Juha Kannisto wrote:
I visited Map Camera today and picked up the 65/2 DG DN for Sony E-mount. Afterwards I walked around in Shinjuku and Nakano and took a lot of shots to try it out. First impressions are very positive. It's very sharp corner-to-corner at infinity from wide open and I like the close-up rendering as well. Just missing the 24/3.5 from a complete set of 4 now
Distortion and fringing lens corrections were set to auto in camera. Vignetting correction was set to off.
This lens is also recognized incorrectly by C1 Pro 21, as Voigtländer 65/2 Apo-Lanthar. Need to switch to Manufacturer Profile manually....Show more →
Thanks, so much, Juha. Nice set. I have other lenses too close to 24 and 35, and I already have the Sigma 45, but your samples have "forced" me to pre-order the Sigma 65. Thanks, I think.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I visited Map Camera today and picked up the 65/2 DG DN for Sony E-mount. Afterwards I walked around in Shinjuku and Nakano and took a lot of shots to try it out.
Great results! Sadly the 35/2 doesn't really seem to be at the same level.
I like 65mm’s samples so far but didn’t bother with those review, not worth my time, Pixel pp kind of rating doesn’t really help.
Actually, within these two, 35mm looks more special to me. Almost 100g lighter as well. It is plenty sharp.
I think we needs put into existing lenses selection for fairly evaluate lens than compare different focal under the same page. For short tele, there are never short of good selection. 35mm? I can count with single hand. For a small good one? Almost none.
I ordered both along with 24. But recently add 20-60 Panasonic zoom which also offer 0.5X macro capability, I might cancel 24mm. It is also a very interesting small lens with special zoom range.
Anyone know when are they available in US? zz wrote:
Great results! Sadly the 35/2 doesn't really seem to be at the same level.
@Juha Kannisto I got a question: have you taken the 35mm out in low lighting situations and tried PDAF? Asking for two reasons. The first is that I'm curious how the α7C handles the lens in low lighting. Every -EV AF rating is rated at f2 or brighter, but it seems like Sigma designed this new 35 in the same way they did with their new 85: leaning heavily into the vignette & distortion in an effort to maintain high quality in other parameters while keeping the size down. Wondering if the vignette is heavy enough to affect the -EV AF rating with PDAF.
Secondly, from samples I've been seeing, looks like there's some uncorrected SA in the 35 (slight glow at near MFD). Is there any point in bad lighting where the lens performs notably worse as you get closer?
If these look too involved to test: don't . Just wondering if I went from my 40 to this Sigma if I'd have to deal with lesser versions of the same problems. Thanks in advance if you do!
JVan_02 wrote:
@Juha Kannisto@ I got a question: have you taken the 35mm out in low lighting situations and tried PDAF? Asking for two reasons. The first is that I'm curious how the α7C handles the lens in low lighting. Every -EV AF rating is rated at f2 or brighter, but it seems like Sigma designed this new 35 in the same way they did with their new 85: leaning heavily into the vignette & distortion in an effort to maintain high quality in other parameters while keeping the size down. Wondering if the vignette is heavy enough to affect the -EV AF rating with PDAF.
Secondly, from samples I've been seeing, looks like there's some uncorrected SA in the 35 (slight glow at near MFD). Is there any point in bad lighting where the lens performs notably worse as you get closer?
If these look too involved to test: don't . Just wondering if I went from my 40 to this Sigma if I'd have to deal with lesser versions of the same problems. Thanks in advance if you do! ...Show more →
I have shot with it in some low light situations outdoors with city / shop lights illuminating the scene, and I've not run into any noticeable focusing problems, but I've not especially tested PDAF in those conditions. Usually those scenes have a lot of contrast between the lit and dark areas so it's not really challenging for the focusing system. I'm currently keeping my A7C in AF-A mode so the focusing is a mix of AF-S and AF-C. I've been mostly shooting static scenes and not trying to track any action, so AF-S gets used quite often, but when I prefer to select the focusing area I use touch tracking, which becomes AF-C based real time tracking. Overall I think the focusing speed might be a bit slower compared to best performing Sony lenses but not really noticeably so. I'm largely an MF shooter and before getting these I-series lenses I've been shooting my A7C almost exclusively with MF lenses so can't really compare the focusing speed on A7C to other lenses in detail at the moment. I don't feel like there's any problem though.
About the distortion on the 35/2 DG DN, this Japanese review had some interesting info about it:
According to the review, the distortion changes from slight barrel at infinity to medium pincushion near MFD. Unusual for a prime lens to have such different distortion characteristics depending on focusing distance. This might be a bit tricky to correct manually, and I think with this kind of scenario the lens distortion correction data in EXIF that C1 Pro also utilizes with "Manufacturer Profile" correction setting will be very useful. Vignetting is also covered on the same review page. I've noticed it to be relatively strong wide open but it's not so noticeable when stopped down a bit.
They had very positive findings in most areas, including resolution at infinity, AF and so on, but resolution at near MFD was one area where they had a bit mixed results (e.g. good at center but less good at peripheral areas).
For me the focus acquisition has been fine even in low light and close to MFD but whether the end result comes out perfect (e.g. whether the focused point was in perfect focus in the resulting photos) would require a lot of comparison testing which I haven't done. When using AF at close focus distances and shooting something like small flowers it's often difficult to get the AF focus point right where I want it in those focusing modes that I use (e.g. wide area AF-A first and then touch initiated real time tracking when the camera didn't decide to focus exactly where I wanted). Real time tracking has a rather large focusing box and then it's hard to say where exactly the focus gets placed in a small object like some flower or plant. When I feel like I need more precision in close-up shooting of small objects, I typically switch to MF and use magnification to be able to control the focus very accurately. It could be possible to shoot with different AF modes to make sure to get more AF precision but I prefer to just switch to MF in those situations. That makes it more difficult to evaluate AF performance near MFD though...
If 45 is really 42.5mm as confirmed by Fred and others in the 45 C thread, I think it makes 35mm less appealing to me. 45 is fantastic as is and although the new 35 feels better than other compact 35s from Sony and Samyang, 45 still wins in the special image rendering department. I don't think I will miss many shots with 45 over 35, except in few cases when taking a step back is not an option.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
If 45 is really 42.5mm as confirmed by Fred and others in the 45 C thread, I think it makes 35mm less appealing to me. 45 is fantastic as is and although the new 35 feels better than other compact 35s from Sony and Samyang, 45 still wins in the special image rendering department. I don't think I will miss many shots with 45 over 35, except in few cases when taking a step back is not an option.
The 35/2 DG DN might also be a bit wider than 35mm, it seemed to be e.g. wider than Sigma 35/1.2 DG DN at infinity in Camera Labs review. I haven't done any fl comparison between it and my other 35mm lenses so far though. I'll try to compare it to some of my 35mm lenses in the next few days to see if there are any noticeable differences.
We had some nice light today and I walked around with my Sony A7C and Sigma 65/2 DG DN again, so here are some more SOOC JPEG samples: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HsSCVnk9JWUVTKiW6
Again distortion and fringing lens correction were set to Auto in Camera but vignetting correction was off. I've been shooting this lens between wide open at f2 and f4 all the time as f4 seems to be pretty much perfect for infinity shots and the main difference to wider apertures is less vignetting. Compared to CV 65/2, this lens is much nicer to use for long distance shots as CV 65 requires very careful and precise manual focusing at around near-infinity since the focus throw in the long end becomes very short.
A little bit of difference in FL, but I'll be curious to see how this 65/2 compares with the Panny 85/1.8 when it arrives. Sony shooters of course won't be interested in the Panny, the way L Mount shooters might be.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
We had some nice light today and I walked around with my Sony A7C and Sigma 65/2 DG DN again, so here are some more SOOC JPEG samples: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HsSCVnk9JWUVTKiW6
Again distortion and fringing lens correction were set to Auto in Camera but vignetting correction was off. I've been shooting this lens between wide open at f2 and f4 all the time as f4 seems to be pretty much perfect for infinity shots and the main difference to wider apertures is less vignetting. Compared to CV 65/2, this lens is much nicer to use for long distance shots as CV 65 requires very careful and precise manual focusing at around near-infinity since the focus throw in the long end becomes very short....Show more →
I really like the rendering of this lens. Lots of great images - thanks Juha!
Help requested, even after 42 pages of comments on the new I-series lenses. I'm sold on the 65 f/2 and have one on pre-order after returning my recently purchased CV 65, as I prefer the Sigma's AF.
My dilemma lies with whether I should pre-order the new 35 f/2 and sell my Batis 40 or just keep the Batis 40 and forego the acquisition of the Sigma 35 f/2. My desires for either lens (35 or 40), prioritized, are rendering/transitions, color, sharpness at infinity, and bokeh. I'm fine with the size and weight of either, and I've not experienced the Batis focus issues to which some owners refer. I realize the prioritized attributes are often measured subjectively, but any guidance is appreciated. Or, maybe, I'm just impatient and should wait until more real-world experiences with the Sigma 35 f/2 are posted. Thanks, in advance, for any opinions on which lens should be in the bag.
FJR1 wrote:
Help requested, even after 42 pages of comments on the new I-series lenses. I'm sold on the 65 f/2 and have one on pre-order after returning my recently purchased CV 65, as I prefer the Sigma's AF.
My dilemma lies with whether I should pre-order the new 35 f/2 and sell my Batis 40 or just keep the Batis 40 and forego the acquisition of the Sigma 35 f/2. My desires for either lens (35 or 40), prioritized, are rendering/transitions, color, sharpness at infinity, and bokeh. I'm fine with the size and weight of either, and I've not experienced the Batis focus issues to which some owners refer. I realize the prioritized attributes are often measured subjectively, but any guidance is appreciated. Or, maybe, I'm just impatient and should wait until more real-world experiences with the Sigma 35 f/2 are posted. Thanks, in advance, for any opinions on which lens should be in the bag....Show more →
Been thinking on this exact issue myself quite a bit. Here's what comes to mind from samples/reviews I've seen and my own 2 year experience with the 40:
Color: I'd give the win here to the 40. Color has always been a strength to this lens, and due to its near APO nature it's not very surprising.
Rendering/Transitions/Bokeh: This'll be the thing that most depends on you. The Sigma looks to have smooth transitions/bokeh in more situations—while the 40 either has pleasantly smooth bokeh or a relatively unique impressionistic style. Neither will take the crown from the 35 sonnar in terms of what most people talk about with rendering here. Ancillary to what most people commonly discuss when referring to this characteristic of a lens, the 40 also has the typical Zeiss high global and fine contrast. The Sigma does not have that distinctive look. For what it's worth, while I've found other lenses to produce more pleasing looks with enough tweaking the 40 CF's files are the most reliably good straight out of camera from any lens I've used (older Pentax primes, C/Y lenses, ZA glass, some Sony G).
Sharpness at Infinity: I think this is where these lenses will differ more on copy variation than differences in inherent design—assuming typical landscape apertures. Wide open I wouldn't be surprised if the 35 is sharper, but the 40 should keep up from 2.5/2.8 onward. We can see from the lensrentals charts that the 40 has a slight midzone dip—but it's very mild. What might matter more to landscape is the near complete lack of distortion or CA from the 40. CA is obvious, but distortion is mentioned here because I don't know how well the distortion from the Sigma plays with photo stitching.
Hope that helped. Still grappling with this decision myself. Maybe Sony will come out with a 28 1.8 G before I have the money to make a purchasing decision
JVan_02 wrote:
Been thinking on this exact issue myself quite a bit. Here's what comes to mind from samples/reviews I've seen and my own 2 year experience with the 40:
Color: I'd give the win here to the 40. Color has always been a strength to this lens, and due to its near APO nature it's not very surprising.
Rendering/Transitions/Bokeh: This'll be the thing that most depends on you. The Sigma looks to have smooth transitions/bokeh in more situations—while the 40 either has pleasantly smooth bokeh or a relatively unique impressionistic style. Neither will take the crown from the 35 sonnar in terms of what most people talk about with rendering here. Ancillary to what most people commonly discuss when referring to this characteristic of a lens, the 40 also has the typical Zeiss high global and fine contrast. The Sigma does not have that distinctive look. For what it's worth, while I've found other lenses to produce more pleasing looks with enough tweaking the 40 CF's files are the most reliably good straight out of camera from any lens I've used (older Pentax primes, C/Y lenses, ZA glass, some Sony G).
Sharpness at Infinity: I think this is where these lenses will differ more on copy variation than differences in inherent design—assuming typical landscape apertures. Wide open I wouldn't be surprised if the 35 is sharper, but the 40 should keep up from 2.5/2.8 onward. We can see from the lensrentals charts that the 40 has a slight midzone dip—but it's very mild. What might matter more to landscape is the near complete lack of distortion or CA from the 40. CA is obvious, but distortion is mentioned here because I don't know how well the distortion from the Sigma plays with photo stitching.
Hope that helped. Still grappling with this decision myself. Maybe Sony will come out with a 28 1.8 G before I have the money to make a purchasing decision ...Show more →
Thanks, so much, for your thoughtful and informed guidance. I'm now leaning toward keeping the Zeiss. I appreciate your help! --Frank
I compared the field of view at near-infinity between 35/2 DG DN, RX1R, Sony Zeiss 35/1.4, Voigtländer 35/1.2 SE and Voigtländer 35/1.4 for E-mount. All E-mount lenses tested on my A7C with identical settings (distortion correction at auto). Sigma 35/2 DG DN came out as the widest of them all, almost identical to RX1R which is know to be around 32mm in actual fl at infinity. Sigma seemed just a hair wider. After those 2, Sony Zeiss was the next, with a slightly less wide field of view (maybe 1mm difference). Both CV lenses were considerably less wide (several mm of difference) and they were almost identical between each other.
Anyway, Sigma is probably less wide at close focusing distances since it has noticeable focus breathing.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I compared the field of view at near-infinity between 35/2 DG DN, RX1R, Sony Zeiss 35/1.4, Voigtländer 35/1.2 SE and Voigtländer 35/1.4 for E-mount. All E-mount lenses tested on my A7C with identical settings (distortion correction at auto). Sigma 35/2 DG DN came out as the widest of them all, almost identical to RX1R which is know to be around 32mm in actual fl at infinity. Sigma seemed just a hair wider. After those 2, Sony Zeiss was the next, with a slightly less wide field of view (maybe 1mm difference). Both CV lenses were considerably less wide (several mm of difference) and they were almost identical between each other.
Anyway, Sigma is probably less wide at close focusing distances since it has noticeable focus breathing....Show more →
OK, I will share the sample shots. I did the comparison by taking handheld shots from balcony, trying to frame each shot identically by using the viewfinder markings and digital level and placing them identically. I took 3 shots for each lens to try to eliminate impact from handheld movements but I uploaded just one shot for each lens in the link below. Refer to (i) to get details for each lens. I renamed the files based on each lens.
I posted the comparison comment after comparing the shots on the back of the cameras. Now that I took a look on my PC as well, it seems that Sigma is a bit more noticeably wider than RX1R.
The differences can be seen most easily by comparing the tall building on the left top area and seeing how much space there is to the left from that building + by comparing the right side edge to make sure the framing was not too different.
zz wrote:
. Just wondering if I went from my 40 to this Sigma if I'd have to deal with lesser versions of the same problems. Thanks in advance if you do!