DavidBM wrote:
A common thought is that most smartphones cameras have typically been 28mm equivalent, so maybe camera makers think they need to make sure that their wide lens doesn’t look similar in AOV.
So not to entice the billion or so potential phone users that are used to the 28mm FOV to your system...sounds like a great strategy.
chez wrote:
So not to entice the billion or so potential phone users that are used to the 28mm FOV to your system...sounds like a great strategy.
I don't think they're coming to an advanced camera system to get the same thing they get on their phone. If they wanted that, they'll use their phone. I'd be surprised if very many phone users know what 35mm equivalent focal length their phone camera is, nor do they care. I don't and I don't care, either.
I think camera makers build and market what sells. I'm guessing that, as someone else stated, there is likely less of a demand for a 28mm than we think. It would be interesting to see Nikon's sales figures on their relatively new-ish 28mm f/1.4 vs. some of their other lenses.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I don't think they're coming to an advanced camera system to get the same thing they get on their phone. If they wanted that, they'll use their phone. I'd be surprised if very many phone users know what 35mm equivalent focal length their phone camera is, nor do they care. I don't and I don't care, either.
I think camera makers build and market what sells. I'm guessing that, as someone else stated, there is likely less of a demand for a 28mm than we think. It would be interesting to see Nikon's sales figures on their relatively new-ish 28mm f/1.4 vs. some of their other lenses. ...Show more →
I'm not sure this is the reason for not having 28mm offerings, but in general it makes sense. Honestly the 28-35mm is my least used shot because I can usually get the same type of shot on my phone; its not as good obviously but 28-35 is generally just for documenting and the phone works just fine for that. For landscapes I want wider and for intimate shots I want at least 50mm.
chez wrote:
I highly doubt it has anything to do with direct competition from phones...they have bigger fish to worry about from the phone market. It just might be not as much need for a 28mm as we all think. Maybe the majority of photographers are happy with a wide angle like say a 24mm or a 20mm and then a traditional 35mm lens...skipping the need for a 28mm altogether.
I agree with chez’s theory, adding that the millions(?) of 12-24, 14-24, and 24-70 zooms produced over the years have probably accustomed a majority of photographers to regard 24mm as the “standard” wide angle focal length. I’d love Sigma to add a 28mm to their new I series lineup but I’m not holding my breath. On the other hand, could Adorama’s current give-away price on the Sigma Art 28/1.4 signal a redesign along the lines of the recently released mirrorless 85/1.4? Anyway my 28mm hopes now rest with Cosina producing a new M-mount 28mm design—because Leica M cameras have 28mm framelines.
The 40mm or 45mm lens emulates the human eye more closely (43.3mm diagonal on FF) than other lenses. Is that why there are so few 40/45mm lenses ... because people already see that FL naturally, thus wanting for something different?
That's kind of the same corollary to the cellphone corollary.
I think the issue for the 28mm is the advent of increasingly wider than 15mm lenses. By that, I mean that the breadth of FL range has widened, so in order to have FL range "coverage", the interval steps from 35, downward have increased to be a larger step / gap, i.e. 35 / 24 / 15, whereas in historic perspective, the lineup may have been more like 35 / 28 / 20(19/18).
RustyBug wrote:
The 40mm or 45mm lens emulates the human eye more closely (43.3mm diagonal on FF) than other lenses. Is that why there are so few 40/45mm lenses ... because people already see that FL naturally, thus wanting for something different?
That's kind of the same corollary to the cellphone corollary.
I think the issue for the 28mm is the advent of increasingly wider than 15mm lenses. By that, I mean that the breadth of FL range has widened, so in order to have FL range "coverage", the interval steps from 35, downward have increased to be a larger step / gap, i.e. 35 / 24 / 15, whereas in historic perspective, the lineup may have been more like 35 / 28 / 20(19/18).
I think this is a great point. 35mm and 28mm used to be generally considered as "wide angle" lenses, with ultra wide starting somewhere in the 24-21mm range. Now, most would consider UWA to be 18 or even 16 and wider.
28mm is now a very standard focal length, almost a new "normal" with its ubiquitousness in cell phones.
Personally, I use a 35mm rather than a 50mm as a "normal", and when I want wider, I want significantly wider than 28mm. So I go to 18mm, 14mm, or my Tamron 17-28/2.8 (which yes, does give me 28mm in a pinch).
28mm probably still has a place for some people, especially if you're the sort that shoots with a long-ish normal (ie: Sony 55mm). But I'm not sure how much sense the focal length makes for the majority of people. As someone else mentioned, the prevalence of 24-* zooms has sort of refined how we think of that standard wide angle lens. I don't shoot with a 24mm prime, but if I had the choice of a 24mm and 28mm lens, I would pick the 24mm lens 99% of the time, and crop in when it's a little too wide. With the high-quality, high-resolutions sensor we have today (and yes, I even consider the Sony 24mp sensor in this regard), it makes some sense to shoot a little wider and crop when need be.
This missing focal length pairs with the missing of 135 in most of the offerings.
Years ago the triade was 28, 50 and 135.
Possibly due to difficulties to produce other lengths at an affordable price with sufficient quality.
But if you think about it, this is clearly a beautiful three lens set.
With what technology offers today (cropping and so) most of the disadvantages can be overlapped.
The Sigma 65/2 lens weighs only 405g instead of 480g mentioned on the review. (The Voigtlander is 220 grams heavier)
What I like the most about the Sigma 65/2 aside from high resolution across the frame is the round specular highlights towards the corners even wide open (superb at f/2.8). Much rounder compared to the Voigtlander when both wide open.
The Voigtlander wins on CA correction but rendering is a bit rough compared to the Sigma.
The Sigma 65/2 is more comparable in size and weight to the CV 75/1.5. I expect them to perform similarly at f/2 and f/2.8. (will test this)
The indoor headshots provide the closest rendering comparison I've seen so far.
My guess is that reviewers have a big impact on sales (or just the perception for manufacturers). The 45 received some flat reviews because it didn't offer a wide aperture and needed to be stopped down at shorter distances. I suspect the 35 will sell better with the help of more positive reviews, which is a shame.
At the moment, I'm leaning heavily towards saving my money and making do with the 45.
Opinions:
- 65 has a sterile look - similar to budget lenses optimized for sharpness
- 65 doesn't offer better subject isolation than 45
- 35 has an interesting look - probably fickle lens for travel
It would have been interesting if Sigma offered these lenses with some moderate apodization filters to help with the not-so-good rendering.
The indoor headshots provide the closest rendering comparison I've seen so far.
My guess is that reviewers have a big impact on sales (or just the perception for manufacturers). The 45 received some flat reviews because it didn't offer a wide aperture and needed to be stopped down at shorter distances. I suspect the 35 will sell better with the help of more positive reviews, which is a shame.
At the moment, I'm leaning heavily towards saving my money and making do with the 45.
Opinions:
- 65 has a sterile look - similar to budget lenses optimized for sharpness
- 65 doesn't offer better subject isolation than 45
- 35 has an interesting look - probably fickle lens for travel
It would have been interesting if Sigma offered these lenses with some moderate apodization filters to help with the not-so-good rendering....Show more →
My little friend Tina's reaction to the news regarding Sigma 65mm sharpness:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Nice comparison to the CV 65/2 APO.
The lens is only 405g instead of 480g written on the review.
What I like the most about the Sigma 65/2 aside from high resolution is the round specular highlights towards the corners even wide open (superb at f/2.8). Much rounder compared to the Voigtlander when both wide open.
Yeah, the 65 looks to be a superb lens. Loaned the 55 ZA out the month before COVID hit to family in the states. Haven't gotten it back since, needless to say . Always felt the gap between 40 and 55 wasn't so much that I couldn't emulate 55 with the 40 by moving up half a step (field of view only, not character/etc)... but the more I see of the 65 the more I think it could be an excellent gapping option—especially if a compact 100—200 prime becomes available or if I decide to splurge on the STF at some point. Might get the 65 for that use explicitly and loan out my 55 indefinitely, though at the same time the 55 is probably the best IQ/gram combo AF lens that exists atm and would be a shame to lose.
The gap becomes even better if I get a mid-speed (or GM if it's small enough) 35mm, but still waffling on that one.
goldb wrote:
Doesn't the 45 also have horrific AF?
Well, IMO, horrific is an overstatement, but YMMV. The AF is certainly less than optimal and how much it is a problem to any one probably depends on how and what they shoot. Personally I don't find the AF gets in the way of my shooting, but I am sure it does for others.
I am with you on 65mm. But it is mostly from focal length. Most of lenses at this focal are out of box good. Maybe latest glasses have better color correction than old f1.8/f2 ones.
Rendering is quite hard to tell apart once they reach certain level of performance, “sterile“ look check APO SL cron. I have the same feeling about fast modern 85mm/135mm glasses. It is rare I see some interesting but at the same time, it is rare I see something to complain about.
Then, we have to come back to size, price and build when looking for this focal. It will be a popular set.
The indoor headshots provide the closest rendering comparison I've seen so far.
My guess is that reviewers have a big impact on sales (or just the perception for manufacturers). The 45 received some flat reviews because it didn't offer a wide aperture and needed to be stopped down at shorter distances. I suspect the 35 will sell better with the help of more positive reviews, which is a shame.
At the moment, I'm leaning heavily towards saving my money and making do with the 45.
Opinions:
- 65 has a sterile look - similar to budget lenses optimized for sharpness
- 65 doesn't offer better subject isolation than 45
- 35 has an interesting look - probably fickle lens for travel
It would have been interesting if Sigma offered these lenses with some moderate apodization filters to help with the not-so-good rendering....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well, IMO, horrific is an overstatement, but YMMV. The AF is certainly less than optimal and how much it is a problem to any one probably depends on how and what they shoot. Personally I don't find the AF gets in the way of my shooting, but I am sure it does for others.
+1
Understanding that this is part of the Contemporary series ... it isn't intended to be top tier (size & cost) AF performer. There are other lenses for that level of AF performance. The market it is intended for isn't likely to be using it to compete with the big guns.
If I build / buy a small dog house, why should I be surprised so much as to complain that a horse won't fit inside?
. Always felt the gap between 40 and 55 wasn't so much that I couldn't emulate 55 with the 40 by moving up half a step (field of view only, not character/etc)... but the more I see of the 65 the more I think it could be an excellent gapping option—especially if a compact 100—200 prime becomes available or if I decide to splurge on the STF at some point. Might get the 65 for that use explicitly and loan out my 55 indefinitely, though at the same time the 55 is probably the best IQ/gram combo AF lens that exists atm and would be a shame to lose.