Fred Miranda wrote:
My 35/2 and 65/2 shipped today and the 24/3.5 is coming today.
(From B&H)
Fred I look forward to your testing of these Sigma I series lenses. I'm not even thinking about going out for awhile with the weather we have. Currently windy and and lows in the 10 to 20 degrees below zero!!🥶 I will have to live vicariously through your testing of these lenses until we get a break in this weather.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
Fred I look forward to your testing of these Sigma I series lenses. I'm not even thinking about going out for awhile with the weather we have. Currently windy and and lows in the 10 to 20 degrees below zero!!🥶 I will have to live vicariously through your testing of these lenses until we get a break in this weather.
Wow. It's 50 degrees here today and my wife is freaking out it's so cold.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Wow. It's 50 degrees here today and my wife is freaking out it's so cold.
Fred,
We had our house tented and fumigated this week. This required having SDG&E turn off the gas and us moving out for two days. We are back in and SDG&E has missed turning the gas back on for two days because of over demand for service due to the weather. They say they will do it today. But if they miss today again, Monday is the next opportunity. I suspect the Wife will demand that we move out again if they don't show.
My Wife has become very weather intolerant, 65 is too cold, 80 is too hot. We have a tree here in La Jolla called a Torrey Pine. It only lives in a very narrow band between the ocean and a few miles inland, and about 15 miles North to South. My Wife has become a Torrey Pine I think.
Her motto is anywhere east of the I-5 might as well be Kansas.
We get so weather spoiled here in coastal Southern California.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My 35/2 and 65/2 shipped today and the 24/3.5 is coming today.
(From B&H)
Will be interested to hear what you think of the Sigma 35mm F2. I have the Sony 35mm 1.8 and will either return it and buy the Sigma 35mm F2 or exchange it and pay the difference for the GM. I have until the 23rd of Feb. for a return/exchange. The Sony 35mm 1.8 isn't a bad lens and certainly sharp enough. It's rendering or lack of just leaves me wanting something more. The Sigma even cost less than the Sony.
I got a break from the rain today and took the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN around the neighborhood.
All images wide open (f/3.5)
Some initial thoughts:
1) Sharp wide open from center to the very corners (Best at Infinity at f/5.6, great landscape lens).
2) Negligible Lateral CA but some Axial CA.
3) At infinity there is noticeable mid-field FC (wavy). Similar to 45/2.8.
4) Neutral Rendering. I do not detect any residual SA, which means, it won't render like the 45/2.8 but i's still pleasant.
5) Sharp even at close distance (no issues with focus accuracy).
6) Useful 1:2 Macro. As expected working distance is very small. The lens almost touches the subject at MFD.
7) Feels and looks like the 45/2.8 (great pair but different looks).
8) Focusing is silent, fast and it seems accurate. (I took 40 images and it didn't miss focus in any).
I got mine. After shooting it a bit, in drab light, my thoughts:
- better rendering and technical IQ then the Samyang and Sony I owned.
- SUPERB build--beautiful, functional and tactile.
- AF seems very quick, but don't have body with very fast AF module to test it on
- Fairly smooth rendering, not impressively so, not even close to the RX1, but more than I was anticipating at mid-distance and with hard stuff in the corners. There is a general but light swirl in the structure of the OOF and just before and behind the focal point even WO up close. I don't feel much of a disparity in fore and background OOF rendering at near/mid distance.
- terrific FBW implementation
- definitely wide for a 35mm, which I adore.
- no strong signature. The lens feels fairly transparent (if a little bland). Very little "wow" factor.
- up close and wide open, SA is not significant enough to change the "feel" of the photo IMO
- vignetting is somewhat heavy, as expected and with similar to peers
- Axial CA is present but better corrected than both the Sony and Samy I would guess, but will wait for harsher light.
- I don't see 3-D or separation or especially fast focus fall off. Focus all off feels a bit slow IMO.
- Typical modern Sigma colors/contrast, which I find better than Sony FE and Samy 35, but not as nice as some GM lenses, Zeiss or Leica glass. Might have a hair of yellow caste, but can't say till I shoot in better light.
- Does not have the crunchy bite of the FE 35, might be good or bad, depending on what you like
Overall, easy choice for a small AF 35 in FE mount in my opinion, unless you need a budget option or blistering AF. Should have been released a couple years ago, or at least before the GM 35.
processed
unprocessed except +.60 exposure, f2 WO (fore and background)
unprocessed @ f2 (see top 1/3 of photos for swirl, vignetting and bokeh)
I would love to hear how folks think the 24 compares to the Loxia 25 as a landscape lens. It's great to see these initial samples. Keep 'em coming!
Fred Miranda wrote:
I got a break from the rain today and took the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN around the neighborhood.
All images wide open (f/3.5)
Some initial thoughts:
1) Sharp from wide open from center to the very corners. (Best at Infinity at f/5.6, great landscape lens)
2) Negligible Lateral CA but noticeable Axial CA
3) At infinity there is a small but noticeable mid-field FC. Similar to 45/2.8
4) Neutral Rendering. I do not detect any residual SA, which means, it won't render like the 45/2.8
5) Sharp even at close distance
6) Useful 1:2 Macro
7) Feels and looks like the 45/2.8 (great pair but different looks)
8) Focusing is quite, fast and accurate. (I took 40 images and it didn't miss focus in any)...Show more →
And here are 1:1 crops showing the Center, Mid-field and Extreme corners at infinity. (f/3.5)
Apologies for the bad lighting. It was raining. This was done handheld. I will post proper crops later on.
Center at f/3.5 (wide open)
Mid-field at f/3.5 (wide open)
Extreme corner at f/3.5 (wide open) - A bit noisy from recovering vignetting a bit. (Vignetting is on the high side)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I got mine. After shooting it a bit, in drab light, my thoughts:
- better rendering and technical IQ then the Samyang and Sony I owned.
- SUPERB build--beautiful, functional and tactile.
- AF seems very quick, but don't have body with very fast AF module to test it on
- Fairly smooth rendering, not impressively so, not even close to the RX1, but more than I was anticipating at mid-distance and with hard stuff in the corners. There is a general but light swirl in the structure of the OOF and just before and behind the focal point even WO up close. I don't feel much of a disparity in fore and background OOF rendering at near/mid distance.
- terrific FBW implementation
- definitely wide for a 35mm, which I adore.
- no strong signature. The lens feels fairly transparent (if a little bland). Very little "wow" factor.
- up close and wide open, SA is not significant enough to change the "feel" of the photo IMO
- vignetting is somewhat heavy, as expected and with similar to peers
- Axial CA is present but better corrected than both the Sony and Samy I would guess, but will wait for harsher light.
- I don't see 3-D or separation or especially fast focus fall off. Focus all off feels a bit slow IMO.
- Typical modern Sigma colors/contrast, which I find better than Sony FE and Samy 35, but not as nice as some GM lenses, Zeiss or Leica glass. Might have a hair of yellow caste, but can't say till I shoot in better light.
- Does not have the crunchy bite of the FE 35, might be good or bad, depending on what you like
Overall, easy choice for a small AF 35 in FE mount in my opinion, unless you need a budget option or blistering AF. Should have been released a couple years ago, or at least before the GM 35. ...Show more →
Thanks for your first impressions and samples. It's looking good so far.
You wrote that it has better rendering and technical IQ than the Sony/Sammy. Could you expand on that? Thank you!
Looks pretty good on a small screen, wish I’d had time to view at work but the 24 is on my short list to pair with the 45.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I got a break from the rain today and took the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN around the neighborhood.
All images wide open (f/3.5)
Some initial thoughts:
1) Sharp from wide open from center to the very corners. (Best at Infinity at f/5.6, great landscape lens)
2) Negligible Lateral CA but some Axial CA
3) At infinity there is noticeable mid-field FC (wavy). Similar to 45/2.8
4) Neutral Rendering. I do not detect any residual SA, which means, it won't render like the 45/2.8 but it still looks good
5) Sharp even at close distance (no issues with focus accuracy)
6) Useful 1:2 Macro
7) Feels and looks like the 45/2.8 (great pair but different looks)
8) Focusing is silent, fast and it seems accurate. (I took 40 images and it didn't miss focus in any)...Show more →
rico wrote:
I can scour the Net for hours and learn less about this lens than reading Fred's initial thoughts—100 words!
The 24/3.5's rendering is really growing on me! At first I was sad it didn't share the 45/2.8's character but I actually prefer the way Sigma designed the 24mm. It has a very pleasant rendering and is sharp at 1:2 macro. Great combination.
I had the chance to proper test it at infinity for those hoping to use it for landscape photography.
At center it's already as sharp as it can be straight from f/3.5.
The mid zone is somewhat affected by FC (wavy) + a small resolution dip. f/5.6 looks best.
The extreme corners look great from wide open but improve slightly by stopping the lens down to f/5.6.
So, like I wrote in my previous post, f/5.6 and smaller gives you optimal performance for landscapes but the lens performs great from wide open.
I don't see any lateral CA
Here are some crops: (extend your browser window to see the full detail)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for your first impressions and samples. It's looking good so far.
You wrote that it has better rendering and technical IQ than the Sony/Sammy. Could you expand on that? Thank you!
I can post more tomorrow with crops, but:
- very very minor onion rings (no-signficant), unlike the Samy
- better cat's eye control than the Samy
- no nissen bokeh in the corners like the Sony
- better axiel CA control than both, (FE has lots of axial)
- the Sigma has ghosting and flare but I got this (big nasty blob flare below today), but I found it better than both but not great.
- much better veiling flare than the Samy, didn't test/don't know on the FE
- sharpness differences will be academic between the 3 I think (my Samy was a hair sharper than my FE in the corners at infinite WO, but no real life difference)
f8 ghost
bokeh onion rings uncropped
axial ca f2 uncropped
axial ca f2 crop uncorrected
axial ca f2 crop corrected (very light correct in LR)
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I can post more tomorrow with crops, but:
- very very minor onion rings (no-signficant), unlike the Samy
- better cat's eye control than the Samy
- no nissen bokeh in the corners like the Sony
- better axiel CA control than both, (FE has lots of axial)
- the Sigma has ghosting and flare but I got this (big nasty blob flare below today), but I found it better than both but not great.
- much better veiling flare than the Samy, didn't test/don't know on the FE
- sharpness differences will be academic between the 3 I think (my Samy was a hair sharper than my FE in the corners at infinite WO, but no real life difference)...Show more →
Thank you! Nehemiah, you are living in a wonder land for daily shooting. These look really nice make me even more want see the coming glasses. constrained corner is my only bigger issue on this lens. I also prefer wider than 35mm because you know we all want something as close as textbook RX1
You forget mention much lovely build and manual feeling that you want pick it up to shoot. This is one of reasons I decide to open wallet so quick.
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.
I recall Yamaki-san saying that the design of the DGDN lenses was limited by the smallest mount they were being made for: i.e. Sony. The lens mount size indirectly affects ones ability to maximize telecentricity too, so its probably a fair assumption that they were optimized for Sony.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I got mine. After shooting it a bit, in drab light, my thoughts:
- better rendering and technical IQ then the Samyang and Sony I owned.
- SUPERB build--beautiful, functional and tactile.
- AF seems very quick, but don't have body with very fast AF module to test it on
- Fairly smooth rendering, not impressively so, not even close to the RX1, but more than I was anticipating at mid-distance and with hard stuff in the corners. There is a general but light swirl in the structure of the OOF and just before and behind the focal point even WO up close. I don't feel much of a disparity in fore and background OOF rendering at near/mid distance.
- terrific FBW implementation
- definitely wide for a 35mm, which I adore.
- no strong signature. The lens feels fairly transparent (if a little bland). Very little "wow" factor.
- up close and wide open, SA is not significant enough to change the "feel" of the photo IMO
- vignetting is somewhat heavy, as expected and with similar to peers
- Axial CA is present but better corrected than both the Sony and Samy I would guess, but will wait for harsher light.
- I don't see 3-D or separation or especially fast focus fall off. Focus all off feels a bit slow IMO.
- Typical modern Sigma colors/contrast, which I find better than Sony FE and Samy 35, but not as nice as some GM lenses, Zeiss or Leica glass. Might have a hair of yellow caste, but can't say till I shoot in better light.
- Does not have the crunchy bite of the FE 35, might be good or bad, depending on what you like
Overall, easy choice for a small AF 35 in FE mount in my opinion, unless you need a budget option or blistering AF. Should have been released a couple years ago, or at least before the GM 35. ...Show more →
It's always a pleaure to read your description of lenses .
One thing I'd note from my side is that I was quite pleased with the separation provided for f2 35mm. Maybe it's the wider FOV or the slight SA veil near MFD, but I saw some pop even in casual snaps around the house in terrible lightning.
