Now I can't unsee that... pretty much like that photo with a man with his head half purple, half green (I think it was taken by philip_pj with the FE 55).....
Now I can't unsee that... pretty much like that photo with a man with his head half purple, half green (I think it was taken by philip_pj with the FE 55).....
You should be used to even worse axial CA correction and rougher transition zone from your Sony 35/1.8.
I already pre-ordered the Sigma 35mm f/2. I am considering the Sigma 45 f/2.8, but already own the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2. Would those two lenses (45 and 50) be a relative "duplication" of rendering and, of course, FL?
Fred Miranda wrote:
You should be used to even worse axial CA correction and rougher transition zone from your Sony 35/1.8.
Don't worry about me, I've got wise a long time ago when I figured out that the largest apertures on these types of lens are there for low light, not "bokeh". All that these compact lenses need to do is to be sharp. If one wants "bokeh", then Sigma has a 35/1.2 for them.
It would be hard for even the most determined "lens tester" to get LoCA in scenes with such lighting (FE 35 @1.8):
Fred Miranda wrote:
The subject from the Sigma 65/2 sample was shot at 3.88m and has similar draw. It seems to be even sharper and a tad higher in contrast.
I think your right which is probably why the tree in the background looks worse.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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 guess it’s no pancake when it’s off the camera, but the distance from front element to sensor plane is pretty similar to many DSLR pancakes, no?
DavidBM wrote:
I guess it’s no pancake when it’s off the camera, but the distance from front element to sensor plane is pretty similar to many DSLR pancakes, no?
By this metric, let's call the CV 40/1.2 a quasi-pancake. A super fast one to boot!
For it's speed, I think that's fair! Gosh the SE model looks small: I have the original, and the front element isn't *very* recessed, but it looks as though they may have saved a few mm...
FJR1 wrote:
I already pre-ordered the Sigma 35mm f/2. I am considering the Sigma 45 f/2.8, but already own the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2. Would those two lenses (45 and 50) be a relative "duplication" of rendering and, of course, FL?
I have both and I don't see it as a duplication, but I like the normal range (50s). 50/1.2 Nokton is good for dreamy look and very shallow DOF, but I personally find MF a bit limiting. I can't use this as my main lens to capture pictures of my energetic and always in motion toddler.
Sigma 45 has classic vintage style look with very smooth bokeh. The AF performance of this lens is not great honestly, but once I used it I knew I had to keep it. It is not an expensive lens and totally worth having as a unique option in my opinion.
Finally, my main 50 is Sony Zeiss 55/1.8. Although not a popular lens on this forum, its AF performance on A7III is like magic (every single shot tack sharp and properly focused). It is my dedicated toddler lens and way more reliable than my other two lenses.
So there you have it. I'd say go buy 45 and enjoy it.
. 
