The 55 is a great all round lens but it can be produce unpredictable results. It was a hot design (lots of asph elements in a 2013 near-normal was not usual fare. They had to do it to reduce the size and the small elements can be moved very quickly. It's a little insipid wide open and that is where the other biggie resides - the speculars are often ringed, and some on axis surfaces bounce a lot of green/magenta off in a sometimes serious way. Colours don't always respond well in post.
It's great stopped down to f3.2 and makes a very sound 'detailed image lens' at f8-f11. Bokeh blur is like a veiled 'wall', so objects 5m away can look like those 30m away, the same effect. Skin tones are often a little heated if the light is iffy, hard to fix. Hair in daylight is a real problem, for LoCA.
I like what I see in the Sigma 65/2. Very settled neutral tones and palette, lot of gradation adjacent to neutral tones; very well-behaved in what is seen so far. It's more polished and has some style, not often seen in lenses with very high aberration control.
They have figured out it's best not to push ultra acutance for this kind of lens (like CV has) and it lets the subject shine through - the new 'rounded sharpness' school, you could call it. It's $700, the 55mm is $900. It would still be desirable if the prices were reversed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
Remember Fred that this is the focal plane MTF, which does not necessarily represent the defocus MTF i.e. the MTF away from the focal plane.
Also, the slower f3.5 aperture of the 24mm lens will make its wide-open MTF higher: so the 45mm might have just as high focal-plane MTF as the 24mm - when stopped down to f3.5, and that doesn't adversely affect its rendering
I was thinking about replacing my 35mm 2.8 but I do not shoot at that focal length often. However the 65mm 2.0 really seems nice from the examples here so I think that is the one I will order. Thanks guys for the links and examples.
philip_pj wrote:
The 55 is a great all round lens but it can be produce unpredictable results. It was a hot design (lots of asph elements in a 2013 near-normal was not usual fare. They had to do it to reduce the size and the small elements can be moved very quickly. It's a little insipid wide open and that is where the other biggie resides - the speculars are often ringed, and some on axis surfaces bounce a lot of green/magenta off in a sometimes serious way. Colours don't always respond well in post.
It's great stopped down to f3.2 and makes a very sound 'detailed image lens' at f8-f11. Bokeh blur is like a veiled 'wall', so objects 5m away can look like those 30m away, the same effect. Skin tones are often a little heated if the light is iffy, hard to fix. Hair in daylight is a real problem, for LoCA.
I like what I see in the Sigma 65/2. Very settled neutral tones and palette, lot of gradation adjacent to neutral tones; very well-behaved in what is seen so far. It's more polished and has some style, not often seen in lenses with very high aberration control.
They have figured out it's best not to push ultra acutance for this kind of lens (like CV has) and it lets the subject shine through - the new 'rounded sharpness' school, you could call it. It's $700, the 55mm is $900. It would still be desirable if the prices were reversed.
Thanks for the feedback all. I wonder how the autofocus will compare. In the reviews it looks a little slow compared to the zippy 55mm. I mainly use for fast moving kiddos, so the autofocus might be a serious fly in the ointment. Fingers crossed though because the 55 bokeh, as you say, is not always my favorite.
No matter how good the 65 may be, I can’t picture a scenario where I would say, “Yes! A 65mm would be perfect for this.” 65mm is neither fish nor fowl.
I love to shoot 50mm since it can work as a normal, mild wide, or mild telephoto when cropped. Same with 35mm. I can see way more uses for 24/35/50 than a 65mm. Am I alone in thinking this?
mudlake wrote:
No matter how good the 65 may be, I can’t picture a scenario where I would say, “Yes! A 65mm would be perfect for this.” 65mm is neither fish nor fowl.
I love to shoot 50mm since it can work as a normal, mild wide, or mild telephoto when cropped. Same with 35mm. I can see way more uses for 24/35/50 than a 65mm. Am I alone in thinking this?
The 65/2 Voigtlander macro is, IMO, the ultimate hiking lens. The macro functionality has a lot to do with this.
I'm hoping that the Sigma 65/2 will serve as a smaller, lighter 85-ish stand-in for times when the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN is too heavy.
Yes. The Sigma 65mm f/2 beats the CV 65 f/2 in reduced size (2.8"x3.0" to 3.07"x3.59") and weight (405g to 625g) and has similar build quality. But I would guess the CV 65 has better IQ overall, although one might argue that they are lenses for distinctly different purposes.
Hmm, so looking at the onion ring torture test (35mm):
?t=430
it looks completely acceptable .
I think I was led astray a bit by the initial comments regarding this...
As for 65mm, I think CV will win in ultimate sharpness throughout the frame and correction but it's not known for its rendering (can be a bit harsh if you move from blur to bokeh ), which I think is where Sigma will triumph . With close focusing 65mm @ f2 it's quite easy to get enough blur though, so might be a tough decision which one to pick.
We live in wonderful times (as Sony e-mount shooters) ...
smpetty wrote:
The 65/2 Voigtlander macro is, IMO, the ultimate hiking lens. The macro functionality has a lot to do with this.
I'm hoping that the Sigma 65/2 will serve as a smaller, lighter 85-ish stand-in for times when the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN is too heavy.
mudlake wrote:
No matter how good the 65 may be, I can’t picture a scenario where I would say, “Yes! A 65mm would be perfect for this.” 65mm is neither fish nor fowl.
I love to shoot 50mm since it can work as a normal, mild wide, or mild telephoto when cropped. Same with 35mm. I can see way more uses for 24/35/50 than a 65mm. Am I alone in thinking this?
I think it depends on your style of shooting. For me, indoor portraits are usually either ~40mm or else 55-75mm - more often the latter since I like fairly close up shots; 50mm is too wide IMO for indoor portraits. For outdoor landscapes, my 3 shot panoramas are also often in the ~60mm region (since 3, 60mm shots are often about the same as a single ~20mm shot).
It's possible that Sigma is holding off on a 90mm-ish I Series lens because they released an 85mm and a 105mm not too long ago and they don't want to cannibalize sales.
I'm with you (and others here) in thinking 65mm wouldn't do much for me, having both the Sigma 45/2.8 and the Voigtlander 40/1.2. Maybe if I had unlimited funds I'd be interested, but I'd be much more interested in a compact 90mm with my current kit.
mudlake wrote:
No matter how good the 65 may be, I can’t picture a scenario where I would say, “Yes! A 65mm would be perfect for this.” 65mm is neither fish nor fowl.
I love to shoot 50mm since it can work as a normal, mild wide, or mild telephoto when cropped. Same with 35mm. I can see way more uses for 24/35/50 than a 65mm. Am I alone in thinking this?
imagesfromobjects wrote:
It's possible that Sigma is holding off on a 90mm-ish I Series lens because they released an 85mm and a 105mm not too long ago and they don't want to cannibalize sales.
I'm with you (and others here) in thinking 65mm wouldn't do much for me, having both the Sigma 45/2.8 and the Voigtlander 40/1.2. Maybe if I had unlimited funds I'd be interested, but I'd be much more interested in a compact 90mm with my current kit.
They should go for a 100/2 C next. Skip the 85mm all-together since they already have a great 85 Art.
), which I think is where Sigma will triumph 
...