goldb wrote:
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).
Exactly. I still struggle with the generally considered "normal" - 50mm and find using 65mm a lot easier and natural to me . It also determines your kit spacing. I think I read it first on phillipreeve.net, that a 35mm, 65mm and 135mm make for a nice set...
That 65mm lens looks like a full-frame version (roughly) of my Sigma 60 2.8 Art for my a6300, at least in terms of optical quality. Very sharp with high contrast. A very 3D lens if there was any. Looks like the 65mm could handle some big increases in MP before even breaking a sweat, likely hitting diffraction before anything. I took one of the DPR samples and up-scaled it to 200%, and it still looked better than a lot of high quality zoom lenses at 100%.
I really want to try the CV 65 for hiking, but it does sound perfect! It can out resolve most sensors, so it can be cropped to reach 100mm easily. It can be used in portrait or landscape pano to go to probably a 30 or 35mm wide range. F2 for portraits, and 1:2 macro is a sweet spot in terms of size and magnification ratio.
Unfortunately, it's use cases overlap almost completely with my CY 35-70 f3.4, and I just bought a Contax film camera.
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.
akashyap wrote:
I really want to try the CV 65 for hiking, but it does sound perfect! It can out resolve most sensors, so it can be cropped to reach 100mm easily. It can be used in portrait or landscape pano to go to probably a 30 or 35mm wide range. F2 for portraits, and 1:2 macro is a sweet spot in terms of size and magnification ratio.
Unfortunately, it's use cases overlap almost completely with my CY 35-70 f3.4, and I just bought a Contax film camera.
At 400 grams, this 65 could be decent for hiking but IMO the 65 voigtlander is pretty heavy for a hiking lens unless you do a lot of macro on your hikes. I'd rather go with the 55mm honestly - less than half the weight, plenty sharp and at f8+ the bokeh / loca isn't an issue. Once you're talking 600 grams - I'd rather add another 200g and stick on a 70-180 tamron.
j4nu wrote:
Exactly. I still struggle with the generally considered "normal" - 50mm and find using 65mm a lot easier and natural to me . It also determines your kit spacing. I think I read it first on phillipreeve.net, that a 35mm, 65mm and 135mm make for a nice set...
Let me empty your wallet.... 35, 65 and 105. For a total of 5 lenses, since you won't be able to resist having both the 35/1.2 and 35/2, and both the 105/2.8 macro and 105/1.4. You can later expand in the wide angle, with the 14-24 zoom. Sigma is your friend
vdo1 wrote:
Let me empty your wallet.... 35, 65 and 105. For a total of 5 lenses, since you won't be able to resist having both the 35/1.2 and 35/2, and both the 105/2.8 macro and 105/1.4. You can later expand in the wide angle, with the 14-24 zoom. Sigma is your friend
Haha, I actually wanted to buy the macro but the deals on Black Friday were very mediocre so that saved me (for some time at least). Sigma 65mm is tempting but I like my CV65 too much for now, with the added bonus of 1:2.
@Chaliel they are built up to... pre 2000's Zeiss standards (all metal, but limited to no sealing). It's their only shortcoming imo. Also, where do you live that the 50mm Loxia is cheaper? Not over here.
goldb wrote:
Anyone seen a comparison of the 65 with the Zony 55? Or any educated opinions? Looks to be fairly competitive.
Comparisons with the Zony and the 85 FE are what I'm waiting for now. Still hoping to see more of how it handles full body portraits and busy backgrounds too, but from the little I've seen my worries have mostly been subdued
nehemiahphoto wrote:
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....Show more →
Sigma might win out in real world sharpness if CA performance is really that much better. Bad CA can ruin photos
JVan_02 wrote:
@Chaliel@ they are built up to... pre 2000's Zeiss standards (all metal, but limited to no sealing). It's their only shortcoming imo. Also, where do you live that the 50mm Loxia is cheaper? Not over here.
JVan_02 wrote:
@Chaliel@ they are built up to... pre 2000's Zeiss standards (all metal, but limited to no sealing). It's their only shortcoming imo. Also, where do you live that the 50mm Loxia is cheaper? Not over here.
The incredibly weak sealing and lack of an AF hold button are my big gripes with the design.
If only the 65 was an f1.4 and had the above changes it would be the the only moderate FL portrait lens I'd ever need!
@Teo Rey for me it's just the sealing, but I understand you want every bit of functionality. I keep going back and forth on it. It's been so freeing to have confidently sealed equipment to work with. Hell, I even went out into a torrential downpour with and dropped ice cream on my 40 CF. But the optics & most importantly size are right on the new Sigma. Ugh. Also, they are ridiculously good looking.
Really wish the new Sony lens registered with Nokishita was a G-series instead of a GM
. It also determines your kit spacing. I think I read it first on phillipreeve.net, that a 35mm, 65mm and 135mm make for a nice set...
