smpetty wrote:
It seems like the Sigma 35/2 isn't that different from the Sony 35/1.8.
Have you seen any comparison to the Sony 35/1.8 in terms of rendering? I do expect the Sigma to do better than the Sony in terms of resolution across the field and axial CA control.
If they render similarly, I would probably skip the Sigma 35/2 as well. Personally I am not that interested in the 65/2 just because the focal length but I do want to check their 24/3.5.
@smpetty I'd have a slight disagreement there. The 65 I think is better on a technical level—in terms of cross frame resolution (even after distortion correction), CA, and contrast. However, as is the case vs the 50 1.8 S, I think the 55's character could mostly make up for it. It has a pretty classic rendering to my eyes, and is probably only surpassed in every category within the subset of midspeed primes by the APO-Lanthar... which, unfortunately, is MF only.
Sigma 35 OTOH looks to be one diminishing return increment over the Sony mid-speed. Which can be both impressive (less and smaller elements, smaller footprint overall) and unimpressive (only a little better). However, realistically only the GM and maybe in almost a decade (I presume, anyway) a G 1.8 will be solidly above it.
I guess that's a lot of words to say I basically agree, but wanted a bit of enjoyable pedantry before I begin a late night session on my thesis
Would be nice to see this being tested on the IV as well. Sometimes I think lenses are getting to the point resolution wise that you can't differentiate on the II or III.
-Tim
MAubrey wrote:
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).
I think it's all about compromises when it comes to compact midspeed 35mm. I bought the Sigma hoping it will be just "sharp enough", but at the same time provide "smooth bokeh" ™ and at least slightly better CA correction (I'm allergic to fringing) compared to is closest rivals, Sony and Samyang (which to me are eerily similar).
I never tried the Sony, I don't have the Samyang anymore and the lack of sun is preventing me from even trying to replicate the shots I took with SY, so I can't help much currently in solving this riddle. However, my first impression is that the Sigma has a slightly nicer rendering compared to SY, not on the level I see in RX1 or Sigma45 pictures, but getting closer to the compromise I was aiming for (at the cost of MFD though) .
DavidBM wrote:
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...
They should have Roger Cicala do MTF benches for every lens they review. He's already writing articles for them, why not have him contribute to reviews as well?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Have you seen any comparison to the Sony 35/1.8 in terms of rendering? I do expect the Sigma to do better than the Sony in terms of resolution across the field and axial CA control.
If they render similarly, I would probably skip the Sigma 35/2 as well. Personally I am not that interested in the 65/2 just because the focal length but I do want to check their 24/3.5.
I haven't seen formal comparisons of the Sigma 35/2 and the Sony 35/1.8. I used to own (and really enjoyed) the Sony 35/1.8. But when talk of the Sigma 35 and the 35 GM came up, I sold it to make room for one of those lenses.
I've looked at all of the examples here and all of the images on Flickr made with the new Sigma 35/2, and I just don't see any magic that the Sony 35/1.8 doesn't also have. To my eye, they render similarly. I hope that the 35 GM delivers like the 24 GM did. If not, I may we'll pickup a used version of the Sony 35/1.8 and move on.
Yeah to me Sigma 35F2 does not have significant advantage over it's Sony rival, other than build quality. I love the look and the aperture ring! But it's not persuasive enough for me to try this over the Sony one.
And seems no one has mentioned the AFC performance on Sigma's. I'm not counting on it beating Sony's leading autofocus performance but I do hope it can be usable. After what Sigma 45 gave us... Yet no reviewer but Fred had mentioned it's AFC flaw.
smpetty wrote:
I haven't seen formal comparisons of the Sigma 35/2 and the Sony 35/1.8. I used to own (and really enjoyed) the Sony 35/1.8. But when talk of the Sigma 35 and the 35 GM came up, I sold it to make room for one of those lenses.
I've looked at all of the examples here and all of the images on Flickr made with the new Sigma 35/2, and I just don't see any magic that the Sony 35/1.8 doesn't also have. To my eye, they render similarly. I hope that the 35 GM delivers like the 24 GM did. If not, I may we'll pickup a used version of the Sony 35/1.8 and move on....Show more →
I was hoping the new Sigma would be a smaller version Sigma 35/1.2. I'm not impressed by the samples I have seen. I don't see it having the great sharpness/color/contrast of the 35/1.2. I'm not sure I like it any better than the good copy of the Sony 35/1.8 I had, but sold.
Posted that comparison before I even watched it. While I think the only lens that hits the recent Sony G/GM tier is the 1.2... there is a surprisingly small difference in real world testing. Specifically, when showing the portrait in triplicate, while there was a notable difference in that you could make out iris texture in the 1.2 wide open... I don't think any difference stood out beyond that. You could see fine skin and eyelash detail in all lenses, and it was really just the iris that stood out.
Soooo... this is as good as it gets in mid-speed maybe? As I've said before—I think in 8-12 years we'll see a 35ish 1.8 G, and maybe in a year or two we'll see a 28 G. But the difference in terms of resolution will only be the iris detail. Of course, Sony's lenses will probably also have the smoother transition zone and bokeh, but if anyone wants a mid-speed 35ish lens... enjoy this for the next decade
Ech, I should postpone any lens purchases untill mid-spring at least. The weather still looks like this (well, at least the greens are green, f8): DSC03219 by Jan U, on Flickr
Anyways, a couple of shots where I tried to induce CA (hard without light):
This guy (Tom Calton) is doing some of the best Sony reviews I've ever seen - concise, well thought out, and entertaining ("well butter my ass and call me a biscuit"). I trust Fred and this community, Dustin Abbott, and now Tom Calton for evaluation of Sony gear.
As far as the review goes... I'll wait on the Sony 35 GM. I would like a bit more separation/speed than F2 allows (although my RX1RII Sonnar is the same speed and I've always been happy with its output).
He’s really good, and surprisingly has <3k followers. He strikes the right balance between being amusing while still offering thorough, yet concise, technical reviews. Manufacturers must see the same thing as he gets pre-production copies like some of the bigger content creators.
Unfortunately Tom Calton says nothing about flare, LoCA, contrast and resolution at any other distance than the test chart and... I also think the second "sharpness test" as performed by taking a portrait was done with an A7iii. That makes me wonder what the resolution freaks with their 60+ MP cameras think.
There is a limit to everything of course and now his comparison is about Sigma lenses only. While still happy with the Samyang 35/1.8 I'm also looking forward to other releases in the 35mm-area. We'll see what happens. There is no lack of choices today but a lens has to have significant advantages over the Samyang to make me switch. I like the Sigma aperture ring though...
Thank you to all of you having contributed to this thread!
Enjoyed the video and agree with his assessment, but honestly this video doesn't provide anything that most of us didn't know already.
f/1.2 is like magic sprinkled on top of your shots. I don't honestly know how to define it technically, but whatever aberrations or corrections combination is in there makes it a really special lens in terms of overall IQ. To my eyes only CV lenses come close in the quality department. The problem is 1 KG + weight and the size for the 35mm FL.
Now how do you shrink that giant bazooka to 1/3 the size and 1/2 the weight? You can't, at least not in 2020. Eventually, all of this will be replaced with computational photography in modern phones and we won't have to worry about size and weight any more, but for now your choices are limited.
Personally, I think 35/2 has the best IQ in compact 35 category. I am keeping Sigma 35/1.2 and Sony 35/2.8 ZA as my holy duo to cover 35 for now, but if 35 GM has close IQ to Sigma 35/1.2 and has the same size and weight as 24 GM, I will dump both in a heartbeat for the GM.
More photos (a couple aperture series, some flare shots [I did have a UV filter on though], etc.) can be found in the album: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTsxrUm
@j4nu thanks for the samples! Honestly, this lens might not be the GM magic, but it's damn good. Chances I get this + an α7C at some point are going up
I guess we'll see Wednesday how much the 35 GM weighs.
