ramesesthe2nd wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Thanks, so much, for your thoughtful and thought-provoking reply. Much appreciated! --Frank
Two of the photos look like they were taken with a Helios (or similar). Swirly, exaggerated cat eyes, bright edge bokeh. The epitome of what is dismissed here as "bad" bokeh. Yet the photos work to great effect.
This can bring into discussion what is "good" and "bad" bokeh. Maybe it's not like that. Maybe there's just the photographer's *choice* that is good or bad. And the bokeh then complements or works against the subject. Or is just neutral or not noticeable (f/8).
AFC problems are related to 2.8 only.
Isn't it?
65 remains an almost unique lens due to it's focal length , but 35 is nothing new in the market.
Just a good 35mm like many others, similar strengths and weaknesses, unfortunately CA included.
Hopefully pictures from production units will show more to be happy about.
He’s just saying that Sigma was in a tough spot due to Sony AF.
scalanc2 wrote:
AFC problems are related to 2.8 only.
Isn't it?
65 remains an almost unique lens due to it's focal length , but 35 is nothing new in the market.
Just a good 35mm like many others, similar strengths and weaknesses, unfortunately CA included.
Hopefully pictures from production units will show more to be happy about.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Why is the 45 somehow considered a sort of "holy grail" lens? I actually like the look of the 65 more than the 45. Both great lenses.
Just more rare in modern lens I guess. Both 65 and 35 are more modern lenses but with more neutral good looking bokeh without much aberration.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Why is the 45 somehow considered a sort of "holy grail" lens? I actually like the look of the 65 more than the 45. Both great lenses.
IMO, it's just refreshing to see a modern lens without a modern look. Sigma wisely corrected color error but kept spherical aberration under corrected. This combination produces images with a special look.
Also unusual is to have such high resolution at infinity (especially stopped down one or two stops) -- and that goes from center to the very corners making it a competent landscape lens.
Dec 05, 2020 at 12:55 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Why is the 45 somehow considered a sort of "holy grail" lens? I actually like the look of the 65 more than the 45. Both great lenses.
Some of us have the 45 and like it primarily for it out of focus rendering, which I personally think is lovely. IMO, it is plenty sharp enough in the plane of focus and the defocussed area is particularly nice. The lens also has low CA, including low axial CA, which is unusual for a lens with this type of rendering. Finally stopped down the lens is nicely sharp and evenly sharp across the frame, making it a great lens for anything that doesn't require super shallow depth of field. Put that together with its small size and that's why I like it.
Despite my liking the lens quite a bit, I wouldn't call it a holy grail lens. It has its weaknesses including softening of the image as you focus close up, less than optimal AF with AF-C, and a relatively slow max aperture.
IMO, it's just refreshing to see a modern lens without a modern look. Sigma wisely corrected color error but kept spherical aberration under corrected. This combination produces images with a special look.
Also unusual is to have such high resolution at infinity (especially stopped down one or two stops) -- and that goes from center to the very corners making it a competent landscape lens.
Dangerous site, there are threads about so many tempting lenses here.
These new Sigma lenses seem to tick most boxes except a declick switch for the aperture ring, which is minor in the grand scheme of things.
I will do some side by sides when I get the 35/2 DG DN but look at this comparison showing the transition from focus to OOF between the 35/2 and 45/2.8 DG DN. Not the same subject/lighting and distance but just look at the transition.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will do some side by sides when I get the 35/2 DG DN but look at this comparison showing the transition from focus to OOF between the 35/2 and 45/2.8 DG DN. Not the same subject/lighting and distance but just look at the transition.
Transition zone rendering does change with distance ya? So this new Sigma 35 seems to be a little better than the Sony (still harsh transition zone and some axial CA) but surely with an inferior AF.
hiepphotog wrote:
Transition zone rendering does change with distance ya? So this new Sigma 35 seems to be a little better than the Sony (still harsh transition zone and some axial CA) but surely with an inferior AF.
One was focused at 1.5m (35/2 sample image) and the other at 1m (my 45/2 picture).
To know for sure, we would need to test them side by side at same distance and aperture. From what I can see online, it seems to me that the Sigma 35/2 renders alike the Sony 35/1.8 and not the Sigma 45/2.8. If it renders much better than the Sony, I don't know.
Here is a quick test showing the transition zone from the 45/2.8 at exactly the same distance as the 35/2 sample image (1.55m)
There is more depth of field from the f/2.8 aperture but low contrast SA and smooth transition is apparent.
100% showing the transition zone at 1.55m
Dec 05, 2020 at 07:16 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
One was focused at 1.5m and the other at 1m. I will check 45/2.8 samples at 1.5m.
To know for sure, we would need to test them side by side at same distance. From what I can see online, it seems to me that the Sigma 35/2 renders alike the Sony 35/1.8 and not the Sigma 45/2.8. If it's much better than the Sony, I don't know. I do think it's better corrected for axial CA.
Here is a quick test showing the transition zone from the 45/2.8 at exactly the same distance as the 35/2 sample image (1.55m)
There is more depth of field from the f/2.8 aperture but low contrast SA and smooth transition is apparent....Show more →
If you can shoot them side by side, I think shooting at the same aperture would also be good. In the example a couple of posts above not only is the focus distance a bit different but I think the 35 is at f/2 and of course the 45 can only be at f/2.8. With the 35mm it will be interesting to see how aperture affects the transition zone. To my eye from the samples so far where the Sigma 35 seems quite a bit better in rendering than the FE 35 f/1.8 is not so much the transition zone but distant bokeh, where the FE 35 f/1.8 often has a smeared looked to my eye, but the Sigma 35 f/2 has a pleasant rendering.
Has anybody done a comparison between the bokeh of the new Sigma 35mm and the Batis 40mm?
I'm especially interested in opinions about the wide open performance from a distance of 0,65m and farther, namely before the Batis starts stopping down automatically.
