as well.
Chaliel wrote:
That's exactly what I do not like of my Loxia 50mm, the sunstars.
I do not want to see those publicity fake Christmas stars on my photos!
Lol. I think we're in the minority here, but I'm the same. Like, get out of my picture, you attention-seeking, eye-grabbing distraction! Not for me. It's actually my least favorite thing about my CV40/1.2. Rounded blades, always.
akashyap wrote:
I'm probably closer to buying a 45/2.8C than the 35/2 after the samples have come out. ...
The 45C is larger and heavier than a classic 45/2.8 SLR pancake, let alone a film-era RF prime like the Elmar 50/2.8. However, the Siggy is a Goldilocks fit for my A7ii that means I can sling it on my shoulder and forget it's there. The 24C looks to offer the same experience. Meanwhile, the 35C and 65C are moving into another weight class, in part from a faster aperture. I would have preferred f/2.8 to form a stronger identity for this new "I" class—smaller is better. In this regard, Nikon has shown how to do it the wrong way with their 35/1.8 S: performance over all other considerations is not that interesting to me.
Personally, I prefer lenses that when you stop down to f8-f11 produce nice sunstars but not when used at wider apertures, like the Sony 16-35mm f2.8. That way you can choose.
Chaliel wrote:
That's exactly what I do not like of my Loxia 50mm, the sunstars.
I do not want to see those publicity fake Christmas stars on my photos!
Lol. I think we're in the minority here, but I'm the same. Like, get out of my picture, you attention-seeking, eye-grabbing distraction! Not for me. It's actually my least favorite thing about my CV40/1.2. Rounded blades, always.
httivals wrote:
Personally, I prefer lenses that when you stop down to f8-f11 produce nice sunstars but not when used at wider apertures, like the Sony 16-35mm f2.8. That way you can choose.
Chaliel wrote:
That's exactly what I do not like of my Loxia 50mm, the sunstars.
I do not want to see those publicity fake Christmas stars on my photos!
Lol. I think we're in the minority here, but I'm the same. Like, get out of my picture, you attention-seeking, eye-grabbing distraction! Not for me. It's actually my least favorite thing about my CV40/1.2. Rounded blades, always.
Yes, I don't have this fascination with sun stars as well...to me they are much like flare which can ruin a photo.
When I switched to CV50/1.2SE from CV40/1.2 I noticed it is a lot harder to provoke sunstars with the 50. Sometimes I miss the way 40 rendered them (maybe even too easily?). But I'm really happy now with the CV50. It is here to stay.
As for the Sigmas... I really, really like what I see from the reviews and samples so far. I almost just got the CV21/3.5 (as well as CV35/1.2) again but this Sigma 24mm gaps better my 50/1.2. I love how close it can focus and I bet IQ will be more than good enough for me. I think I will rebuild my af kit from these new I-lenses. I am real sucker for beautiful all-metal build quality. And they seem to render rather nice. I was already happy with the new Samyang 35/1.8 but this new 35/2 beats it in every regard. If just for the aperture ring, it is a must have for me.
The 65 is harder for me to justify as I will never, ever get rid of my CV50. But might get it as well to pair up with the 35, making quite a dream duo with similar rendering and look. And it fits nice just between my beloved Sigma 105mm and the 35 (currently Samyang but will be swapped frot the Sigma).
rhawidantas wrote:
To me the biggest shame is the sun stars. I was hoping something like Loxia/Voigtlander but its not even close.
One of the most beautiful phrases in the world: “rounded diaphragm”.
Accordingly, the lack of sunstars is one more among many compelling reasons to add all three of the Sigma I lenses to the 45/2.8 which has become one of my favourites. And it’s encouraging to see in this thread that the anti-sunstar faction is growing steadily larger.
