Nehemiah, Great testing and review of the 35 mm lens. It looks like the RX1RII will be the perfect 35 to go along with the other Sigma's . Can serve as a different focal length on another body, a backup camera and extra file size when using with the A7c. I actually took it and a RX100IV on a trip to Quebec and it was a great light combo. Now with the A7c I can have something wider and longer to complement it. Thanks for all the time you took with the review.
Attached is a Pano that was taken with the RX1RII of Quebec City from the ship.
Unfortunately it seems like the E mount version for that price was removed soon after I ordered. They haven't cancelled my order, but it says it will ship Feb 28 - March 28...which is a little oddly vague.
I compared field of view of Sigma 35/2 to several other 35mm lenses including 35/1.2 SE earlier in this thread at near-infinity with lens corrections (for distortion and color fringing) set to auto: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1674681/42#15448270
(Lens corrections would only have applied to native E-mount lenses though and not to the adapted ones.)
I haven't compared at other distances but based on other comparisons Sigma 35/2 seems to be wider than most other 35mm lenses at closer focusing distances too.
I have the Sigma 24/3.5 and 65/2 also so I can do a similar comparison between those and e.g. Sony 24/1.4 GM and for example 24-105/4 G and CV 65/2 sometime later.
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.
That would be awesome Juha! I did see your previous post on the 35’s and found that very valuable. These details are really helpful when putting together a kit.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I compared field of view of Sigma 35/2 to several other 35mm lenses including 35/1.2 SE earlier in this thread at near-infinity with lens corrections (for distortion and color fringing) set to auto: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1674681/42#15448270
(Lens corrections would only have applied to native E-mount lenses though and not to the adapted ones.)
I haven't compared at other distances but based on other comparisons Sigma 35/2 seems to be wider than most other 35mm lenses at closer focusing distances too.
I have the Sigma 24/3.5 and 65/2 also so I can do a similar comparison between those and e.g. Sony 24/1.4 GM and for example 24-105/4 G and CV 65/2 sometime later.
DavidBM wrote:
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.
There is also copy variance so even the same lens could be slightly wider/longer. I'd say the best test is at infinity and before any distortion correction. The Sigma 35/2 seems to have similar FOV compared to the 35/1.4 ZA and Sonnar 35/2 (RX1).
The FE 35/2.8 ZA, Loxia and Voigtlander 35mm lenses I've tried were noticeably longer in comparison.
Fred Miranda wrote:
There is also copy variance so even the same lens could be slightly wider/longer. I'd say the best test is at infinity and before any distortion correction. The Sigma 35/2 seems to have similar FOV compared to the 35/1.4 ZA and Sonnar 35/2 (RX1).
The FE 35/2.8 ZA, Loxia and Voigtlander 35mm lenses I've tried were noticeably longer in comparison.
Have all CV’s been narrower you’ve owned? I know that 35/1.2 and 35/1.7 are, but that others I haven’t shot much or tested.
bowens wrote:
Nehemiah, Great testing and review of the 35 mm lens. It looks like the RX1RII will be the perfect 35 to go along with the other Sigma's . Can serve as a different focal length on another body, a backup camera and extra file size when using with the A7c. I actually took it and a RX100IV on a trip to Quebec and it was a great light combo. Now with the A7c I can have something wider and longer to complement it. Thanks for all the time you took with the review.
Attached is a Pano that was taken with the RX1RII of Quebec City from the ship. ...Show more →
You’re very welcome, and I am glad people have found it useful
The 35i really surprised me—I have owned or shot about 20 Sigma lenses. But I generally don’t like them as much, but this 35i is great, the 45/2.8 and 24/3.5 are lovely renderings it seems. Really hoping Sigma puts out a 85-100mm/f2 i-series lens.
Feb 04, 2021 at 01:23 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yeah, if they put out a 100ish f/2 in this series, I'll definitely grab one. I have the 45 and don't shoot longer FL lenses very often, so the 65 isn't super appealing to me- too close to 45. If they did a compact short tele with similar rendering, whoosh. That'd be awesome.
nehemiahphoto wrote:
You’re very welcome, and I am glad people have found it useful
The 35i really surprised me—I have owned or shot about 20 Sigma lenses. But I generally don’t like them as much, but this 35i is great, the 45/2.8 and 24/3.5 are lovely renderings it seems. Really hoping Sigma puts out a 85-100mm/f2 i-series lens.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Yeah, if they put out a 100ish f/2 in this series, I'll definitely grab one. I have the 45 and don't shoot longer FL lenses very often, so the 65 isn't super appealing to me- too close to 45. If they did a compact short tele with similar rendering, whoosh. That'd be awesome.
100/2’s are out of vogue I guess. I have a G 90/2.8 and Mino 100/2 I like, but yessss, give me a I-series!
I’d like to consolidate them and have the perks of a native lens.
I would very much like to see a 20/21mm as that's a focal length I greatly prefer over 24mm for wide angle usage. Even better would be if it were a slower lens like the 24mm. f/3.5 is absolutely fine for my purpose.
AbramG wrote:
I would very much like to see a 20/21mm as that's a focal length I greatly prefer over 24mm for wide angle usage. Even better would be if it were a slower lens like the 24mm. f/3.5 is absolutely fine for my purpose.
My 35/2 DG DN review copy is well centered on my A7R IV but I'm getting some anomalies.
At infinity, the extreme corners look very good at f/2, improve only slightly at f/2.8 and there is a big jump at f/4 where it's optimal. Focusing on center or extreme corner makes no difference as the lens is flat field.
On Monday next week, I'm getting another copy just to confirm this is how the lens behaves. I just wanted to make sure before starting the review and posting crops.
If someone can test this, please post some crops at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4 showing the extreme corners from an infinity scene. Ideally the extreme corner should show a subject with high frequency detail. (fine detail).
Fred Miranda wrote:
My 35/2 DG DN review copy is well centered on my A7R IV but I'm getting some anomalies.
At infinity, the extreme corners look very good at f/2, improve only slightly at f/2.8 and there is a big jump at f/4 where it's optimal. Focusing on center or extreme corner makes no difference as the lens is flat field.
On Monday next week, I'm getting another copy just to confirm this is how the lens behaves. I just wanted to make sure before starting the review and posting crops.
If someone can test this, please post some crops at f/2, f/2.8 and f/4 showing the extreme corners from an infinity scene. Ideally the extreme corner should show a subject with high frequency detail. (fine detail)....Show more →
Thanks I'll run a little comparison for the 24mm and 65mm sometime this upcoming weekend and will post the results afterwards.
ggweci wrote:
That would be awesome Juha! I did see your previous post on the 35’s and found that very valuable. These details are really helpful when putting together a kit.
Here is a sequence showing specular highlights at f/2, f/2.5 and f/2.8.
There is noticeable optical vignetting wide open but it gets well controlled starting at f/2.5.
