I think the 65mm's both are fantastic. I give a slight edge to the Sigma for overall rendering vs the CV but I wouldn't disappointed in either resulting shot. I guess it may come down to preference in a fully manual focus lens vs an AF lens that has exceptional manual focus capabilities for an AF lens.
Chuck Coyne wrote:
I think the 65mm's both are fantastic. I give a slight to the Sigma for overall rendering vs the CV but I wouldn't disappointed in either resulting shot. I guess it may come down to preference in a fully manual focus lens vs an AF lens that has exceptional manual focus capabilities for an AF lens.
Interesting is that their 24mm does 1:2 macro. Which makes the lens especially fun and versatile. And on the long end I have the 105mm as well, so this feature missing from the 65mm is not a dealbreaker.
smpetty wrote:
If only the Sigma 65 did 1:2 macro....
Tonzah78 wrote:
Interesting is that their 24mm does 1:2 macro. Which makes the lens especially fun and versatile. And on the long end I have the 105mm as well, so this feature missing from the 65mm is not a dealbreaker.
What's the difference in macro working distance between the Sigma 24/2.5 and the CV 65/2 at 1:2?
You may have just made my decision easier
.... Google is my friend....
Looks like the working distances at MFD are 12" for the Voigtlander 65/2 and 4" for the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN.
Thanks very much for putting this together Juha. Much appreciated.
Regarding the 24, that I’m most interested in, the Sigma is definitely narrower. The fact that the Sonys and Minolta all look fairly similar, I would assume that they are closest to 24mm and that the Sigma is more like a 26mm (estimating). Probably pretty close to an incorrectly Sony 28mm f2.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I compared the field of view between Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN, Sony 24/1.4 GM, Sony 24-105/4 G (at wide end) and Minolta 24/2.8 MD W.Rokkor, and then between Sigma 65/2 and CV 65/2 at near infinity.
I took comparison shots from balcony (handheld but I tried to keep framing identical, I took multiple shots and chose the best matches). Exported from Raw files in C1 Pro 21 to generate distortion-corrected and uncorrected JPEGs (using Manufacturer profile for each lens, which produces identical distortion correction to SOOC JPEGs when applied).
The order of the files in the folder didn't stay as I intended so please refer to the filenames:
- Sigma_24_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- Sony_24_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- Sony_24105_DC_OFF.jpg / ON.jpg
- Minolta_24.jpg
- Sigma_65_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
- CV_65_DC_OFF / ON.jpg
Findings for 24mm: Sony 24/1.4 GM is the widest, followed closely by Minolta and then Sony 24-105 zoom. Sigma is the least wide by noticeable margin. Sony 24-105 zoom has quite a lot of distortion and in-camera JPEGs have distortion correction always set to Auto for that lens (but in C1 Pro those correction can be disabled). Lens corrections didn't have that much impact on field of view but a bit more for the zoom.
Findings for 65mm: Sigma is a bit longer and CV a bit wider. Not sure which one is more accurate 65mm as there are no other 65mm reference primes I could have compared to.
Note that C1 Pro misinterprets Sigma 65/2 as CV 65/2, and writes incorrect lens name in EXIF in exported JPEGs for the Sigma shots. It also tries to use incorrect lens profile for the Sigma but the profile can be switched to Manufacturer Profile manually which will then apply corrections based on lens profile data found from EXIF. It doesn't have any negative impact on distortion or other lens corrections when Manufacturer Profile is selected manually (as I did). Similarly it misinterprets CV 50/2 as Loxia 50/2 and Sigma 35/2 as Loxia 35/2. I reported this issue to them for the 35/2 case and they asked for some RAW files for investigation and promised to look into it and hopefully fix it at some later date but not sure when they get around to it....Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
The light was changeable, but it's snowing today and I had to work with what I was given. I tried to shoot in the windows where the lighting was stable. The EXIF is intact, you can verify the aperture. Shutter speed worked out to be the same between each lens (different though in the different framings.) The CV vignettes more.
Not sure it makes sense to stop the lens down to try to make the depth of field more equal. It seems to be apples to oranges to me.
For landscape sharpness, I think the CV wins. But for bokeh and rendering, I like the Sigma.
At wide apertures, my copy of the 65/2 DG DN is definitely not as sharp as the CV 65/2 APO off-axis but I would not be surprised if they performed similarly at center.
The extreme edges need some stopping down to be excellent while the CV is already there at f/2 and f/2.8. For landscapes at f/4 and smaller, I don't think they would be too different at infinity.
So, I'd say both are great for landscapes but for everything else, it will depend if you prefer the option of 1:2 macro with visually no axial CA or AF with better rendering in a more compact and lighter lens.
I was also giving a slight nod to the CV 65 (for landscapes) for broader depth of field at the same aperture (for those that don't focus stack like me), I think it gives you about a stop advantage. Also I would imagine it has better sunstars, although I haven't tested.
I didn't mean to apply that there was a huge difference in application. The macro capability of the CV is nice.
But I've sort have become enamored with the Sigma at wider apertures. And I often second guess taking the CV along due to its weight.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At wide apertures, my copy of the 65/2 DG DN is definitely not as sharp as the CV 65/2 APO off-axis but I would not be surprised if they performed similarly at center.
The extreme edges need some stopping down to be excellent while the CV is already there at f/2 and f/2.8. For landscapes at f/4 and smaller, I don't think they would be too different at infinity.
So, I'd say both are great for landscapes but for everything else, it will depend if you prefer the option of 1:2 macro with visually no axial CA or AF with better rendering in a more compact and lighter lens. ...Show more →
Given the well-earned warm reception to these lenses, it may not be long before they build out the range wider and longer. It turns out that 'slow'-small-light-machined metal lenses at the right price was a winning formula, provided aberration control was well-balanced with an attractive drawing style. It need not be either/or.
Yep. These seem like the lenses many of us have been wanting for ages. Love my CV lenses, but similarly impressive IQ and rendering in a similarly sized and well built package, with AF, is pretty compelling.
And in a way, they might even act as gateway drugs to the manual focus lenses that already exist in the Sony ecosystem. It's a shorter step from the I lenses than from say, from the ART series. Soon, we may see these as very different lenses, in materials, utility, portability, even end usage like shooting locations and subject matter.
The Sigma page is worth a look for anyone interested in how a lens maker goes about developing their guiding principles and key concepts. They are a good company and many are delighted they are on board the Sony train.
Mystik wrote:
Think of the Sigma like an F2 GM caliber lens.
Maybe I'm being super pedantic, but I feel like this is a little misleading. If I were going to equate it to anything, it would be the CV 35mm 1.7 Ultron. If we follow the latest G/GM primes we see a few themes in design that I feel would disqualify the Sigma from that comparison:
Sealing
Dual AF motors & utilization of said motors to achieve better MFDs/magnification than other lenses of their FL & spec
No flaws (except CA) inside the plane of focus at any point in the focus range (Sigma has glow close up)
Near maximum resolution wide open (Sigma is certainly good, but look at the graph from this post to see how they compare wide open)
Now, I don't mean to say the Sigma is a bad lens—far from it. But its design themes seem to take more cues from classical high quality manual mid-speeds than what Sony is doing with their G/GM primes as of late.
I’m really happy with the Tamron 35/2.8 for landscape. Though I don’t like it for people. Its AF isn’t great. I’m thinking if I should go with this sigma 35/2 to go with my Tamron. Would prefer the GM 35, but don’t know if I can justify the GM35. I could also sell my FE 55 and pick up a sigma 65/2 to make a sigma combo.
Landscape- Tamron 35/2.8 and VC APO 50/2
People- Sigma 35/2 and Sigma 65/2
nandadevieast wrote:
Those who have had Sony 35/1.8 and this Sigma, which one will you take and why?
Sony focusses close and is 1.8, spec wise.
I had one day left in my 30 day return period to return the Sony 35mm 1.8. The same day my Sigma 35mm F2 was to arrive at the house. That morning I took the risk and returned the Sony before the Sigma showed up. I already had the Sigma 65 and was very happy with it so unless there was a huge surprise I knew I would like the Sigma 35mm. Well I was right. The build quality compared to the Sony is way better. I already knew that. As soon as I unboxed and held the Sigma I knew I was dealing with top notch build quality. If you do any manual focusing the Sigma is a joy to manual focus with too. Personally I like the overall rendering a lot better on the Sigma. The Sony was plenty sharp enough but the images always were kind of boring and lifeless to me. It left me wanting more. Just my opinion.
JVan_02 wrote:
Maybe I'm being super pedantic, but I feel like this is a little misleading. If I were going to equate it to anything, it would be the CV 35mm 1.7 Ultron. If we follow the latest G/GM primes we see a few themes in design that I feel would disqualify the Sigma from that comparison:
Sealing
Dual AF motors & utilization of said motors to achieve better MFDs/magnification than other lenses of their FL & spec
No flaws (except CA) inside the plane of focus at any point in the focus range (Sigma has glow close up)
Near maximum resolution wide open (Sigma is certainly good, but look at the graph from this post to see how they compare wide open)
Now, I don't mean to say the Sigma is a bad lens—far from it. But its design themes seem to take more ques from classical high quality manual mid-speeds than what Sony is doing with their G/GM primes as of late. ...Show more →
Fair point, but not all GM lenses fit all of those criteria either aside from being weather sealed. i.e. most do not have dual motors....35GM does not as far as I know. 85GM has a glow and CA wide open....not necessarily a bad thing as it lends to the character of the lens vs the more analytical rendering of the 135GM
Mystik wrote:
Fair point, but not all GM lenses fit all of those criteria either aside from being weather sealed. i.e. most do not have dual motors....35GM does not as far as I know. 85GM has a glow and CA wide open....not necessarily a bad thing as it lends to the character of the lens vs the more analytical rendering of the 135GM
I did qualify this statement as the latest G/GM primes. Arbitrarily, I'd make this distinction from the 24 GM, so this includes the 135 GM, the 20 G, and the 35 GM. Also, yes, the 35 has dual motors.
Rendering is a bit scattershot, which is why I didn't include this on the list, but I feel like if Sony's lens team has to make the choice between including an optical flaw and allowing better rendering (like with the 85 GM) or making sure the lens is eminently usable at every point in the range they go with the latter (135 GM). While the 20 G and 24 GM render similarly to the 85, they don't have glow in their plane of focus at any point. We'll have to wait for more reviews to come out and more copies to get in the wild, but at this point it seems the 35 is somewhere between the 24 and 135 GM.
Alex W wrote:
I had one day left in my 30 day return period to return the Sony 35mm 1.8. The same day my Sigma 35mm F2 was to arrive at the house. That morning I took the risk and returned the Sony before the Sigma showed up. I already had the Sigma 65 and was very happy with it so unless there was a huge surprise I knew I would like the Sigma 35mm. Well I was right. The build quality compared to the Sony is way better. I already knew that. As soon as I unboxed and held the Sigma I knew I was dealing with top notch build quality. If you do any manual focusing the Sigma is a joy to manual focus with too. Personally I like the overall rendering a lot better on the Sigma. The Sony was plenty sharp enough but the images always were kind of boring and lifeless to me. It left me wanting more. Just my opinion.
