Patrick Kolb wrote:
Got the 24mm this morning just as we were going for a walk, so here are some images right out of the box. I processed them the way I normally print, hence the warm tone.
The big surprise for me is how nice the manual focus worked. After working with the 24mm and 45mm with manual focus, I then put on the Sony 20mm G lens and what a difference.
I'm really set on the new 35/1.4 GM so for me it will be the 24/3.5 and 45/2.8 DG DN set.
I have the 65/2 coming as well but I'm still not sure about it. Love the low optical vignetting on it though. (round specular highlights toward the corners)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm really set on the new 35/1.4 GM so for me it will be the 24/3.5 and 45/2.8 DG DN set.
I have the 65/2 coming as well but I'm still not sure about it. Love the low optical vignetting on it though. (round specular highlights toward the corners)
I am so tempted to pull the trigger on the Sigma 35mm F2 now that I have the 65mm. The only thing holding me back is the GM. Would really like a f1.4 in my kit but am very impressed with the 65mm Sigma so still on the fence.
Alex W wrote:
I am so tempted to pull the trigger on the Sigma 35mm F2 now that I have the 65mm. The only thing holding me back is the GM. Would really like a f1.4 in my kit but am very impressed with the 65mm Sigma so still on the fence.
It's a hard decision. I really like what Sigma did with the I series. There is so much to love about them.
They are compact, moderately fast, affordable, well-built and most importantly high IQ.
Zeiss had something similar with their Batis line but the lenses were not very compact and definitely not as affordable.
For the 35mm focal length though, I'm pretty much set on the 35/1.4 GM. However, I will make my final decision once I have both the 35/1.4 GM and the 35/2 DG DN in hands.
tsdevine wrote:
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.
Sigma could of gotten around the problem Tim, by using lens design as well: the more telecentric the design, the more perpindicular the light rays hit the cover glass - the less effect the cover glass has on field curvature.
True, but I would think as lenses get wider (like the 14-24), it would be harder to do this. I would think you'd end up with more of a DSLR size lens.
But lenses like the 35, 45, and 65 would probably be easier to address in design along your line of thought.
Petegh wrote:
Sigma could of gotten around the problem Tim, by using lens design as well: the more telecentric the design, the more perpindicular the light rays hit the cover glass - the less effect the cover glass has on field curvature.
Jan 29, 2021 at 06:58 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Petegh wrote:
Sigma could of gotten around the problem Tim, by using lens design as well: the more telecentric the design, the more perpindicular the light rays hit the cover glass - the less effect the cover glass has on field curvature.
I suspect that Leica who already had this mount in use didn't want a standardized cover glass. It is important to Leica that their SL cameras can use Leica M lenses and that requires a thinner cover glass. Sigma and Panasonic on the other hand probably wanted to go with a thicker cover glass as most manufacturer do and Leica might well have wanted (perhaps demanded) that only their cameras had the thinner cover glass and therefore the Leica M lens' better compatibility. They of course want Leica M lenses shot on Leica cameras.
It is true that telecentric designs (i.e., making lenses with a longer exit pupils) diminishes the effect of differences in cover glass thickness, but Leica M lenses have very short exit pupils and that isn't going to change. Panasonic and Sigma can make lenses with longer exit pupils or not worry that their lenses might not work as well on Leica cameras (this is probably a small market for Sigma and Panasonic anyway). For Sigma having a thicker cover glass so that their lenses don't need to be changed much between their L mount versions and Sony E mount versions was probably a priority too.
So I can see why a common cover glass was never specified. It would have been very had to get everyone on the same page, and still make the alliance.
But that also means you might see different performance of each L Alliance members lenses on another alliance members camera.
I guess the thought could be that it would be too minor to notice, otherwise would be a little bit of a thorn in the side of the alliance.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I suspect that Leica who already had this mount in use didn't want a standardized cover glass. It is important to Leica that their SL cameras can use Leica M lenses and that requires a thinner cover glass. Sigma and Panasonic on the other hand probably wanted to go with a thicker cover glass as most manufacturer do and Leica might well have wanted (perhaps demanded) that only their cameras had the thinner cover glass and therefore the Leica M lens' better compatibility. They of course want Leica M lenses shot on Leica cameras.
It is true that telecentric designs (i.e., making lenses with a longer exit pupils) diminishes the effect of differences in cover glass thickness, but Leica M lenses have very short exit pupils and that isn't going to change. Panasonic and Sigma can make lenses with longer exit pupils or not worry that their lenses might not work as well on Leica cameras (this is probably a small market for Sigma and Panasonic anyway). For Sigma having a thicker cover glass so that their lenses don't need to be changed much between their L mount versions and Sony E mount versions was probably a priority too.
So I can see why a common cover glass was never specified. It would have been very had to get everyone on the same page, and still make the alliance. ...Show more →
Jan 29, 2021 at 07:29 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
tsdevine wrote:
But that also means you might see different performance of each L Alliance members lenses on another alliance members camera.
I guess the thought could be that it would be too minor to notice, otherwise would be a little bit of a thorn in the side of the alliance.
I think it is more if you don't want differences between the cameras make your lenses with a long enough exit pupil so the sensor glass doesn't make much difference, but if you do want differences between the cameras (as Leica probably does) then you can design your lenses so they work best on your own cameras. Lens design can then either be partially exclusive or more open depending on what the goal of the manufacturer is.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is more if you don't want differences between the cameras make your lenses with a long enough exit pupil so the sensor glass doesn't make much difference, but if you do want differences between the cameras (as Leica probably does) then you can design your lenses so they work best on your own cameras. Lens design can then either be partially exclusive or more open depending on what the goal of the manufacturer is.
That might be right, but I don’t think we have to imagine they embraced exclusivity. Leica had a back catalogue of M lenses many of which have short exit pupils to deal with. Also, tekecentric designs are often larger so there’s an incentive there for M lenses to not to be so telecentric.
Jan 29, 2021 at 08:35 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
DavidBM wrote:
That might be right, but I don’t think we have to imagine they embraced exclusivity. Leica had a back catalogue of M lenses many of which have short exit pupils to deal with. Also, tekecentric designs are often larger so there’s an incentive there for M lenses to not to be so telecentric.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's a hard decision. I really like what Sigma did with the I series. There is so much to love about them.
They are compact, moderately fast, affordable, well-built and most importantly high IQ.
Zeiss had something similar with their Batis line but the lenses were not very compact and definitely not as affordable.
For the 35mm focal length though, I'm pretty much set on the 35/1.4 GM. However, I will make my final decision once I have both the 35/1.4 GM and the 35/2 DG DN in hands.
Fred,
Same here. I pre-ordered the Sony 35/1.4 GM too, but I thought that I would have a second set of primes but smaller primes with AF for general travel, family shots and long hiking trips. I had originally started to build that set with Voigtlander primes (2/1.4, 35/1.2, 50/2 APO) but have decided I like the versatility of the Sigma I series primes much better. Now I'm wondering, do I really need the GM primes I thought would be my main prime set (24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, and Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN)? Maybe I will satisfy my prime kit with just the 4 Sigma I series lenses and keep the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN until maybe a nice Sigma I series 90-105mm prime arrives? My main landscape kit is now the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM, Sigma 24-70/2.8 GM, and Sony 100-400 GM. But I was thinking of using the Sony 35mm/1.4 GM and Sigma 85mm primes instead of the 24-70 zoom. But maybe the Sigma I series 35mm and 65mm may do the trick. I need some nicer weather to get out and test these lenses more thoroughly! Decisions decisions
I don’t disagree with what you say, but to make them more compatible you might end up with a larger lens as a result, which might be perceived as a negative by some portion of the market. I guess I’m just saying there is no free lunch.....maybe.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it is more if you don't want differences between the cameras make your lenses with a long enough exit pupil so the sensor glass doesn't make much difference, but if you do want differences between the cameras (as Leica probably does) then you can design your lenses so they work best on your own cameras. Lens design can then either be partially exclusive or more open depending on what the goal of the manufacturer is.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Fred,
Same here. I pre-ordered the Sony 35/1.4 GM too, but I thought that I would have a second set of primes but smaller primes with AF for general travel, family shots and long hiking trips. I had originally started to build that set with Voigtlander primes (2/1.4, 35/1.2, 50/2 APO) but have decided I like the versatility of the Sigma I series primes much better. Now I'm wondering, do I really need the GM primes I thought would be my main prime set (24/1.4 GM, 35/1.4 GM, and Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN)? Maybe I will satisfy my prime kit with just the 4 Sigma I series lenses and keep the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN until maybe a nice Sigma I series 90-105mm prime arrives? My main landscape kit is now the Sony 12-24/2.8 GM, Sigma 24-70/2.8 GM, and Sony 100-400 GM. But I was thinking of using the Sony 35mm/1.4 GM and Sigma 85mm primes instead of the 24-70 zoom. But maybe the Sigma I series 35mm and 65mm may do the trick. I need some nicer weather to get out and test these lenses more thoroughly! Decisions decisions ...Show more →
Looking at the 24mm Sigma, it's about 3x as long as my Elmarit-M 28mm,so it appears as if they've done that.
tsdevine wrote:
I don’t disagree with what you say, but to make them more compatible you might end up with a larger lens as a result, which might be perceived as a negative by some portion of the market. I guess I’m just saying there is no free lunch.....maybe.
Yeah, without a complete redesign they can only tweak a lens so much for the various sensor stacks they are trying to reuse the design on. The question is did they tweak anything between the L and E mount versions.....did they optimize one over the other. Or did the produce a design that is effectively consistent across the mounts and sensor stacks without tweaking either the E or L mount version at all.
Not sure we'll ever know for sure.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Looking at the 24mm Sigma, it's about 3x as long as my Elmarit-M 28mm,so it appears as if they've done that.
