Teo Rey wrote:
THE 65 is pretty much exactly what I've been wanting for years (something between 50 and 85 that is well corrected with soft & round bokeh almost all the way to the corners), so I'm okay with paying a higher price and weight cost for it. I only wish it had a custom button and full weather sealing for that price.
Considering the focal length, I think f2 should be fast enough for both casual and professional work for me, as long as they follow it up with something between 100-120mm for when I want more separation. 135mm renders beautiful images, but the focal length is such a pain to use as you need to be a long distance away from your subject which makes doing shoots more difficult and isolated. I would definitely prefer that they keep it at f2 if it's around 100mm as the whole point of that focal length for me would be to separate the subject from the background more....Show more →
Yes, a Sigma 100/2 DG DN would be a wonderful addition to the I Series.
Currently, the E-mount does not have any 100mm f/2 native option.
Teo Rey wrote:
135mm renders beautiful images, but the focal length is such a pain to use as you need to be a long distance away from your subject which makes doing shoots more difficult and isolated.
RustyBug wrote:
Have you ever used 85/90 on APS-C?
When I had the Sony 90mm and the Sigma 85mm DN I would use them in crop mode from time to time on my a7R III. It's nice as an option when you need a little extra reach, but I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have CV 21 3.5 Skopar and CV40 1.2 MF lenses, and looking for small AF lens for chasing my daughter. Can't decide yet between the Sigma 65 f2 and Sony 85 1.8.
if you like manual lenses go for the Sigma, it fits perfectly with the Voigtlanders in terms of build quality and feel.
I myself have had the Voigt 65 apo and now the Sigma 65, I like it very well.
Lukacs wrote:
I have CV 21 3.5 Skopar and CV40 1.2 MF lenses, and looking for small AF lens for chasing my daughter. Can't decide yet between the Sigma 65 f2 and Sony 85 1.8.
Just ordered the 65mm F2. They kept showing in stock, then it would say preorder then back to in stock. I ordered it. Hope its a good one. I think I will like using a 65mm focal length.
Thanks for the comparison pics (and with FE 35 no less!).
... I think I need to post my "switch face" pics as well ...
Edit: went through my Sigma35F2 shots and I don't have a single one with Switch ...
but going through the pictures made me regret sending it back, I really hope the GM makes up for it now...
My order for both 35 and 65 in L mount seems just show processed. I look forward to receiving them. I have no regret to get both even with all these fancy gears introduce in past few month, weeks, days
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the comparison Carlo.
Try comparing their rendering with the subject at ~3m from the lens. (preferentially on a tripod)
I'm not much of a tester but I'll be sure to!
I'm mostly interested in the portrait rendering of the Sigma 35 F2. Curious to see how similar it is to the 45 f2.8 and Sigma 35 1.2....here is a comparison shots to the "Big"ma 35.
The 35 F2 is wider than 35mm. I haven't busted a tripod out yet, but just by swapping between lenses from a fixed shooting distance I can already tell that there is enough of a FOV difference to impact the DOF and bokeh. FE 35 1.8 Sigma 35 f1.2 have equivalent FOV. The 35 F2 is noticeably wider.
Rendering of skin tones and colors is very similar to the 35 f1.2 though...big positive.
Not that, just don’t like talk picture in analytic way especially I think it is boring to break down detail of background one by one
Don’t have intention make it like a riddle. Just don’t think worth to talk about detail here and there.
For any lens, you either like or don’t. In some cases, I don’t even know how to explain I like lens like 80lux or 35lux preASPH.
Mystik wrote:
I'm not much of a tester but I'll be sure to!
I'm mostly interested in the portrait rendering of the Sigma 35 F2. Curious to see how similar it is to the 45 f2.8 and Sigma 35 1.2....here is a comparison shots to the "Big"ma 35.
The 35 F2 is wider than 35mm. I haven't busted a tripod out yet, but just by swapping between lenses from a fixed shooting distance I can already tell that there is enough of a FOV difference to impact the DOF and bokeh. FE 35 1.8 Sigma 35 f1.2 have equivalent FOV. The 35 F2 is noticeably wider.
Rendering of skin tones and colors is very similar to the 35 f1.2 though...big positive.
Thanks for the comparison. It looks like the out of focus 'corners' sharpen up quite a bit on the 35/2 DG DN sample. Similar behavior to the FE 35mm f/1.8. I see that as a negative and likely due to FC and optical vignetting.
zhangyue wrote:
Not that, just don’t like talk picture in analytic way especially I think it is boring to break down detail of background one by one
Don’t have intention make it like a riddle. Just don’t think worth to talk about detail here and there.
For any lens, you either like or don’t. In some cases, I don’t even know how to explain I like lens like 80lux or 35lux preASPH.
Haha, I know what you mean now... I can't explain why I particularly like the pictures coming from CV65 as well .
...
...
?