JVan_02 wrote:
@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.
I think we can safely assume a couple things about the GM:
* class-leading flare resistance (tech from 12-24GM)
* better AF, especially at tracking (latest GM AF motors)
* across-the-frame sharpness on the big Sigma-ish level (or even exceeding it)
Now, the size will come into play. I still don't know if it's going to be a slightly bigger 24GM or a slightly smaller 35ZA, but either way I do expect some compromises, as the 67mm filter thread suggests at least some compactness over performance:
* some distortion
* not perfercly corrected (but that could help rendering)
Anyways, back to the topic, I found some Samyang 35mm f1.8 corner pics, so I lined them down with Sigma (top-SIgma, bot-SY):
@j4nu well I'm sure whatever the IQ I'll be more than happy. For me it's definitely a size/weight thing. Depending, I have 3ish options moving forward (less important now because weather is brightening up a little—in a month I should have some pretty solid time every day to use my 40 and it'll be usable from late Feb-mid Oct):
35 GM is around/under 500 g: pick up the GM, replace my 40. I mildly dislike this option, but I think it's the best moving forward as it's the only option that (presumably) improves IQ, improves AF, maintains construction. I lose a bit of utility from the CF capabilities of my 40, which is a shame, but I am no longer hamstrung ~5ish months of the year trying to use my standard. Also, even if the 35 is record breaking in terms of weight savings for modern lenses—I'll still be adding to the weight of my daily driver, which is a bit of a bummer. Can't say it's for nothing though.
35 GM is over ~525g: pick up one of the midspeed 35 options. Every option here has its compromises compared to my current setup—but they all pair better with an α7C and function better in bad lighting. I guess I'm the most disappointed by the Sigma in this regard—while it's definitely the best in terms of IQ, seeing those first leaked images I was hoping it was a goddamn macro ring and that I could have roughly equivalent IQ (mildly prefer the output of my 40 from samples I've seen, but I realize from most considerations it'd be pretty easy to split wins down the middle between these two) without sacrificing close focus utility. And you know, that Sigma would put a few more gaskets around the internals of the lens. Just took the 40 out in the snow with the kiddo and got it completely covered... which would be something I couldn't do with the 35mm f2.
Discard trying to replace my 40 and replace my 20 instead... with the 24 GM. I really don't like this idea because I was generously gifted this lens. However, I'd feel much more comfortable using the 24 as a main optic than the 20 due to the increased incidence of wide angle distortion you get with an ultrawide. I'd lose out on some of the ultrawide magic in documentary (the amount of exaggeration you get to place on subjects with the right comps and/or amount of context you can provide an image is unique), but I wouldn't have to worry so much about messing up images due to turning subjects into fat taffy.
BONUS: Sony releases a 28 1.8 G while I'm debating one of the above options. I need to replace nothing even though I could probably swap out my 40 for a 65mm f2 if I wanted, and as long as the 28 G is as good as its 20mm counterpart I probably wouldn't even need to see any reviews.
Definitely looking forward to the announcement tomorrow. It'll actually be perfect, because I need to run some models again for my engineering thesis then, so I'll be able to read up while doing work at the same time
My Sigma 35/2 arrived today, will now test it against the 35 1.4 ZA on an A7III and the 24 GM on an A6400.
A6400 with 24 GM is more than 100g lighter (with hoods), with SmallRig l-Bracket & wooden grip it is about equal.
First test shots of my 6 year old show very, very similar wide-open sharpness in eye-lashes using eye-af. But will make some proper tests using non-moving targets later...
JVan_02 wrote:
@j4nu@ well I'm sure whatever the IQ I'll be more than happy. For me it's definitely a size/weight thing. Depending, I have 3ish options moving forward (less important now because weather is brightening up a little—in a month I should have some pretty solid time every day to use my 40 and it'll be usable from late Feb-mid Oct):
35 GM is around/under 500 g: pick up the GM, replace my 40. I mildly dislike this option, but I think it's the best moving forward as it's the only option that (presumably) improves IQ, improves AF, maintains construction. I lose a bit of utility from the CF capabilities of my 40, which is a shame, but I am no longer hamstrung ~5ish months of the year trying to use my standard. Also, even if the 35 is record breaking in terms of weight savings for modern lenses—I'll still be adding to the weight of my daily driver, which is a bit of a bummer. Can't say it's for nothing though.
35 GM is over ~525g: pick up one of the midspeed 35 options. Every option here has its compromises compared to my current setup—but they all pair better with an α7C and function better in bad lighting. I guess I'm the most disappointed by the Sigma in this regard—while it's definitely the best in terms of IQ, seeing those first leaked images I was hoping it was a goddamn macro ring and that I could have roughly equivalent IQ (mildly prefer the output of my 40 from samples I've seen, but I realize from most considerations it'd be pretty easy to split wins down the middle between these two) without sacrificing close focus utility. And you know, that Sigma would put a few more gaskets around the internals of the lens. Just took the 40 out in the snow with the kiddo and got it completely covered... which would be something I couldn't do with the 35mm f2.
Discard trying to replace my 40 and replace my 20 instead... with the 24 GM. I really don't like this idea because I was generously gifted this lens. However, I'd feel much more comfortable using the 24 as a main optic than the 20 due to the increased incidence of wide angle distortion you get with an ultrawide. I'd lose out on some of the ultrawide magic in documentary (the amount of exaggeration you get to place on subjects with the right comps and/or amount of context you can provide an image is unique), but I wouldn't have to worry so much about messing up images due to turning subjects into fat taffy.
BONUS: Sony releases a 28 1.8 G while I'm debating one of the above options. I need to replace nothing even though I could probably swap out my 40 for a 65mm f2 if I wanted, and as long as the 28 G is as good as its 20mm counterpart I probably wouldn't even need to see any reviews.
Definitely looking forward to the announcement tomorrow. It'll actually be perfect, because I need to run some models again for my engineering thesis then, so I'll be able to read up while doing work at the same time ...Show more →
Yep, it's mostly about size for me too. I think Batis is quite unique, especially the colors and contrast, so it's not easily interchangeable.
I'll be considering ditching the big Sigma in favor of the new GM, but on a smaller camera like A7C, I think the (smaller) midspeed options will still be a better fit.
j4nu wrote:
Yep, it's mostly about size for me too. I think Batis is quite unique, especially the colors and contrast, so it's not easily interchangeable.
I'll be considering ditching the big Sigma in favor of the new GM, but on a smaller camera like A7C, I think the (smaller) midspeed options will still be a better fit.
Agree on all counts. The 40 just seems to get color in a way my 20 simply doesn't: saturation seems more rich and natural, tonal transitions are better, and I also like that the slight deviation from an APO designation comes with a bit of a blue emphasis. This looks excellent on skin in most scenarios, and with precedent: you often darken fairer skin with blue.
Size for me is important mostly because I want to get an α7C at some point, but maybe I wait for the model 2/3. The 7 III is an excellent camera, and at this point you get better AF but lose a lot of custom controls. I think I could swing a 24 GM on the 7C as is, and maybe a petite enough 35 GM could do with a little additional grip.
My Sigma 35/2 arrived today, will now test it against the 35 1.4 ZA on an A7III and the 24 GM on an A6400.
A6400 with 24 GM is more than 100g lighter (with hoods), with SmallRig l-Bracket & wooden grip it is about equal.
First test shots of my 6 year old show very, very similar wide-open sharpness in eye-lashes using eye-af. But will make some proper tests using non-moving targets later...
The images are full views of the A7III with 35mm 1.4 ZA at both f1.4 and f2, A7III with Sigma 35mm f2 at f2 and A6400 with 24mm GM at 1.4. Don't know if the order is correct, you should be able to figure it out yourselves . As mentioned elsewhere, at close to MFD, the Sigma is quite a bit wider than the Sony 35mm and the 24mm GM on APSC (should be 36mm). The crops are a bit more than 100% and I manually focused on Kai's eyes each time...
edit: as focus distance is close to MFD, e.g. around 30 cm, some glow and softness is to be expected.
edit #2: the crops are [email protected] (top left), 35ZA@f2 (top right), sigma 35/2@f2 (bottom right), [email protected] on a6400 (bottom left)
The images are full views of the A7III with 35mm 1.4 ZA at both f1.4 and f2, A7III with Sigma 35mm f2 at f2 and A6400 with 24mm GM at 1.4. Don't know if the order is correct, you should be able to figure it out yourselves . As mentioned elsewhere, at close to MFD, the Sigma is quite a bit wider than the Sony 35mm and the 24mm GM on APSC (should be 36mm). The crops are a bit more than 100% and I manually focused on Kai's eyes each time...
edit: as focus distance is close to MFD, e.g. around 30 cm, some glow and softness is to be expected.
edit #2: the crops are [email protected] (top left), 35ZA@f2 (top right), sigma 35/2@f2 (bottom right), [email protected] on a6400 (bottom left) ...Show more →
Hmm, interesting - I don't know if it's the matter of lightning, but they all seem to glow a bit in that distance. I never noticed that with my 24GM, I'll try to check it myself as I rarely shoot 24 that close...
Also, one strange impression I get from the Sigma is, that because it's so sleek, it feels longer than it really is. I find 24GM size perfect (which is bigger), so that's a bit puzzling but maybe I'll get used to it .
Getting back to rendering (I'm still undecided on how big the differences are between the Sony, Samyang and Sigma), in this 100% crop from one of the pics I posted (0.98m focus distance) :
I'm seeing the slight (SA?) glow in the transition zone just behind the plane of focus (e.g. the plant in the lower left corner of the crop), similar but less intensive than in 45mm. Am I seeing things or do you guys also see some similarity?
Maybe this lens is not that far off 45mm as I initially expected. I also think its IQ up close is more affected by SA than Samyang for example...
j4nu wrote:
Getting back to rendering (I'm still undecided on how big the differences are between the Sony, Samyang and Sigma), in this 100% crop from one of the pics I posted (0.98m focus distance) :
I'm seeing the slight (SA?) glow in the transition zone just behind the plane of focus (e.g. the plant in the lower left corner of the crop), similar but less intensive than in 45mm. Am I seeing things or do you guys also see some similarity?
Maybe this lens is not that far off 45mm as I initially expected. I also think its IQ up close is more affected by SA than Samyang for example......Show more →
Close-up examples do indeed look beautiful. The aspects of rendering that I don't like which I've seen on the 35 are a more nervous transition zone and highlights around bokeh edges at mid to long distances (especially near the frame's edge). Neither of which are visible at close focus distance
Teo Rey wrote:
Close-up examples do indeed look beautiful. The aspects of rendering that I don't like which I've seen on the 35 are a more nervous transition zone and highlights around bokeh edges at mid to long distances (especially near the frame's edge). Neither of which are visible at close focus distance
Yep, corners are tough. The same with fringing (branches against bright sky, etc.). I think we're at the limits of what can be done in that regard in a compact format such as this.
As for mid distance transitions, I need to shot more, the Sigma should be theoretically the best of the trio (Sony, Samyang) at it...
The background distance is angled to the camera, branches on the right are closer to the camera/object and those on the left are further away.
I'd say the Sigma 35mm F2 is not doing too bad. I neither had the Batis 40 or Sony 35 1.8 (for their rendering), but given what I have seen online, this new Sigma might be better than these two in that respect.
Made as well my landscape sharpness test this morning (sorry for the bleak lighting), no surprises here for the Sigma 35mm F2 DG DN on my 24 MP A7III. Crops are from OOC JPEGs, which got a slight local brightness boost. Made the same series for 35 1.4 ZA and the 24GM on the A6400, would post them as well, if there is interest to compare.
and for the 24 1.4 GM on the A6400. This one left me quite puzzled, did not expect to see that much corner softness at f1.4 and f2... At first I suspected camera shake (it was a but windy and the tripod was on ice), but the center looks fine wide open...
.
