All the images we've seen so far seem to be the L mount version (the most visible difference with the 45mm versions was that little rib at the mount end and we can see that on these product images). I REALLY hope the FE versions are coming at the same time. And I think that groove is just that; a groove, and not a functional clutch.
Tonzah78 wrote:
All the images we've seen so far seem to be the L mount version (the most visible difference with the 45mm versions was that little rib at the mount end and we can see that on these product images). I REALLY hope the FE versions are coming at the same time. And I think that groove is just that; a groove, and not a functional clutch.
Up to now E-mount versions of all DG DN lenses have always been released the same time as L-mount versions (and the E-mounts sell much more) so I would expect that to be the case again.
Sigma seems to always publish L-mount version images for their new lenses and E-mount version images are typically hard to find, but I'd expect the difference to be the same as with 45/2.8 DG DN (the rib at the mount as you mentioned).
The prices look good to me and weight of 35/2 at 325g is good too. No info on weight of 24/3.5 yet it seems. I'll almost certainly get both 24/3.5 and 35/2 in E-mount.
JVan_02 wrote:
The... heck? Maybe they want more ingress points for water
If it's a SA control switch like several have speculated it'll be a... first? I honestly haven't even heard of a use case like that, but I haven't sampled every lens in history. Kind of a buzzkill that those are the max magnifications, honestly.
Yeah, the MFD on the 35 and 65 are pretty 'normal', unless early details are missing something. I'd like to see them closer, for sure. But not a total deal breaker.
As for the SA control idea, Nikon made two lenses with that capability, the 105 and 135 DC lenses. They allowed you to control the spherical aberration of the lens and optimize it for background or foreground. I had the 105 DC for a short period. It was a great lens. I didn't totally 'get' the lens at the time I bought it, but that was in the film days and I had to wait before I could look at photos so I was far less likely to run involved head-to-head comparisons. I would be more likely to appreciate the subtle control now.
Nikon abandoned the idea after those two lenses, maybe Sigma has picked it up again? Seems unlikely, I think, but it's an interesting bit of speculation.
I just don't understand why they would choose to only put seals on the mount... because if I'm caught in a rain storm, who cares if my lens survives as long as my camera makes it, right?
These prices are quite high for third party lenses without true weather sealing. There ought to be something really special about them to justify the price.
Teo Rey wrote:
I just don't understand why they would choose to only put seals on the mount... because if I'm caught in a rain storm, who cares if my lens survives as long as my camera makes it, right?
I think because it's the most common ingress point for water and dust and, well, it's the easiest and cheapest to do
In general, I haven't had much trouble with lenses in light or even somewhat heavy rain, sealed or not. They can handle more than I'm comfortable with them handling, if that makes sense. I am, however, a hobbyist, and I can get out of the rain if I feel I need to...so a pro shooter who is required to shoot, say, outdoor soccer in Vancouver in January is likely to have a very different opinion.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I think because it's the most common ingress point for water and dust and, well, it's the easiest and cheapest to do
In general, I haven't had much trouble with lenses in light or even somewhat heavy rain, sealed or not. They can handle more than I'm comfortable with them handling, if that makes sense. I am, however, a hobbyist, and I can get out of the rain if I feel I need to...so a pro shooter who is required to shoot, say, outdoor soccer in Vancouver in January is likely to have a very different opinion.
If you plan to shoot in rain, get a rain jacket period. No manufacture covers water damage under warranty...so that must tell you something.
chez wrote:
If you plan to shoot in rain, get a rain jacket period. No manufacture covers water damage under warranty...so that must tell you something.
Yes, that's right, and I think even the language around weather sealing and the reluctance to give any sort of IP rating tells you that manufacturers aren't about to assume any sort of liability for water damage.
As a proper Vancouverite, I have 4 different rain jackets...haha. I wear layers so my camera goes on over my base layer then my rain jacket overtop so I can get my camera in and out easily and protect it quickly.
chez wrote:
If you plan to shoot in rain, get a rain jacket period. No manufacture covers water damage under warranty...so that must tell you something.
While that's undeniably true... my 40 CF survived my kid dripping ice cream on it (and the frantic washing off from my water bottle)
Sealing matters so far as you can't anticipate every instance of danger to your kit.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
How is the FBW implementation on the 45/2.8C or new 85/1.4?
45C FBW is excellent—and I speak as an owner of manual-focus glass across Leica M, R, Contax/Yashica, Canon FL, EF, Nikon F. I know you have similar experience.
Wow that's beautiful. Aperture ring, interchangeable E mount, AF/MF switch, f2, probably a reasonable price. How has it taken so long for a lens like this?
Curious to see how the 35/1.4 GM and 35/2 Sigma shake out, but I'm expecting one of them to be in my bag by this time next year!
Dave Sanders wrote:
Yes, that's right, and I think even the language around weather sealing and the reluctance to give any sort of IP rating tells you that manufacturers aren't about to assume any sort of liability for water damage.
As a proper Vancouverite, I have 4 different rain jackets...haha. I wear layers so my camera goes on over my base layer then my rain jacket overtop so I can get my camera in and out easily and protect it quickly.
I was on a 3 day trek in Northern Vietnam and it rained the entire time, kept my camera under my poncho until I was ready to take a photo. Once done with photos...back it went under my poncho. Now the camera was soaked at the end of the days...but everything functioned just fine.
Another time I was shooting waterfalls in the Columbia Gorge and the light mist from the falls ceased up one of my cameras...just stopped working. Dried it out back at the hotel over a radiator and everything came back to life.
Just shows you never know when or where moisture can sneak into your camera and cause problems.
