I tested 35 and 65. Both are good and well centered. Center is as good as it can get. I think extreme corner can be improved compare to best out there. 65’s corner peak at f4. 35 is sharp at f4 but I think f5.6 reach peak. There is no mid zone dip for both. I think 35’s landscape performance is on par with RX1. I tested this on SL2 45M. Don’t have time test them on FP.
This is mainly on paper results, I just want make sure both are in spec copy. for real world use, both will work fine for almost any subject. I think this is a really great set, a small 100-135 f2.8 will complete the set. I don’t have much higher expectation than this. This is my poor men’s summicron SL.
I also tested 20-60 Panasonic, other than a little weak corner at 20, it is very good after f8 between 24-60. I don’t think I will get sigma 24mm after this test.
I need time for 65mm. Feel it is not wide enough to cover standard 50 but also not long enough to 75-90 zone I used to. Maybe it is from today’s subject matter. Will definitely use it more. However, it seems match with 35mm in heaven.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, that's what gets a lot of people, myself included. I really appreciate the craftsmanship and enjoy shooting with it. Just like shooting with high quality manual focus lenses.
This. I've only been dreaming of such a solid af-lineup(!) that was built almost like the Voigtländers and was compact, had an outstanding image quality with pleasing rendering and had aperture rings and good manual focus feel. When Sigma announced these new "I-series" lenses, I was really thrilled. Earlier I used to complain that while Sony had tons of lenses to choose from, I was still struggling to build a kit of lenses I was happy with (was about to settle on Voigtländers).
The 65mm is also a nice deviation from the norm. I've been a fan of focal lengths like 58mm that were a bit more narrow than the regular 50mm. And as a huge fan of 40mm it pairs up with it just perfect. And I have the 105mm as well.
PS. Should have my own 24mm today or tomorrow. So far I'm really liking what I'm seeing here.
Tonzah78 wrote:
This. I've only been dreaming of such a solid af-lineup(!) that was built almost like the Voigtländers and was compact, had an outstanding image quality with pleasing rendering and had aperture rings and good manual focus feel. When Sigma announced these new "I-series" lenses, I was really thrilled. Earlier I used to complain that while Sony had tons of lenses to choose from, I was still struggling to build a kit of lenses I was happy with (was about to settle on Voigtländers).
The 65mm is also a nice deviation from the norm. I've been a fan of focal lengths like 58mm that were a bit more narrow than the regular 50mm. And as a huge fan of 40mm it pairs up with it just perfect. And I have the 105mm as well.
PS. Should have my own 24mm today or tomorrow. So far I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. ...Show more →
I've also settled on both Voigtländers and Sigma I-series as main native lenses for A7C. Seems like everything I could want for walk-around use is already covered now, although I would still jump on a nice compact 28mm prime from CV or Sigma:
CV 15/4.5, 21/3.5 & 21/1.4, 35/1.4, 35/1.2 SE, 40/1.2 SE, 50/1.2 SE, 50/2 APO
Sigma: all 4 I-series lenses
Extras:
Sony 28-60 kit lens, works also as 28mm which my native primes don't cover
Kistar 40/2.4 as a special classic character lens
hathawcs wrote:
I found the Sigma 35mm f2 on Amazon sold by Amazon. It was buried in the other sellers but is $100 cheaper for some reason. Delivery date is Feb. 26 - Mar. 28.
I may have to cancel the 35mm GM because of this deal and what I am seeing in these posts.
That's rad, there's a $100 discount? Can you link us?
What a nice set of lenses!
Is the CV 35 1.2 se good to place between the Sigma I series to replace the Sigma 35 f2? concerns operation, weight, colors and rendering. I want to use the resume for the f1.2 advantages over the somewhat slower Sigmas and for fast shooting on the street with zone focusing without having to use the evf or back display. But the Sigma has many advantages that I cannot ignore ...
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I've also settled on both Voigtländers and Sigma I-series as main native lenses for A7C. Seems like everything I could want for walk-around use is already covered now, although I would still jump on a nice compact 28mm prime from CV or Sigma:
CV 15/4.5, 21/3.5 & 21/1.4, 35/1.4, 35/1.2 SE, 40/1.2 SE, 50/1.2 SE, 50/2 APO
Sigma: all 4 I-series lenses
Extras:
Sony 28-60 kit lens, works also as 28mm which my native primes don't cover
Kistar 40/2.4 as a special classic character lens
Thanks! I really like CV 35/1.2 SE too (and the whole SE series) and I think it would play quite nicely in a set with Sigma I-series lenses e.g. as a replacement of Sigma 35/2 if you don't need AF. I haven't really done any careful comparison of colors and rendering between CV 35/1.2 and Sigma 35/2 though. As for weight, I measured my CV 35/1.2 SE at 396g when caps are off but included hood is on, and my Sigma 35/2 at 368g with caps off and hood on. I use both lenses with their standard hoods that came in the box and Sigma's hood is heavier than CV's so difference in weight is only 28g, which is not so noticeable. When carrying the magnetic cap for Sigma also, there is even less weight difference. One thing to note is that Sigma is really wider than 35mm (probably around 32mm, a hair wider than my RX1R, and CV 35/1.2 SE is longer than most 35mm lenses (I'd guess around 37mm), so they are not exactly the same focal length in reality. And Sigma 45/2.8 is known to be a bit wider than 45mm, so the FL gap between CV and Sigma 45 is not as much.
Arty73 wrote:
What a nice set of lenses!
Is the CV 35 1.2 se good to place between the Sigma I series to replace the Sigma 35 f2? concerns operation, weight, colors and rendering. I want to use the resume for the f1.2 advantages over the somewhat slower Sigmas and for fast shooting on the street with zone focusing without having to use the evf or back display. But the Sigma has many advantages that I cannot ignore ...
thanks for your explanation, that the focal lengths are different is an important fact, since I already have the 45i
I prefer the 35i in this case
I also have the 65i and the 24i is on its way.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Thanks! I really like CV 35/1.2 SE too (and the whole SE series) and I think it would play quite nicely in a set with Sigma I-series lenses e.g. as a replacement of Sigma 35/2 if you don't need AF. I haven't really done any careful comparison of colors and rendering between CV 35/1.2 and Sigma 35/2 though. As for weight, I measured my CV 35/1.2 SE at 396g when caps are off but included hood is on, and my Sigma 35/2 at 368g with caps off and hood on. I use both lenses with their standard hoods that came in the box and Sigma's hood is heavier than CV's so difference in weight is only 28g, which is not so noticeable. When carrying the magnetic cap for Sigma also, there is even less weight difference. One thing to note is that Sigma is really wider than 35mm (probably around 32mm, a hair wider than my RX1R, and CV 35/1.2 SE is longer than most 35mm lenses (I'd guess around 37mm), so they are not exactly the same focal length in reality. And Sigma 45/2.8 is known to be a bit wider than 45mm, so the FL gap between CV and Sigma 45 is not as much.
Yeah, this is very interesting. I wonder if the 24mm and 65mm are off from their stated focal lengths and, if so, how much so and which direction.
Arty73 wrote:
thanks for your explanation, that the focal lengths are different is an important fact, since I already have the 45i
I prefer the 35i in this case
I also have the 65i and the 24i is on its way.
ggweci wrote:
Yeah, this is very interesting. I wonder if the 24mm and 65mm are off from their stated focal lengths and, if so, how much so and which direction.
How does one measure the true focal length of a lens, anyway?
It would be based on angle of view. Something I have never tested, but several in here are much more technically inclined than I and thankfully share their knowledge/experience on different lenses. Hoping one of them will chime in on the 24 and 65.
Regarding angle of view, this website shows them with corresponding focal length for different sensor sizes:
ggweci wrote:
It would be based on angle of view. Something I have never tested, but several in here are much more technically inclined than I and thankfully share their knowledge/experience on different lenses. Hoping one of them will chime in on the 24 and 65.
Regarding angle of view, this website shows them with corresponding focal length for different sensor sizes:
Yeah, I've seen the angle of view listed on the Sigma site, but on the 35i they claim the angle of view is a perfect 35mm which it clearly isn't, so I'm pretty sure they just lie about aov numbers too.
Teo Rey wrote:
Yeah, I've seen the angle of view listed on the Sigma site, but on the 35i they claim the angle of view is a perfect 35mm which it clearly isn't, so I'm pretty sure they just lie about aov numbers too.
I'm pretty sure that the AOV of the lens changes considerably with focus distance (ie it has focus breathing) so their specified AOV will be at a set distance (likely infinity or 15m). Also we need to know if they specify before or after distortion correction. Probably after, in which case the uncorrected image will be wider.
As an owner of the 45mm, I'm unsure whether to buy this or not because it seems a bit crazy to have two similar primes with such close focal lengths. Too bad it isn't somewhere in the 28-30mm range that would gap better (and fill the missing 28mm need).
