The Sigma may be a "Big" ma but I guess it doesn't feel as heavy to carry any more.
Thank you Mystik!
zhangyue: I have owned both the Leica lenses you mentioned. The 85 is special, indeed. The M 35 Lux pre-ASPH couldn't deliver an image sharp from border to border but there was a magic but still clean feeling to many images. No, you are right, I can't describe it either.
Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
I wonder how lenses like this would perform on cameras with a thinner filter stack?
Thank you so much for the comparison! I've been waiting literally MONTHS for someone to compare these two lenses and your images are the first I've actually seen of them both used in the same situation.
If I could make a request, could you please take a few shots at further distances (like full body portraits) and then some shots with them both stopped down to say f2.2 to get rid of some of the wide open funk? I am curious to see how they render when stopping down slightly and if that gets rid of some of the ringing around bokeh on the Sony and some of the cats eyes on the Sigma.
I think the S1R is ~1.45mm and the Sony a7R IV is ~1.75mm....at least it's what I've seen from Kolari. Don't know what the Sigma fp is, nor the Leicas.
I would expect Sigma to have tweaked the L mount lenses for L mount cover glass and the E mount lenses for E mount cover glass.
Teo Rey wrote:
Don't the L-Mount cameras have different sensor stack thickness than E-Mount?
tsdevine wrote:
I think the S1R is ~1.45mm and the Sony a7R IV is ~1.75mm....at least it's what I've seen from Kolari. Don't know what the Sigma fp is, nor the Leicas.
I would expect Sigma to have tweaked the L mount lenses for L mount cover glass and the E mount lenses for E mount cover glass.
tsdevine wrote:
I think the S1R is ~1.45mm and the Sony a7R IV is ~1.75mm....at least it's what I've seen from Kolari. Don't know what the Sigma fp is, nor the Leicas.
I would expect Sigma to have tweaked the L mount lenses for L mount cover glass and the E mount lenses for E mount cover glass.
Or it’s just made for the L stack and adopted to Sony regardless the outcome.
Just be careful with Kolari numbers. He doesnt look at the whole stack, just the removable pieces above the epoxy cover glass. So total thickness may or may not be directly comparable. Not picking, he does good work, just stating facts.
Yeah, I guess Sigma could try to make their lenses not work as well as they could on Sony. All part of their master plan....
Hmm...maybe they could make them not be quite as good on Panny or Leica. Drive everyone to the FP
I have the Sigma 14-24, 45, 105 macro and soon the 65. If they left the Sigma 14-24 performance on Sony to luck, then I'm thinking the 35 can't be wildly different on E even if it isn't fully optimized. They even show samples on their site taken on Sony cameras, maybe I give them too much credit to think they tweak their lenses for the camera. They do offer mount switches, not sure if they do that for their mirrorless cameras though.
But I can 100% say I don't know. Maybe Sigma just slapped on the E mount ring and rejiggered the electronics for Sony.
That's a good point though. The Sigma DG DN line is offered for both Sony and Sigma mounts and they don't have the exact same sensor stack thickness. I would assume Sigma optimizes the lenses for each sensor but I don't know the answer to that.
@Teo Rey asked if perhaps a thinner sensor would make the 35/2 DG DN perform better in terms of a more even out of focus rendering (Not sharper corners) but this also happens with the FE 35/1.8 and many other 35mm lenses. The Sigma 35/1.2 does well in comparison and hopefully the new GM will perform similarly to the Sigma on this.
For some reason my 35/2 and 65/2 lenses are delayed but I will get the new 24/3.5 on Friday.
Mine are still show processing. Card was charged but No shipment made.
My SL2 desperately need AF prime but shooting these on FP is totally different experience I’d say. It will be fun.
As for sensor stack, I don’t know as Panasonic Leica and sigma each have different sensor stack spec. I don’t even know how to deal with these other than design lenses insensitive to stack.
The sigma zoom(14-24-70) I have perform superbly on SL2 though, as good as you can expect from zoom.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a good point though. The Sigma DG DN line is offered for both Sony and Sigma mounts and they don't have the exact same sensor stack thickness. I would assume Sigma optimizes the lenses for each sensor but I don't know the answer to that.
@Teo Rey@@@ asked if perhaps a thinner sensor would make the 35/2 DG DN perform better in terms of a more even out of focus rendering (Not sharper corners) but this also happens with the FE 35/1.8 and many other 35mm lenses. The Sigma 35/1.2 does well in comparison and hopefully the new GM will perform similarly to the Sigma on this.
For some reason my 35/2 and 65/2 lenses are delayed but I will get the new 24/3.5 on Friday....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a good point though. The Sigma DG DN line is offered for both Sony and Sigma mounts and they don't have the exact same sensor stack thickness. I would assume Sigma optimizes the lenses for each sensor but I don't know the answer to that.
@Teo Rey@@@ asked if perhaps a thinner sensor would make the 35/2 DG DN perform better in terms of a more even out of focus rendering (Not sharper corners) but this also happens with the FE 35/1.8 and many other 35mm lenses. The Sigma 35/1.2 does well in comparison and hopefully the new GM will perform similarly to the Sigma on this.
For some reason my 35/2 and 65/2 lenses are delayed but I will get the new 24/3.5 on Friday....Show more →
I went googling to see if anyone can report different performance (in rendering, sharpness, correction, etc) on L-Mount vs E-Mount with Sigma lenses, but so far haven't found anything.
If anyone finds anything regarding this, let us know (hopefully with a new thread )!
I believe there is someone over in the Sigma 45mm thread that has one both in E and L mount, but I can't remember who it is. I'm not sure differences (or lack thereof) in one lens or FL would necessarily prove or disprove behavior of all Sigma lenses. I would imagine though if there were measurable differences found lets say in the 45mm, it could be a strong indication that at least for some lenses there weren't optimizations made.
-Tim
Teo Rey wrote:
I went googling to see if anyone can report different performance (in rendering, sharpness, correction, etc) on L-Mount vs E-Mount with Sigma lenses, but so far haven't found anything.
If anyone finds anything regarding this, let us know (hopefully with a new thread )!
I had my Sigma fp modded by Kolari and haven't seen any noticeable negative effects on the 45C. I was concerned that it might make backgrounds less smooth due to a change in the presentation of field curvature, however that doesn't seem to be the case, at least in any way that effects real-world usage.
Teo Rey wrote:
Don't the L-Mount cameras have different sensor stack thickness than E-Mount?
Jan 28, 2021 at 10:08 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
That would be me. I didn't have them both at the same time, so no direct comparisons made, but see above.
tsdevine wrote:
I believe there is someone over in the Sigma 45mm thread that has one both in E and L mount, but I can't remember who it is. I'm not sure differences (or lack thereof) in one lens or FL would necessarily prove or disprove behavior of all Sigma lenses. I would imagine though if there were measurable differences found lets say in the 45mm, it could be a strong indication that at least for some lenses there weren't optimizations made.
-Tim
Jan 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I was wondering about that. I asked them to measure the fp sensor stack, and they came back with 1.3mm as the thickness.
AdaptedLenses wrote:
Or it’s just made for the L stack and adopted to Sony regardless the outcome.
Just be careful with Kolari numbers. He doesnt look at the whole stack, just the removable pieces above the epoxy cover glass. So total thickness may or may not be directly comparable. Not picking, he does good work, just stating facts.
Seems odd that the L Alliance didn’t coordinate a cover glass thickness standard to be consistent. Unless there are other properties of the specific glass being used that equalizes the behavior even when there is a slight difference in thickness.
That assumes accuracy in the cover glass thickness we’re throwing around.
)!