j4nu wrote:
They don't seem to like it and I don't like the review . I think they are mistaken about weather sealing and their paragraph about CA leaves me wondering what kind of CA is corrected well in the end. Also, it seems they don't see much difference compared to the Sony (slightly smoother bokeh, similar CA correction, Sony is sharper), which makes me question the whole review as I'd expect the differences to be quite visible...
I agree. DPreview is not exactly known for great lens reviews.
They praise the weathersealing (which it doesn't have), but then again complain about CA performance or distortion without showing any evidence or comparison to other lenses. The statement about the sharpness is also pretty vague.
j4nu wrote:
@JVan_02@ - I'll be testing mostly wide open as I'm intersted if the near-MFD slight glow affects AF operation... So far, AF(-C) is accurate in bad light, but I mostly shot > 0.5m .
This weird spot bothers me, I think it's some kind of glass imperfection (with scene such as the above I can even see it when reviewing the pictures on the camera screen):
keepcoding wrote:
I agree. DPreview is not exactly known for great lens reviews.
They praise the weathersealing (which it doesn't have), but then again complain about CA performance or distortion without showing any evidence or comparison to other lenses. The statement about the sharpness is also pretty vague.
DP Review's lens reviews are strangely milquetoast and lack the rigor of their camera reviews (which also tread lightly to avoid upsetting advertisers but have everything you need to know in the details). Not sure why they even bother doing lens reviews. ThePhoblographer has the worst lens reviews though. Or maybe Steve Huff (in his "review" of the 35/2 and 65/2 says "...These lenses with these bodies will bring you crazy good results..." [click here to buy them all]).
Would be fun to do a thread on worst lens review sites.
JVan_02 wrote:
@j4nu@ thanks so much for the samples! I'd recommend anyone interested look on flickr, this site has a bit of compression.
NP, I uploaded some additional images to the album on flickr (f2.8, f4 comparisons) not to spam here too much. If the sun ever shows up again, I'll post some more...
Regarding AF, I still need to shoot more because I can see some close-up shots which are a bit softer, but I'm not sure yet if it's AF-C missing or simply some IQ degradation near MFD... Overall it's pretty good though (and on a sidenote MF experience is great, focus ring is perfectly dampened imho).
j4nu wrote:
This weird spot bothers me, I think it's some kind of glass imperfection (with scene such as the above I can even see it when reviewing the pictures on the camera screen):
j4nu wrote:
NP, I uploaded some additional images to the album on flickr (f2.8, f4 comparisons) not to spam here too much. If the sun ever shows up again, I'll post some more...
Regarding AF, I still need to shoot more because I can see some close-up shots which are a bit softer, but I'm not sure yet if it's AF-C missing or simply some IQ degradation near MFD... Overall it's pretty good though (and on a sidenote MF experience is great, focus ring is perfectly dampened imho).
Saw those. Thanks for all the samples! Any more updates on AF?
vdo1 wrote:
Maybe you can use this defect to return the lens and get the 65mm in exchange. I have a feeling that out of the two, the 65 is the nicer one.
Yes, if I were looking for a 65mm (I'd never expect I'd have a choice (primes) regarding that focal lengthg to be honest).
I think 65mm is "easier" to get right than 35mm, seeing all iterations of the latter we have now, each with its own set of tradeoffs.
Regarding the strange spot, I still can return the lens thanks to the consumer laws around here, but I don't want to. I compared it to my other Sigma lenses and I can see some similar spots, but noticeably smaller...
j4nu wrote:
They don't seem to like it and I don't like the review . I think they are mistaken about weather sealing and their paragraph about CA leaves me wondering what kind of CA is corrected well in the end. Also, it seems they don't see much difference compared to the Sony (slightly smoother bokeh, similar CA correction, Sony is sharper), which makes me question the whole review as I'd expect the differences to be quite visible...
They say Sony is slightly sharper, abbot says Sigma is slightly sharper, published MTFs say they are about the same (at infinity) and both so good that I doubt the sharpness differences are really visible. Slightly less astigmatism for Sigma though which is encouraging.
Yeah I must say these short subjective DPR lens “reviews” are a pity, it’s a great site in many ways. I heard they were trying to recruit serious lens reviewers at one point, but nothing has come of it...
@j4nu those eyes look right on target, but performance seems to be kinda in line with what I expect from my 40 WO—maybe a bit better. Whether that's the ISO or a lack of differentiation in lens design is a bit harder to say. I can say my 20 G would be a step above those crops, but uh... there's a reason I'd say that's the best lens I've ever used
Now I'm curious as to how the Nikon 35 1.8 Z would perform in the same scenario. To my knowledge, it's the king of the mid-speed 35 heap and I wonder if it would perform any better—or if there's something so inherently difficult about 35 as a focal length that this is good as it gets... until Sony releases a 35 1.8 G in 10 years
Well, okay, the 35 SL Summicron would probably be better, but at double the weight and like 9x the cost of the Sigma and 7x the cost of the Nikon.
JVan_02 wrote:
@j4nu@ those eyes look right on target, but performance seems to be kinda in line with what I expect from my 40 WO—maybe a bit better. Whether that's the ISO or a lack of differentiation in lens design is a bit harder to say. I can say my 20 G would be a step above those crops, but uh... there's a reason I'd say that's the best lens I've ever used
Now I'm curious as to how the Nikon 35 1.8 Z would perform in the same scenario. To my knowledge, it's the king of the mid-speed 35 heap and I wonder if it would perform any better—or if there's something so inherently difficult about 35 as a focal length that this is good as it gets... until Sony releases a 35 1.8 G in 10 years
Well, okay, the 35 SL Summicron would probably be better, but at double the weight and like 9x the cost of the Sigma and 7x the cost of the Nikon. ...Show more →
Yep, Sigma is loosing some IQ when you get closer (though I have to check that distance more carefully), no question your 20G would be sharper. I'd hope that only became visible at around 35cm or so but I think it starts a fair bit earlier (longer distance). I think Samyang might be a bit sharper up close (and obviously Sony).
That's the thing with testing on high ISO, hard to tell due to noise, if it's AF or lens limit near MFD. Then, in perfect conditions, AF might behave differently ...
Anyways, unless the sun finally breaks through the clouds, I won't be able to provide a much better test...
As for Nikon S series lenses, you have a point. It always baffled me why their entry into FF mirrorless world went so poorly. From what I've read, it's the best mid-speed current lens series. You might not like their exterior or lack of additional functionality, but optically and operation-wise (AF, etc.) they seem great.
I guess I'm part of the problem, as I also become addicted to bigger and faster glass and that seem to sell better nowadays...
« The Sony FE 35mm F1.8 is very sharp. Sharp enough wide open that you won't worry about any need to stop down. At F1.8 it is sharper and has more contrast than the Sony Distagon T* FE 35mm F1.4 ZA and the Nikon 35mm F1.8 S, almost approaching the benchmark Canon 35mm F1.4L II lens.»
and
« For example, the magnitude of longitudinal CA is on par with what we saw when we recently reviewed the Nikon 35mm F1.8 S lens, and actually considerably better than that exhibited by the bigger, more expensive Distagon T* 35mm F1.4 ZA, where you see distracting fringing around out-of-focus highlights.»
Samples and other reviews say different. Granted, the lenses fall probably across some range of copy variation—but the Nikon is better corrected with better bokeh. Kinda like this Sigma, but with better corrections for breathing and distortion, and at a 1/3 stop light gathering advantage.
The Polish side of Lens Tip has its review of the Sigma 35mm f/2 out. I'm sure their English version will be coming soon. At f/4 the lens is basically as good as anything available (red=center, blue=mid, green=corners).
Also, its sharper than the FE35/1.8 and the Batis 40/2 wide open (Batis is blue, FE is green).
I've canceled my pre-orders of the Sigma 35 and the Sigma 65.
I decided that my excellent Sony 55/1.8 obviated the need for the 65. No examples of the 65's output that I've seen are better than my 55/1.8 could produce, and the 55 is a significantly smaller and lighter than the Sigma.
It seems like the Sigma 35/2 isn't that different from the Sony 35/1.8. I love the 35mm FL, so I'll wait for what I'm sure will be the best of the three - the Sony 35 GM. My RX1RII and my Sony 35/2.8 ZA can hold the fort until then...
. I think they are mistaken about weather sealing and their paragraph about CA leaves me wondering what kind of CA is corrected well in the end. Also, it seems they don't see much difference compared to the Sony (slightly smoother bokeh, similar CA correction, Sony is sharper), which makes me question the whole review as I'd expect the differences to be quite visible...
.
