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.
Yes, it's a lens for general use that also does portraits. It may not be ideal for headshots or even head and shoulders but as long as there is some distance from the subject there won't be any facial distortion.
Couples, group shots can also benefit from the wider FL. I've shot with the Voigtlander 65/2 for a couple years and liked the focal length. The 40mm FL also grew on me.
It definitely feels narrower than 50-55mm but on the other hand, it allows a bit more distance for candids.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, it's a lens for general use that also does portraits. It may not be ideal for headshots or even head and shoulders but as long as there is some distance from the subject there won't be any facial distortion.
Couples, group shots can also benefit from the wider FL. I've shot with the Voigtlander 65/2 for a couple years and liked the focal length. The 40mm FL also grew on me.
It definitely feels narrower than 50-55mm but on the other hand, it allows a bit more distance for candids..
Back in the day, the disparaging term “neither fish nor fowl” was constantly applied to the 40mm FL, much to the amusement of 40mm users who understood what a versatile focal length it actually is. However, the popularity of the Nokton 40/1.2, Batis 40/2, and Canon 40/2.8 lenses proves that a 40mm is no longer an esoteric choice. Rather it’s a fish and a fowl as well as being both a floor wax and a dessert topping.
I’m not suggesting that history will be repeated with the 65mm FL but if Sigma’s i-Series lenses sell well enough—and I’ve done my bit by buying all four—then the headshot issue should be addressed with either a 90mm or a 100mm short tele.
genji wrote:
Back in the day, the disparaging term “neither fish nor fowl” was constantly applied to the 40mm FL, much to the amusement of 40mm users who understood what a versatile focal length it actually is. However, the popularity of the Nokton 40/1.2, Batis 40/2, and Canon 40/2.8 lenses proves that a 40mm is no longer an esoteric choice. Rather it’s a fish and a fowl as well as being both a floor wax and a dessert topping.
I’m not suggesting that history will be repeated with the 65mm FL but if Sigma’s i-Series lenses sell well enough—and I’ve done my bit by buying all four—then the headshot issue should be addressed with either a 90mm or a 100mm short tele....Show more →
Fred Miranda wrote:
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)...Show more →
Thanks Fred. I went back at looked at your 42Mp Batis 25 vs Loxia 25 comparison for context; with that caveat - the new Sigma 24 looks astonishingly sharp in the center - class leading perhaps, although the Batis and Loxia beat it in the mid-frame and corner.
I know you don't have your Loxia 25 anymore, but I'd be interested to see the new Sigma up against your 12-24GM to see if it can beat it in the center. Thanks. Peter.
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.
Yeah, you're probably right, this image doesn't exactly jump out of the screen but there is still some separation visible. I should have tested it against the Bigma when I still had both...
Anyways, here's my example :
Petegh wrote:
Thanks Fred. I went back at looked at your 42Mp Batis 25 vs Loxia 25 comparison for context; with that caveat - the new Sigma 24 looks astonishingly sharp in the center - class leading perhaps, although the Batis and Loxia beat it in the mid-frame and corner.
I know you don't have your Loxia 25 anymore, but I'd be interested to see the new Sigma up against your 12-24GM to see if it can beat it in the center. Thanks. Peter.
I'm pretty sure the 24/3.5 will beat the Sigma zoom @24mm at center but the Loxia 25 will do better at mid-zone where the Sigma is weakest. I will test it today with more precision if this is due to FC, resolution dip or a combination of both. In the case for the 45/2.8, it's a combination of both.
The big draw for the Sigma I series is that it brings a high level of optical quality and rendering in a compact form factor. I wish more lens makers would focus on bringing smaller aperture AF lenses with top shelf optical quality....usually f2 lenses are of the budget variety. Batis line had potential, but they made many of those lenses pointlessly large IMO.
I am curious to see how the 35GM compares, but the 35F2 is definitely favorable from a size perspective and pairs perfectly with the a7c.
Mystik wrote:
The big draw for the Sigma I series is that it brings a high level of optical quality and rendering in a compact form factor. I wish more lens makers would focus on bringing smaller aperture AF lenses with top shelf optical quality....usually f2 lenses are of the budget variety. Batis line had potential, but they made many of those lenses pointlessly large IMO.
I am curious to see how the 35GM compares, but the 35F2 is definitely favorable from a size perspective and pairs perfectly with the a7c.
Mystik wrote:
The big draw for the Sigma I series is that it brings a high level of optical quality and rendering in a compact form factor. I wish more lens makers would focus on bringing smaller aperture AF lenses with top shelf optical quality....usually f2 lenses are of the budget variety. Batis line had potential, but they made many of those lenses pointlessly large IMO.
I am curious to see how the 35GM compares, but the 35F2 is definitely favorable from a size perspective and pairs perfectly with the a7c.
Agree 100%.
The Sigma I series, offers "premium" f/2 and slower primes which is something lacking from all brands. For those who value compactness but are not willing to compromise IQ and build quality, they make a very compelling set.
Jan 31, 2021 at 02:19 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Thanks, yeah I'm really enjoying it! 24mm is really a perfect focal length for environmental portraits of kids. The Sigma is really everything I hoped it would be- small, well-built, sharp with smooth OOF areas, just enough of a signature to not be "bland"... really just wonderful.
As far as any potential negatives, I do see vignetting- which is very easy to correct in post, but still present at f/8, so it's definitely worth mentioning. I can't speak to how well it handles AF on Sony, but on my Sigma fp it's very similar to the 45C, which is to say "great in decent light, fair to abysmal indoors", so there's that. Fortunately, like the 45C, the FBW implementation is outstanding, so it works very well as a manual focus lens in dim lighting.
ggweci wrote:
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.
Mystik wrote:
The big draw for the Sigma I series is that it brings a high level of optical quality and rendering in a compact form factor. I wish more lens makers would focus on bringing smaller aperture AF lenses with top shelf optical quality....usually f2 lenses are of the budget variety. Batis line had potential, but they made many of those lenses pointlessly large IMO.
I am curious to see how the 35GM compares, but the 35F2 is definitely favorable from a size perspective and pairs perfectly with the a7c.
Just thought I'd pop into say that's a gorgeous setup. My one regret in deciding to go with the GM instead of the I-series is just how gobsmackingly good that pairing is, haha. (Well, that and the weight savings.)
I'd echo that statement on the Batis line—but I'm not sure I'd say Sigma is completely innocent here either with design. Admittedly, this mostly comes from my desire to have just one lens per focal length but when comparing the GM with the Sigma utility is a bit of tie with the GM having a better magnification & light gathering and the Sigma being obviously lighter, IQ is an effective tie (I strongly suspect the GM will be better here but the Sigma is plenty good), and construction... well, for me this is an obvious win on the part of the GM.
I don't baby my equipment and I've gotten it wet plenty in the rain, splashes, etc. It boggles my mind a bit that they took so much care to construction & design of this gorgeous lens but at the same time didn't spend ~$5 on custom rubber O-rings and drive the price up another $15-20. It reminds me of the reluctance of Sigma to seal their earlier Art-series lenses while the rest of the market saw it as SOP for large portions of their line. Maybe at some point I'll feel comfortable enough to double up on focal lengths, but for the time being I'm literally not getting this lens because I don't want my main optic (and to be clear, this would be) to be one I have to baby all the time I use it. To be clear, I'd be more lenient with a telephoto or ultrawide I use less.
Mystik wrote:
The big draw for the Sigma I series is that it brings a high level of optical quality and rendering in a compact form factor. I wish more lens makers would focus on bringing smaller aperture AF lenses with top shelf optical quality....usually f2 lenses are of the budget variety. Batis line had potential, but they made many of those lenses pointlessly large IMO.
I am curious to see how the 35GM compares, but the 35F2 is definitely favorable from a size perspective and pairs perfectly with the a7c.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Thanks, yeah I'm really enjoying it! 24mm is really a perfect focal length for environmental portraits of kids. The Sigma is really everything I hoped it would be- small, well-built, sharp with smooth OOF areas, just enough of a signature to not be "bland"... really just wonderful.
As far as any potential negatives, I do see vignetting- which is very easy to correct in post, but still present at f/8, so it's definitely worth mentioning. I can't speak to how well it handles AF on Sony, but on my Sigma fp it's very similar to the 45C, which is to say "great in decent light, fair to abysmal indoors", so there's that. Fortunately, like the 45C, the FBW implementation is outstanding, so it works very well as a manual focus lens in dim lighting.
Thanks for pointing out the AF. That’s my main concern with going with the two small Sigmas. My native Sony lenses just work perfectly most of the time - tracking, accuracy, and ok in low light on my A7ii. Now that I have an A7c, I expect them to perform much better in that area as well.
The AF-C issues with the S45 is my main concern - otherwise that lens looks excellent.
Jan 31, 2021 at 03:58 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Also please note that I'm using a Sigma fp, which only uses CDAF. It's an awesome camera and suits my shooting style perfectly, but it's AF tech wouldn't be the best choice for someone who prioritizes AF speed. Someone who has the 24mm can test AF on a Sony body to give folks a better sense of how it performs. Like I said, both the 45mm and 24mm Sigma lenses are fast enough on the fp to shoot moving kids *outdoors*, and probably fast enough in dim lighting to shoot static subjects, but for the best low-light keeper rate, I switch to MF and take the guesswork out of the equation.
ggweci wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the AF. That’s my main concern with going with the two small Sigmas. My native Sony lenses just work perfectly most of the time - tracking, accuracy, and ok in low light on my A7ii. Now that I have an A7c, I expect them to perform much better in that area as well.
The AF-C issues with the S45 is my main concern - otherwise that lens looks excellent.
A bunch from the Sigma 65mm on my a7R III, all wide open. Tried to have a little light touch on processing.
It was 25 degrees and raw, got out just before it started snowing. I have these shots at other apertures as well, not sure anyone would want to see a specific shot stopped down a little more.
