MayaTlab wrote:
I think you can get something not too dissimilar from the Sigma 45 even at faster aperture while retaining decent resolution. This is what the Nikon 85 Z achieves. But to do so you really need to eliminate nearly all on axis aberrations with the exception of SA and the PSF will be a little different, with a gaussian or so illumination in the centre gradually giving way to a flat disk with sharp edges (but zero "over" ringing) instead of a fully gaussian illumination with blurred edges like the Sigma. If the contrast between the detail you're looking at and its surrounding isn't too high you won't ever see the sharp edge and it will produce similar results as the Sigma.
This is the sort of balance that Nikon has been trying to achieve for more than a decade and I think that at least at longer distances they've totally nailed it with the 85 Z. It and the Sigma are to me both the most desirable lenses I've seen in a while. Too bad they aren't in the same system . ...Show more →
I agree with much of what you have said here and I too am a big fan of the Nikon 85 f/1.8S. By the way, the Sigma 45 f/2.8 does work on Nikon Z cameras with an adapter, so if you really want to shoot both lenses on the same system it is possible.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am far less bother by the CA than the transition zone. I really only associate super clean CA correction with monster lenses in this FL.
+1
Maybe Sigma chose this very balanced lens at this common FL to appease the common desire (or obsession) with sharpness and it will test well, garnering good press. And maybe, just maybe, Sigma will put out a 28mm (f2 or 2.8) with the SA and rendering emphasis of the 45mm. Just a thought. A 28/45mm duo with similar rendering pairs well.
I could see Sigma putting out a slightly longer rendering based tele as well, given they now have the highly corrected 65mm, 85 1.4 DG DN and 105 macro at this point.
I'm already enjoying the 24 GM, 45/2.8 combo but would not mind a 28mm with the same 45's signature rendering.
genji wrote:
I only recently got the 45/2.8 and it immediately became a favourite. You’ve described what I’d very much like to see: a 28mm with the SA and rendering emphasis of the 45mm followed by a slightly longer tele (say 90mm) with the same rendering. A kind of reimagining of the 28/45/90 trio that worked so well on the Contax G.
DavidBM wrote:
I think this is the kind of lens they wanted to make with the 45; their own story on their Sein page basically goes like this: management gave them size limits. The engineers tried to squeeze slow but art like quality into the aperture and size limits laid down by marketing. They couldn't manage, in part because no room for floating elements. But some people looked at the results and said "hey, all that SA looks kinda cool" so they went with it.
Freed from the limitations of making the "pancake" of the series, they revert to what they usually do. Which is pretty damn good - as a complete package I think I might prefer this to a 45 style lens at 35mm. But I totally understand someone who wanted something more like a faster 45 (but I'm guessing the quality in other respects at 35 would be much worse at f2.0 if it had a design like the 45 but faster; the 45s design worked partly because it was a bit slower)...Show more →
I did not know that, very interesting, makes total sense and hopefully many more size limits are imposed!
genji wrote:
I only recently got the 45/2.8 and it immediately became a favourite. You’ve described what I’d very much like to see: a 28mm with the SA and rendering emphasis of the 45mm followed by a slightly longer tele (say 90mm) with the same rendering. A kind of reimagining of the 28/45/90 trio that worked so well on the Contax G.
Funny, after the release of this 35, and all the talk of the glories of the 45mm, which I’ve been watching since release, I think I will pick one up. I am an absolute sucker for rendering of this type, but 50mm isn’t much of a focal length for me, and I already have a 50 ZM Sonnar.
I like the contax g 28 and 90, but the g45 was just too harsh for me except as a landscaper. But that spacing and kit is terrific.
DavidBM wrote:
Freed from the limitations of making the "pancake" of the series, they revert to what they usually do.
I don't think the 45/2.8 is a pancake by any means but I think Sigma did exactly what you wrote for the 35 and 65mm lenses. Still not sure about the 24/3.5.
They went back designing lenses prioritizing resolution because this gets more praise and sales, but still paid attention to rendering, except they still wanted to make them relatively compact so color error is still noticeable. It seems to be a balanced approach: high resolution with neutral rendering + controlled CA -- Perhaps a winning formula for most shooters.
I ordered FP after a whole year delay changing plan from S5. Just as I said, this setup 24/45 or 35 will be with me more often for arm length shooting maybe JPEG only. I need AF for that and I really miss RX1.
akashyap wrote:
Only on FM would Sigma's release of the 35/2 lead to more purchases of their 45/2.8
I ordered FP after a whole year delay changing plan from S5. Just as I said, this setup 24/45 or 35 will be with me more often for arm length shooting maybe JPEG only. I need AF for that and I really miss RX1.
I keep an RX1 original around for occasional use. You can probably pick on up for $550ish now of the B/S board. It's still pure magic when I shoot it . One thing I love about the RX1 is you don't have to run another whole system to get the lens.
Dec 04, 2020 at 11:49 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I just looked at all the 35mm samples at full-res. I think the harsh transition zone could be fixed by stopping down to f/4. There are only a couple examples at that aperture range, but the background looks very smooth. Looks really good at f/5.6, also.
Makes me think that the end result may not be so far off from the 45C after all.
zhangyue wrote:
Nice finding, thanks for sharing. That is indeed bad looking.
This is a good example that you can fail almost any lenses with right combination, lighting, distance, subject to transition ratio, transition area detail frequency
This is definitely not a good looking bokeh. Stop down to f2.8 may help it. I'd love to see your future review comparison to 45mm at f12.8 to reveal that. Treat this 35mm's f2 aperture as a bonus compare to 45mm. Having said that, expect 35mm perform as good as 45 is also a little unfair. I see so many decent rendering 50mm glasses but so few for 35mm so far.
You are very right about VC 35 and 40 f1.2 in this case. Actually, 3-5M, harsh lighting, close background (with lots of detail) to subject ratio is a recipe fail most "fast" glasses, especially for wide to standard focal. Longer lens will tame it better, shorter lens deeper DOF will cover it, though for shorter lens, problem zone will shift to closer range.
I personal think most lenses will fail in this case include RX1 actually Do you have similar images like these from RX1 before? 58G maybe can survive, 45mm another maybe but 75lux and 80lux will fail even not as bad due to longer focal, the problem zone usually shift to different distance.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think this 35mm have super smooth bokeh but even neutral bokeh is a luxury for most 35mm I have seen so far. Don't expect it can perform under all cases. As for CA under this condition, this is not bad TBH. (and I know RX1 have worse CA performance than this for sure.)
It is all about right balance of individual performance spec including price and size. ...Show more →
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I keep an RX1 original around for occasional use. You can probably pick on up for $550ish now of the B/S board. It's still pure magic when I shoot it . One thing I love about the RX1 is you don't have to run another whole system to get the lens.
Definitely a steal for this price but Eye-AF and built-in viewfinder are missing. Not a deal breaker because of the lens.
It is a classic at the same caliber as RX1 in my book. I preorder it that time and never look back, might be the first FMer got it and write a short impression. (Something worth to brag about it )
It is never call your attention to itself, it is the type of lens that just using it and disappear as gear.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I already had it but appreciate it even more now!
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I just looked at all the 35mm samples at full-res. I think the harsh transition zone could be fixed by stopping down to f/4. There are only a couple examples at that aperture range, but the background looks very smooth. Looks really good at f/5.6, also.
Makes me think that the end result may not be so far off from the 45C after all.
When I get my copy I will do an aperture series showing the transition zone. Hopefully you are right.
Haha, no I don’t need run whole system to get it as I have “L Mount alliance” ( announce it loudly)
I will see how I love it. Used RX1 is in the plan
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I keep an RX1 original around for occasional use. You can probably pick on up for $550ish now of the B/S board. It's still pure magic when I shoot it . One thing I love about the RX1 is you don't have to run another whole system to get the lens.
Dec 04, 2020 at 11:58 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Fred Miranda wrote:
Definitely a steal for this price but Eye-AF and built-in viewfinder are missing. Not a deal breaker because of the lens.
Oddly enough, I nearly never use Eye-AF on my cameras I have so few AF lenses. It's the EVF somewhat, but really the battery on the RX1 line. At least for me.
Thanks for this--I love these concise illuminating reads.
What seems to differentiate the 45/2.8 correction from most vintage lenses and even recent character lenses (quasi-vintage, lol) is high degree of correction of CA while retaining under corrected SA. Most of the very smooth bokeh rendering lenses seem to retain loCal as well (85GM, ZA 135, 85 Mino limited, 58 1.4G, RX1) but I guess this is correlative and not causative. I guess makers are choosing not to correct for CA, which is very interesting. I thought that SA and CA correction were related as they are so often coupled.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks for this--I love these concise illuminating reads.
What seems to differentiate the 45/2.8 correction from most vintage lenses and even recent character lenses (quasi-vintage, lol) is high degree of correction of CA while retaining under corrected SA. Most of the very smooth bokeh rendering lenses seem to retain loCal as well (85GM, ZA 135, 85 Mino limited, 58 1.4G, RX1) but I guess this correlative and not causative. I guess makers are choosing not to correct for CA, which is very interesting. I thought that SA and CA correction were related as they are so often coupled.
Yes, that's what is unique about it. Having a slower aperture definitely help in this regard. I'm surprised you don't own one.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, that's what is unique about it. Having a slower aperture definitely help in this regard. I'm surprised you don't own one.
I would have purchased one at launch--I keep seeing lovely images from it. But that 40-55mm is my least favorite FL...so, many lovely 50mm-ish lenses are lost on me.
. 
