Choices, choices. I have an SL-based setup, so am interested primarily in the 24mm f3.5 for when I’m out with a set of primes shooting cityscapes. (The 24-90mm zoom is great when the light is adequate, but quite bulky.)
A 24mm L Summicron would be ideal but there is no sign of one on the horizon. Panasonic are promising a 24mm f1.8 (“sales scheduled”, whatever that means), which I assume would not be too bulky. They also offer a 20-60mm zoom for “content creation” which seems decent enough and, again, not too bulky.
I’m inclined to go for the 24mm Sigma on the basis that it’s slightly more compact than the others, if not lighter, has a pleasant classically-biased rendering, but would be interested in others’ experiences.
What I'm seeing with the 35mm and 65mm OOF rendering looks very good. I think I may try the 45mm 2.8 Sigma first though and wait for more personal reviews on here with these new releases. When they were first announced, the one I was most interested in was the 65mm. I had the Voigtlander 65mm f2 for over a year. I didn't really care about the size, but no AF and the OOF rendering for portraits left a bit to be desired. Still the sharpest lens I've ever owned though. I actually used the 1:2 macro feature more than anything else with that lens.
Just ordered the 24mm. Never been this interested of such a "wide and slow" lens before. (Although I loved the 21mm color-skopar.) Can't wait to have mine. The 65mm will follow up very soon.
zhangyue wrote:
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.
In my first post, it was my first point--and it got all caps for "SUPERB"! Honestly, I think this Sigma is one of the nicest handling lenses I've ever used, any mount, AF or MF. They really really nailed. I am not sensitive to ergonomics of lenses generally (very sensitive to size/weight), but it really is lovely.
And yes, Utah is gorgeous for daily shooting--and real estate prices reflect that
What do you mean "constrained corner"?
And Michael, you know, my beloved Pentax 31 preceded the RX1 and is really 32/33mm But, honestly, I do prefer the 28mm over 35mm, so I wish all these lovely 35mm's were wide 35mm or just 28mm's.
j4nu wrote:
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.
Glad you appreciate it, and thanks for the kind words
Separation/3-D/pop is always a bit subjective and viewer dependent and defined. When I think about it, I am thinking for a 35mm, in good light, at f2, between 3 and 10 feet away, can I see a subject clearly separated in a photo? I don't see it with this lens. Here is a photo where something like a ZM 35 1.4 would feel like the pole is coming out of my monitor.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Glad you appreciate it, and thanks for the kind words
Separation/3-D/pop is always a bit subjective and viewer dependent and defined. When I think about it, I am thinking for a 35mm, in good light, at f2, between 3 and 10 feet away, can I see a subject clearly separated in a photo? I don't see it with this lens. Here is a photo where something like a ZM 35 1.4 would feel like the pole is coming out of my monitor.
Yes, the ZM would likely yield higher contrast at f/2 but that microcontrast would contaminate the background rendering. I really dislike the ZM's rendering at mid and long distance but love what it does in respect to subject separation. It's very hard to get both in a 35mm lens.
Thanks for this sample. I've been waiting to see something like this. Rendering looks surprisingly great here. (and in the last 2 images you've posted here)
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, the ZM would likely yield higher contrast at f/2 but unfortunately that microcontrast would also contaminate the background rendering. I really dislike the ZM's rendering at mid and long distance but love what it does with subject separation. It's very hard to get both in a 35mm lens.
Thanks for this sample. I've been waiting for something like this. Rendering looks surprisingly great here. (and in the last 2 images here)
I was only talking about the ZM 35 in context of separation. In this scene, the rendering would not be so nice regarding boken and transitions (we both agree on this I know) and we'd be looking a lot more CA.
I just shot for about an hour in very harsh mid-afternoon lighting with the 35i (we'll see if that sticks, much easier to type). I think the rendering is much better than people are thinking from the press photos/early galleries I saw online.
Also, just wait--I have some test and things I am working on
Also, I am not sure what really determines separation. The Pentax 31 has it, so does the CY 35 1.4. Both those lenses are not even close to many of the higher contrast lenses now that come out but images have a flat feel. Just my observation.
Here are several more torture test photos from a 35mm. Not only are they shot in harsh sun and WO, but all photos have "medium contrast" tone curve applied and exposure boost a hair. The WB is off with magenta, but didn't bother to fix.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I was only talking about the ZM 35 in context of separation. In this scene, the rendering would not be so nice regarding boken and transitions (we both agree on this I know) and we'd be looking a lot more CA.
I just shot for about an hour in very harsh mid-afternoon lighting with the 35i (we'll see if that sticks, much easier to type). I think the rendering is much better than people are thinking from the press photos/early galleries I saw online.
Sometimes, online samples are post-processed in a way that negatively impact rendering. Like boosting the white and black points, increasing contrast, curves or worse adding global sharpening without masking. (basically sharpening the 'rendering')
Not saying people should not post-process images but sometimes it makes. it hard to judge rendering imo.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Sometimes, online samples are post-processed in a way that negatively impact rendering. Like boosting the white and black points, increasing contrast, curves or worse adding global sharpening without masking. (basically sharpening the 'rendering')
Not saying people should not post-process images but sometimes it makes. it hard to judge rendering imo.
Can't wait for your tests.
Yes--I find that frustrating. I do wish people would detail/mentioned their processing (increase contrast, bump sharpness or clarity, etc.), so I can at least get a feel for how the files has been treated to understand better. Kind of a crap shoot often till I get a lens I feel like most of the time.
Jan 30, 2021 at 05:29 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
nehemiahphoto wrote:
In my first post, it was my first point--and it got all caps for "SUPERB"! Honestly, I think this Sigma is one of the nicest handling lenses I've ever used, any mount, AF or MF. They really really nailed. I am not sensitive to ergonomics of lenses generally (very sensitive to size/weight), but it really is lovely.
And yes, Utah is gorgeous for daily shooting--and real estate prices reflect that
What do you mean "constrained corner"?
And Michael, you know, my beloved Pentax 31 preceded the RX1 and is really 32/33mm But, honestly, I do prefer the 28mm over 35mm, so I wish all these lovely 35mm's were wide 35mm or just 28mm's.
As early sample show and Fred and some of us also mentioned earlier, this lens show strong mechanical vignette will make image suffer. Stop down to f2.8 if that is matters for certain image.
zhangyue wrote:
As early sample show and Fred and some of us also mentioned earlier, this lens show strong mechanical vignette will make image suffer. Stop down to f2.8 if that is matters for certain image.
Ah, I didn't understand what you meant. It definitely does.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Ah, I didn't understand what you meant. It definitely does.
It would be amazing if folks who got their lens already would able to test how bokeh looks at each 1/3 stop from f2 until 2.8. I know the cats eyes pretty much clear up at one stop down but I'm wondering how it looks at f2.2 and 2.5 in relation to f2 and 2.8.
Thanks for sharing these examples, as this is how I mainly shoot - capturing family recreational stuff.
This 24mm is looking great from what I’m seeing here posted by yourself and others. Really thinking about getting it and the 45mm to make a nice compact pairing to my newly acquired A7c.
Just received my 35mm f/2 (First 3rd party lens) today. I did a few test shots (Love the look of the photos) but I did notice that Eye-AF only worked about 10% of the time. I tried in AF-S and AF-C and made sure the EyeAF was on in the settings. It would just do the regular AF. I am using an A7III but I have no problem with my 55mm and my 85mm.
Is this something that is expected when using a non-Sony lens?
For those getting the 65mm, what do you plan to use it for?
It seems like a strange focal length since I’d rather shoot 50mm for general use or 85mm when I want a nice portrait. The 65mm seems neither fish nor fowl. Just curious how you plan on using it.
mudlake wrote:
For those getting the 65mm, what do you plan to use it for?
It seems like a strange focal length since I’d rather shoot 50mm for general use or 85mm when I want a nice portrait. The 65mm seems neither fish nor fowl. Just curious how you plan on using it.
It makes sense as a compact easy to work with medium telephoto portrait lens. 85mm is a classic focal length, but it can be a bit tough to work with if you don't have the working distance.
I think it will pair well with the 35 F2 as a casual version of the classic 35mm/85mm combo
The 65mm will follow up very soon.
But, honestly, I do prefer the 28mm over 35mm, so I wish all these lovely 35mm's were wide 35mm or just 28mm's. 
.
