Foresska wrote:
Do you have a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art, Juha Kannisto?
It would be interesting to compare the 85mm with 65mm in a few different scenarios to see if there's any noticeable difference in rendering.
No, I don't have it. It's an interesting lens but I decided to keep my 85/1.4 GM and didn't go for the 85/1.4 DG DN. I don't have any of the Sigma Art series lenses. Recently (especially this year) I've been more into smaller lenses for walk-around use and most of the Art series lenses are too big and heavy for that purpose. I've kept my older fast Sony primes for the times when they might be useful again (e.g. when events start to happen again) but haven't looked into buying any new ones in the big and fast category... 85/1.4 DG DN would be a bit smaller but still not a walk-around lens.
Lots of samples...it looks pretty good! I think it's the one that interests me the least of the new 'I' series but always great to have another option.
I lived in a foreign country were I could only marginally understand the language (Korea) and often enjoyed that strange sense of being isolated in a crowd so watching that in Chinese was surprisingly therapeutic
EDIT #2: that review has some really nice samples, though edited perhaps a bit more than some would like. Bokeh looks great, but for the purists among you I suppose it masks the transition zone.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
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....Show more →
I added 4 more lenses to this comparison (Sony 16-35/2.8 GM (long end), Pentax K 35/3.5, Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35/1.8, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 (short end)). 3 of them are old legacy lenses used with Rayqual adapters (no electronic communication).
From widest to the narrowest (at near-infinity with distortion correction set to auto):
Sigma 35/2 DG DN
RX1R
Sony Zeiss 35/1.4
Pentax K 35/3.5
Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 (at wide end)
Sony 16-35/2.8 GM (at long end)
Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35/1.8
CV 35/1.2 & 35/1.4
I think the widest 2 (Sigma and RX1R) are close to 32mm and the longest CV lenses around 37-37.5mm. The 4 added today are pretty close to each other and must be closest to the true 35mm field of view. Filenames indicate which lens was used, in the order they were shot:
Thanks for posting these. On a pseudo unrelated note, do you find your K35/3.5 every fully sharp in the corners (at let's say f/8 or f/11?) I've tried two copies and I never see the corners really sharpen up to the point where I would call them "sharp."
tsdevine wrote:
Thanks for posting these. On a pseudo unrelated note, do you find your K35/3.5 every fully sharp in the corners (at let's say f/8 or f/11?) I've tried two copies and I never see the corners really sharpen up to the point where I would call them "sharp."
Tim
I think mine is also a little soft towards the edges and corners even stopped down to f8 at least on my Sony cameras. I haven't shot it a whole lot, it was a late addition to my K-series collection as I saw it at a nice price in one 2nd hand camera store. I also have the 28/3.5, 30/2.8, 50/1.2, 50/4 macro, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 135/2.8. I should probably add the 30/2.8 to the test to see how it compares to the Sigma and RX1R in terms of field of view
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I added 4 more lenses to this comparison (Sony 16-35/2.8 GM (long end), Pentax K 35/3.5, Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35/1.8, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 (short end)). 3 of them are old legacy lenses used with Rayqual adapters (no electronic communication).
From widest to the narrowest (at near-infinity with distortion correction set to auto):
Sigma 35/2 DG DN
RX1R
Sony Zeiss 35/1.4
Pentax K 35/3.5
Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 (at wide end)
Sony 16-35/2.8 GM (at long end)
Minolta MD W.Rokkor 35/1.8
CV 35/1.2 & 35/1.4
I think the widest 2 (Sigma and RX1R) are close to 32mm and the longest CV lenses around 37-37.5mm. The 4 added today are pretty close to each other and must be closest to the true 35mm field of view. Filenames indicate which lens was used, in the order they were shot:
Thank you for putting these together, Juha. I think I will get the 35. I actually like the fact that it's a bit wider than 35, this will serve ME better as a walk-around lens. I am trying to use my CV 35 f1.2 SE more but haven't had the occasions to use that FL much recently.
Douglas Liu wrote:
Thank you for putting these together, Juha. I think I will get the 35. I actually like the fact that it's a bit wider than 35, this will serve ME better as a walk-around lens. I am trying to use my CV 35 f1.2 SE more but haven't had the occasions to use that FL much recently.
Thanks! I also like the wider view at infinity as my ideal FL for walk-around is 28mm especially for long distance cityscape and street shots. It seems the Sigma and RX1R are kind of half-way between 28mm and 35mm at infinity. Sigma is also very sharp and great corner-to-corner at infinity when shot at f5.6 (or f4-f8), which is the range that I usually use for such shots.
I personally like my CV 35/1.2 SE a lot too, but I typically shoot less infinity shots and more close-to-mid distance with it.
Thanks, I also have the 28/3.5, 30/2.8 (again never fully sharpens up in the corners, at least my copy), 50/1.2, 85/1.8, 135/2.8, and 150/4. The 28/3.5 is my fave though.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I think mine is also a little soft towards the edges and corners even stopped down to f8 at least on my Sony cameras. I haven't shot it a whole lot, it was a late addition to my K-series collection as I saw it at a nice price in one 2nd hand camera store. I also have the 28/3.5, 30/2.8, 50/1.2, 50/4 macro, 85/1.8, 105/2.8, 135/2.8. I should probably add the 30/2.8 to the test to see how it compares to the Sigma and RX1R in terms of field of view
bjornthun wrote:
Notice how one of the reviewers has styled and put a Contax sticker on his Sony A7x series camera and he is using a Zeiss Biogon 25/2.8 ZM.
I want that now. Could be this one: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000621181748.html
As an owner of 85 1.4 DG DN, being the only lens on my A7 III, I was excited by the first reviews of 35 F2. But after finished reading 43 pages of this thread, it is really tempting of choosing 45 F2.8 over this.
My main subjects are my new born baby, my family and my cats. So the AFC issue is really a no for me, I wonder if I can use my 85mm in such moving scenario? And use 45mm on landscape / macro / indoor stills.
Btw, I can easily get a good condition used 45 F2.8 for ~300USD, while 35F2 is on MSRP, which is twice as much
hco0 wrote:
As an owner of 85 1.4 DG DN, being the only lens on my A7 III, I was excited by the first reviews of 35 F2. But after finished reading 43 pages of this thread, it is really tempting of choosing 45 F2.8 over this.
My main subjects are my new born baby, my family and my cats. So the AFC issue is really a no for me, I wonder if I can use my 85mm in such moving scenario? And use 45mm on landscape / macro / indoor stills.
Btw, I can easily get a good condition used 45 F2.8 for ~300USD, while 35F2 is on MSRP, which is twice as much...Show more →
You're going to need something wider for indoors once your child starts walking around 1 yo. These Sigma lenses will be fine once your child is a lot older, but at the moment, you may want to consider a native lens. FE 35mm 2.8 is relatively affordable. I'd consider the 24mm 1.4 over the 35mm if a used copy is within your budget. From what I've seen, you need a native lens to do AFC in photo AND video, and you're going to want to do some video too.
