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.
Add me to the 'impressed' list too. It looks really good. Really sharp and the rendering and bokeh look very nice. Perhaps not 45 or 100STF level, but what is? Looks like Sigma made few compromises, and the ones they made appear very sensible.
Maybe I need a '2021 has to be better than 2020' present...
Teo Rey wrote:
Anyone know of any good galleries for the 65? I just wanna see some full body portraits at f2.
I think this lens looks really, really good. Not full body, but I think this portrait from DPReview looks great, even at f/2.8. Very sharp and nice handling of a bright background that's close to the subject:
Think this set might be the impetus to retire my 40 CF. I'm in no rush, really: while the Sigma's optical advantages are apparent, they aren't a huge step up from the 40 for me at least. However, this I-series is kind of exactly what I've been looking for in terms of size, functionality, optics, etc... aka top-quality 35mm lenses at an aps-c size—especially when paired with an α7C (or maybe I wait for the C II).
The only bee in my bonnet is sealing, which... well, in the unlikely event that Sony continues to populate their G-series of 1.8 primes I might choose that path instead—but Sigma will certainly be more compact.
I'm really pulling for a 65 with great rendering, we'll see.
Regarding sunstars...to me they're subjective to a photograph just like long-exposure stuff (waterfalls, panning shots), bokeh, and even merging multiple exposures together to create an image. Each person is going to have a different take on what makes an image "pop". For me I like the kind of sunstars CV's produce, but I'd never tell someone who didn't like them they they were wrong, everyone just has different opinions.
I actually could see getting 1-2 lenses that specifically did *not* make sunstars but were otherwise top primes. Sunstars add sparkle that is from time to time a welcome factor in the image, but like anything else can be overdone. I'd like to have the choice. Here's an example I've posted here before, taken using the CV 21/3.5 I like the image, but sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the image with equal clarity but with a more accurate** and less theatrical feel (e.g. as someone taking this image with a speed graphic would have gotten in 1955).
** I say accurate because technically speaking, an aberration is a deviation from the diffraction limited point spread function (i.e. the image of a point source), so a sunstar is a major-league aberration...
photonoclast wrote:
I actually could see getting 1-2 lenses that specifically did *not* make sunstars but were otherwise top primes. Sunstars add sparkle that is from time to time a welcome factor in the image, but like anything else can be overdone. I'd like to have the choice. Here's an example I've posted here before, taken using the CV 21/3.5 I like the image, but sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the image with equal clarity but with a more accurate** and less theatrical feel (e.g. as someone taking this image with a speed graphic would have gotten in 1955).
** I say accurate because technically speaking, an aberration is a deviation from the diffraction limited point spread function (i.e. the image of a point source), so a sunstar is a major-league aberration......Show more →
A good example where sunstars distract from the image, IMHO.
photonoclast wrote:
I actually could see getting 1-2 lenses that specifically did *not* make sunstars but were otherwise top primes. Sunstars add sparkle that is from time to time a welcome factor in the image, but like anything else can be overdone. I'd like to have the choice. Here's an example I've posted here before, taken using the CV 21/3.5 I like the image, but sometimes I think I'd prefer to have the image with equal clarity but with a more accurate** and less theatrical feel (e.g. as someone taking this image with a speed graphic would have gotten in 1955).
** I say accurate because technically speaking, an aberration is a deviation from the diffraction limited point spread function (i.e. the image of a point source), so a sunstar is a major-league aberration......Show more →
Will do & thanks for the tip!
But, in the end I suspect my decision whether to go with 1-2 of these new sigmas will actually hinge on this very question. Cheers!
photonoclast wrote:
Will do & thanks for the tip!
But, in the end I suspect my decision whether to go with 1-2 of these new sigmas will actually hinge on this very question. Cheers!
You would have to stop it down to f/16-22 for defined sunstars. (18-points)
It looks like dpreview posted a new gallery for the Sigma 65/2 DG DN. (Or at least more images on it)
I remember when I switched to Sony in 2013, and had two lenses to choose from. Now 7 years later, almost to the month, the options are almost dizzying.
65 will have higher performance especially in CA department.
Rendering will be similar as I feel Sony 55 is quite good but 65 will obviously offer more blur. Sony is way smaller though.
Today, I checked a few new samples from Sigma official WeChat channel in Chinese. In additional to confirm my initial impression for both f2 ones. I have to say rendering wise, 24mm is truly a 45mm twin. No wonder Sigma pay more attention to describe its bokeh than other two. This looks like a minor split within the I-group. Small, classic rendering slow piece and two faster more versatile ones. I won’t complain either though.
This is not a good situation, I might have to get 24mm as well. 225g. Waist level shooting
goldb wrote:
Anyone seen a comparison of the 65 with the Zony 55? Or any educated opinions? Looks to be fairly competitive.
zhangyue wrote:
65 will have higher performance especially in CA department.
Rendering will be similar as I feel Sony 55 is quite good but 65 will obviously offer more blur. Sony is way smaller though.
Today, I checked a few new samples from Sigma official WeChat channel in Chinese. In additional to confirm my initial impression for both f2 ones. I have to say rendering wise, 24mm is truly a 45mm twin. No wonder Sigma pay more attention to describe its bokeh than other two. This looks like a minor split within the I-group. Small, classic rendering slow piece and two faster more versatile ones. I won’t complain either though.
This is not a good situation, I might have to get 24mm as well. 225g. Waist level shooting
goldb wrote:
Anyone seen a comparison of the 65 with the Zony 55? Or any educated opinions? Looks to be fairly competitive.
The Zony has a lot of cat’s eye and a little swirl in the bokeh, where this new Sigma looks more controlled with less deterioration and uniform from the sample galleries so far.
And the 55 AF is superbly fast—I used it with great results tracking dogs at 10-20 FPS on the a9, so that 55 will probably be quicker.
But the non-linear fly-by-wire MF implementation is awful, so the Sigma should win there.
Between the better CA control, in the more abstracted and uniform bokeh, the Sigma looks to have the more neutral draw from what I can tell. I would be very surprised if sharpness is appreciably different. Both can keep up with the best of them.
goldb wrote:
Anyone seen a comparison of the 65 with the Zony 55? Or any educated opinions? Looks to be fairly competitive.
The 65/2 will have a narrower field of view and it's capable of more blur at same distance. It's way better corrected for axial CA and from the samples I've seen it has higher contrast and rounder specular highlights towards the corners (less swirling bokeh) compared to the Zony.
One the complains about the 55/1.8 ZA is the non-linear focus by wire implementation while the Sigma's FBW is as good as the latest GM lenses.
Here is the difference in field of view (55 vs 65mm):
