@Maximilian the lens hasn't been out long enough to be tested by us plebs yet. Think the closes examples we'll get are those from lenstip. 40 CF top, 35 f2 bottom
Those aren't exactly 1:1, and they also aren't definitely what you asked for (no distance measurements are given). I'd say the Sigma will most likely have smoother bokeh in most situations, but I've quite liked the 40's bokeh in the right circumstances.
Smooth at mid-distance. Little to no doubling. And of course, close up bokeh can be quite good.
I can say if you don't have either yet, the Sigma is probably the better buy. Here in Sweden, the price on the Batis has raised nearly 200 euro since it came to market and is now more than double the price of the Sigma. Additionally, the Sigma won't have the same issues with focusing up close in bad lighting, due to a lack of forced aperture behavior and (probably) a lower incidence of SA messing with AF-C at those same distances. It's also a much more sensible size.
However, if you have the 40... iunno. If the Sigma had competent sealing, I'd get it for sure just due to the size and lack of AF issues. But my 40 has survived an unexpected torrential downpour, more than a few bumps and scrapes, and getting ICE CREAM dropped on it (and a subsequent frantic dredging with water). Outside the bokeh being smoother, I don't see any optical advantage the Sigma might have—and you lose close focusing ability and that excellent, thoughtlessly confident construction.
It's a real shame about the sealing, because this 35 is the first mid-speed lens that doesn't look like a significant downgrade to me when it comes to optics—and at that size it would be the perfect companion to an α7C and I'm not sure if I want the lens I'll be leaving on my camera the most to be without some level of protection. I think I'm more likely to get the 24 and 65 for now. 65 is the most likely, as I think it's more flexible than an 85—and then I could gap it better with a future I-series telephoto. 24 looks to be a similarly excellent wide, and that 1:2 reproduction ratio is a killer feature—only cause for concern there is the presence of the 20G in my kit.
MIGHT skip the new Sigma 35, so the first Sigmas I will get are the 24 and 65. The close focus abilities and nice rendering (so far what we have seen) of the 24/3.5 are a big plus for me, easily worth the "slow" aperture. And the 65/2 seems like a even nicer rendering than the FE55/1.8 that has been one of my earlier favourites in Sony system. I happen to like the bit "longer normal" focal lenght a lot.
Just pulled the trigger on CV40/1.2 SE. Replacing my CV50/1.2 SE with it. Will be my third version of the same lens, which is my all-time favourite 35-50mm lens ever. Earlier had VM and regular FE versions. Fits perfect between 24 and 65.
I've preordered the 35/2 (expecting to receive on 12/18). I'm also planning to get the 24/3.5 on release day in Japan (1/22) but haven't ordered it yet. Not planning to get the 65mm as I don't shoot longer than 50mm much these days and 65mm is not a very commonly used fl for me (and I still have the CV 65/2).
I'll then use Sigma I-series 24mm, 35mm, 45mm as my small AF prime set for A7C along with my MF glass (mostly Voigtländer).
The 65 appears to be flat-field with low distortion and fairly even performance across the frame from wide open. The bokeh's more inoffensive than beautiful, but that's a compromise I'd happily make for a great all-arounder.
They nailed my idea of a perfect lazy three-lens kit from a focal length perspective, but I'm not as sold on the 35 and 24. I'd have to try both to know, but, right now, my inclination would be to go with the ZA 35/2.8 and 24 GM.
Hi, Juha, Do you still have FP? No flip screen has been a show stop before for me to considering it. However, for me using it mostly will means use AF. Even without flip LCD, The shape of it can be easily hold even without flip screen. I know that from RX1 experience. I can’t do the same with SL2. The system missing small AF lens before for FP to shine, but now with 24/45 or 35/65 I think the time is ready.
What you think? Juha Kannisto wrote:
I've preordered the 35/2 (expecting to receive on 12/18). I'm also planning to get the 24/3.5 on release day in Japan (1/22) but haven't ordered it yet. Not planning to get the 65mm as I don't shoot longer than 50mm much these days and 65mm is not a very commonly used fl for me (and I still have the CV 65/2).
I'll then use Sigma I-series 24mm, 35mm, 45mm as my small AF prime set for A7C along with my MF glass (mostly Voigtländer).
Hi! I still have the Sigma fp too but I'm not sure whether I will keep it in the long run since I got the A7C now as well. My main issue with the fp is the lack of inbuilt EVF and the big size of the accessory LCD viewfinder as I much prefer shooting with an EVF most of the time rather than with the screen, especially when it comes to manual focus shooting. I also want to keep the camera small and the LCD viewfinder turns it into a much bigger camera that is not ideal for carrying around. And with the fp there is usually some blueish color shift in the edges and corners with rangefinder glass especially in the wider end which requires some additional work in PP to correct, and I think vignetting with adapted RF glass is also more severe. I don't have these issues with current Sony BSI sensors although there is some more sensor cover glass induced field curvature with Sony. Therefore I'm now shifting away from the idea of using adapted RF glass especially in the wider end where there is quite nice coverage of native Voigtländer E-mount lenses available. I've been trading in some of my rangefinder lenses that were mainly used with the fp.
If I keep the fp I will probably use it mostly with native glass, and currently I have the 45/2.8 DG DN (duplicated with E-mount version) as well as Panasonic 20-60 zoom in L mount. fp could be quite nice when shooting with the new I-series lenses if one is happy to do it all with the screen only and if one doesn't shoot action as the Continuous AF is not that great. I mostly shoot still subjects with these cameras myself. If I keep my fp in the long run I might also add the I-series 24mm and 35mm lenses to my L-mount set but I'm not sure if there is a lot of benefit in keeping it along with my A7C which has IBIS and better battery too. For any travel use I'd surely take my A7C instead.
But without considering A7C, I think Sigma fp could be quite nice with these I-series lenses if one can enjoy shooting primarily with AF and with the screen only. I also have an RX1R so it takes away some motivation of getting the 35/2 DG DN for my Sigma fp.
zhangyue wrote:
Hi, Juha, Do you still have FP? No flip screen has been a show stop before for me to considering it. However, for me using it mostly will means use AF. Even without flip LCD, The shape of it can be easily hold even without flip screen. I know that from RX1 experience. I can’t do the same with SL2. The system missing small AF lens before for FP to shine, but now with 24/45 or 35/65 I think the time is ready.
JVan_02 wrote:
@Maximilian@ the lens hasn't been out long enough to be tested by us plebs yet. Think the closes examples we'll get are those from lenstip. 40 CF top, 35 f2 bottom
Those aren't exactly 1:1, and they also aren't definitely what you asked for (no distance measurements are given). I'd say the Sigma will most likely have smoother bokeh in most situations, but I've quite liked the 40's bokeh in the right circumstances.
I can say if you don't have either yet, the Sigma is probably the better buy. Here in Sweden, the price on the Batis has raised nearly 200 euro since it came to market and is now more than double the price of the Sigma. Additionally, the Sigma won't have the same issues with focusing up close in bad lighting, due to a lack of forced aperture behavior and (probably) a lower incidence of SA messing with AF-C at those same distances. It's also a much more sensible size.
However, if you have the 40... iunno. If the Sigma had competent sealing, I'd get it for sure just due to the size and lack of AF issues. But my 40 has survived an unexpected torrential downpour, more than a few bumps and scrapes, and getting ICE CREAM dropped on it (and a subsequent frantic dredging with water). Outside the bokeh being smoother, I don't see any optical advantage the Sigma might have—and you lose close focusing ability and that excellent, thoughtlessly confident construction.
It's a real shame about the sealing, because this 35 is the first mid-speed lens that doesn't look like a significant downgrade to me when it comes to optics—and at that size it would be the perfect companion to an α7C and I'm not sure if I want the lens I'll be leaving on my camera the most to be without some level of protection. I think I'm more likely to get the 24 and 65 for now. 65 is the most likely, as I think it's more flexible than an 85—and then I could gap it better with a future I-series telephoto. 24 looks to be a similarly excellent wide, and that 1:2 reproduction ratio is a killer feature—only cause for concern there is the presence of the 20G in my kit. ...Show more →
It may come down to if one prefers 35mm over the 40mm FL.
It's interesting that some seem to have drawn the conclusion that the Sigma 35/2 has less harsh bokeh/better focus transitions/less LoCa than the Sony 35/1.8, when everything I've seen looks similar (possibly even worse than the Sony). It will be very informative to see examples shot with the two lenses, with the same subject and lighting.
This can vary so much depending on subject matter, distance to subject, and lighting, that unless we're comparing like for like, conclusions are hard if not impossible to make. It's a safe assumption that in the cases where the Sony 35 struggles to control LoCa, the Sigma will as well, and in the cases where the Sigma displays busy or nervous bokeh, the Sony will too.
EarthQuake wrote:
It's interesting that some seem to have drawn the conclusion that the Sigma 35/2 has less harsh bokeh/better focus transitions/less LoCa than the Sony 35/1.8, when everything I've seen looks similar (possibly even worse than the Sony). It will be very informative to see examples shot with the two lenses, with the same subject and lighting.
This can vary so much depending on subject matter, distance to subject, and lighting, that unless we're comparing like for like, conclusions are hard if not impossible to make. It's a safe assumption that in the cases where the Sony 35 struggles to control LoCa, the Sigma will as well, and in the cases where the Sigma displays busy or nervous bokeh, the Sony will too....Show more →
Brokeh comparisons are very hard, I agree.
But you can compare LoCA directly with the same test subject at LensTip. The sigma has a degree of LoCA for sure, but rather less than the Sony.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Hi! I still have the Sigma fp too but I'm not sure whether I will keep it in the long run since I got the A7C now as well. My main issue with the fp is the lack of inbuilt EVF and the big size of the accessory LCD viewfinder as I much prefer shooting with an EVF most of the time rather than with the screen, especially when it comes to manual focus shooting. I also want to keep the camera small and the LCD viewfinder turns it into a much bigger camera that is not ideal for carrying around. And with the fp there is usually some blueish color shift in the edges and corners with rangefinder glass especially in the wider end which requires some additional work in PP to correct, and I think vignetting with adapted RF glass is also more severe. I don't have these issues with current Sony BSI sensors although there is some more sensor cover glass induced field curvature with Sony. Therefore I'm now shifting away from the idea of using adapted RF glass especially in the wider end where there is quite nice coverage of native Voigtländer E-mount lenses available. I've been trading in some of my rangefinder lenses that were mainly used with the fp.
If I keep the fp I will probably use it mostly with native glass, and currently I have the 45/2.8 DG DN (duplicated with E-mount version) as well as Panasonic 20-60 zoom in L mount. fp could be quite nice when shooting with the new I-series lenses if one is happy to do it all with the screen only and if one doesn't shoot action as the Continuous AF is not that great. I mostly shoot still subjects with these cameras myself. If I keep my fp in the long run I might also add the I-series 24mm and 35mm lenses to my L-mount set but I'm not sure if there is a lot of benefit in keeping it along with my A7C which has IBIS and better battery too. For any travel use I'd surely take my A7C instead.
But without considering A7C, I think Sigma fp could be quite nice with these I-series lenses if one can enjoy shooting primarily with AF and with the screen only. I also have an RX1R so it takes away some motivation of getting the 35/2 DG DN for my Sigma fp.
Thanks for the feedback. It all make sense. I think A7C is indeed can replace FP role in your case. Out of all current Sony body, I like A7SIII the most, but I can't stretch my system further and keep another set of lenses
As you wrote. FP will be dedicated to LCD arm length AF shooting only, so no add on OVF there. This is a interchangeable lens RX1 for me, hopefully. I can always use these set on my SL2 anytime. Sigma FP has done some right thing on hardware level that it just looks more cool and attractive. If I don't have SL2, I think S5 will make a lot more sense with IBIS, flip LCD and EVF. I hope My intuitive thinking is right in this case. Will soon to find out.
BTW, I have no plan adapt WA rangefinder lens on FP, I am not even sure I will use Manual Focus lens on it at all as I agree with you that we need a EVF for that. I might adapt leica S glass for short video though, pure fun
How you feel FP's AF? especially compare to RX1? I hope I don't off topic too much but these set are really perfect match for FP IMHO, FP never make more sense until now.
Back to topic, the more samples I see the more I feel this 35mm is really the best 35mm option for me, bar none in term of size, speed and performance.(include rendering) 65's bokeh is very very good as well, its image remind me Leica 75mm APO cron M, one of smoothest rendering M glasses. I didn't plan 24mm before, at least not for SL2, but for FP setup, it is a must add on, a match in heaven with 45.
zhangyue wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. It all make sense. I think A7C is indeed can replace FP role in your case. Out of all current Sony body, I like A7SIII the most, but I can't stretch my system further and keep another set of lenses
As you wrote. FP will be dedicated to LCD arm length AF shooting only, so no add on OVF there. This is a interchangeable lens RX1 for me, hopefully. I can always use these set on my SL2 anytime. Sigma FP has done some right thing on hardware level that it just looks more cool and attractive. If I don't have SL2, I think S5 will make a lot more sense with IBIS, flip LCD and EVF. I hope My intuitive thinking is right in this case. Will soon to find out.
BTW, I have no plan adapt WA rangefinder lens on FP, I am not even sure I will use Manual Focus lens on it at all as I agree with you that we need a EVF for that. I might adapt leica S glass for short video though, pure fun
How you feel FP's AF? especially compare to RX1? I hope I don't off topic too much but these set are really perfect match for FP IMHO, FP never make more sense until now.
Back to topic, the more samples I see the more I feel this 35mm is really the best 35mm option for me, bar none in term of size, speed and performance.(include rendering) 65's bokeh is very very good as well, its image remind me Leica 75mm APO cron M, one of smoothest rendering M glasses. I didn't plan 24mm before, at least not for SL2, but for FP setup, it is a must add on, a match in heaven with 45. ...Show more →
Yes, I think fp will work as a very good RX1 style camera with interchangeable lenses. AF is pretty decent for stills photography after 2.0 firmware update for static subjects I think, probably better than on my RX1R although I haven't done any formal comparison testing. Manual focusing is definitely more pleasant on the fp with peaking and magnification. I like the inbuilt color profiles and DNG editing options on the fp too. The body is stylish and enjoyable to use and the battery life is also better than on RX1 series, and I like it that it has USB-C connectivity (unlike RX1R). I think the camera is nicer to use with Sigma's small grip attached, especially for shooting in portrait orientation. The same applies to RX1R where I've also added a grip (a wooden Map Camera grip).
For me the new I-Series lenses have an advantage over other small AF glass (for E-mount) due to the aperture ring and AF/MF controls on the lens. I prefer to be able to control those on the lens rather than only on the camera, and the styling and build quality are also big plusses. I've liked the IQ in samples I've seen for the most part too.
The 24/3.5 is a overlapping with my Sony 24/1.4 GM but I will add it as a smaller option that is consistent with the other I-series glass, as the GM is a little bit borderline in terms of size for the A7C.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It may come down to if one prefers 35mm over the 40mm FL.
While I personally prefer 40 over 35 due to the fact that I feel 40 has juuuuuuust enough perspective distortion to feel intimate without noticing it too much and 35 isn't wide enough to start using that distortion creatively (I'd say that starts at 28ish) history has spoken. I've made my peace with the fact that there might never be another premium 40, compact or otherwise. I feel most 40 shooters have similar feelings.
On the day of the announcement, I sent this letter to my nearest Sigma customer service office:
I am very interested in purchasing one or more I-series lenses. The optics look right, the size is perfect, and the construction seems reminiscent of my old film lenses. I have just one question, however: what is the reasoning behind sealing only the gasket? I don't often attempt to baby my equipment, and being caught out in weather is just a part of what I do. I am certainly confident that the new I-series lenses could survive bumps and scrapes, but I am less certain about how they would fare against the weather as it stands. Was any testing of their construction done against rain and splashes, for instance? Is there any coverage against water damage? Thanks for taking your time to answer any questions. ...Show more →
got an answer today:
Sigma rep wrote:
Thank you for your enquiry.
I have referred this to our service technicians, who have responded below :
The “I” lenses are splash and weather resistant. So ok to take in a slight drizzle but not in a down pour.
Either way I would always recommend using any equipment with some sort of cover to protect the equipment from rain.
Doesn't shift my opinion too much—but it does bring to mind that I took my 55 ZA in similar conditions to no ill effect. Good enough for deliberate shooting, not great for unexpected situations. Hmmmmm...
JVan_02 wrote:
On the day of the announcement, I sent this letter to my nearest Sigma customer service office:
got an answer today:
Doesn't shift my opinion too much—but it does bring to mind that I took my 55 ZA in similar conditions to no ill effect. Good enough for deliberate shooting, not great for unexpected situations. Hmmmmm...
I don't think you'd get any other manufacturer to say anything else...none of them guarantee their lenses against water damage.
@chez I was kinda impressed they answered at all, honestly. I felt that question was kind of a trap. You are correct though.
OTOH if I were a Zeiss sales rep, I'd be almost ready to guarantee my 40 against rain. Survived ~2-3 minutes of direct exposure to an unexpected torrential downpour.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Yes, I think fp will work as a very good RX1 style camera with interchangeable lenses. AF is pretty decent for stills photography after 2.0 firmware update for static subjects I think, probably better than on my RX1R although I haven't done any formal comparison testing. Manual focusing is definitely more pleasant on the fp with peaking and magnification. I like the inbuilt color profiles and DNG editing options on the fp too. The body is stylish and enjoyable to use and the battery life is also better than on RX1 series, and I like it that it has USB-C connectivity (unlike RX1R). I think the camera is nicer to use with Sigma's small grip attached, especially for shooting in portrait orientation. The same applies to RX1R where I've also added a grip (a wooden Map Camera grip).
For me the new I-Series lenses have an advantage over other small AF glass (for E-mount) due to the aperture ring and AF/MF controls on the lens. I prefer to be able to control those on the lens rather than only on the camera, and the styling and build quality are also big plusses. I've liked the IQ in samples I've seen for the most part too.
The 24/3.5 is a overlapping with my Sony 24/1.4 GM but I will add it as a smaller option that is consistent with the other I-series glass, as the GM is a little bit borderline in terms of size for the A7C....Show more →
Thanks, I appreciate your answer. It is very helpful and make perfect sense as always. I have given up the idea find a perfect do it all camera long time ago. As long as my finical condition allowed, I will for sure always have multiple body or system to do things they are shine for.
Initially, I feel disappointed with A7C's underwhelming spec, very similar initial feeling with FP's AF, no EVF no flip LCD, but soon realize for the purpose they are designed for, they both are great offers. The benefit is not on paper but in field
Dec 07, 2020 at 12:16 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
goldb wrote:
I noticed these use stepping motors instead of the ultrasonic type motors for AF. Is there a general consensus that the stepping motors are slower?
No, stepping motors and linear motors both of which are ultrasonic motors vary in speed and one is not inherently faster than the other. Both are technologies originally developed for other industrial purposes that have been adapted for use in camera lenses. They both have the advantage of being very quiet and very precise as well as being quite fast and more than one motor can be used in a lens if that suits the design.
Steve Spencer wrote:
No, stepping motors and linear motors both of which are ultrasonic motors vary in speed and one is not inherently faster than the other. Both are technologies originally developed for other industrial purposes that have been adapted for use in camera lenses. They both have the advantage of being very quiet and very precise as well as being quite fast and more than one motor can be used in a lens if that suits the design.
Is that the case? Several articles suggest stepping motors are slower than linear ones. One article by lensrentals was fairly in depth:
Based on the focusing of the 55 / 85 FE lenses (and the new tamron 70-180), I am inclined to think this is correct. But if there is information to the contrary I'd like to see it.
