zz wrote:
They have yet to be announced! You can count on Sigma though to give a clear and thoughtful presentation that features some of these considerations. Their presentations are most pleasant to watch, so be sure to check it out.
Sigma also provides actually useful and creative galleries for each of their lenses. The images come from Sigma customers, with full attribution.
bjornthun wrote:
The Zeiss Batis series uses 67mm filters on all lenses except the 18/2.8, which has got a whopping 77mm filter size. This isn’t an ideal solution either with über-size lenses. I go for the Sigma approach as the lesser evil.
With all respect to my 40 CF... it's worse than that. My 40 is significantly more voluminous than my 20G, despite the 20 having more glass and weight. They suuuuuuper overdid the aesthetic on that line.
JVan_02 wrote:
With all respect to my 40 CF... it's worse than that. My 40 is significantly more voluminous than my 20G, despite the 20 having more glass and weight. They suuuuuuper overdid the aesthetic on that line.
I'm in agreement here. I think Tamron made the same mistake with the 67mm on their 20/24/35 2.8 series. Those lenses could be way smaller than they are. I don't get the adherence to a specific filter thread, really. I'm not a huge protective filter user these days and for those lenses that I do leave them on, well, I buy them specifically for that lens. My ND filters are currently a square system (Lee Seven5) and when I do upgrade, I'll go for a larger square system or an 82mm circular. I'm happy that Sigma has decided to give these lenses whatever filter thread makes sense. I'm happy with the design uniformity.
Now, imagine what could have been done if Zeiss went for, say, a 55 or 52mm filter on the B40? That would be a cool lens.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Now, imagine what could have been done if Zeiss went for, say, a 55 or 52mm filter on the B40? That would be a cool lens.
For those of us not significat sticklers of bokeh, it would probably be the ultimate rx1 replacement attached to an α7C. The optical performance and close-focus utility are still there on the lens as-is, of course, but the lens itself is hardly discrete.
After using my 20G for a while, I can see the attraction to the bokeh that Sony seems to be producing these days—but whether it's that or something else with the Sony's lens design ethos I seem to need to spend more time editing the 20G's files than my 40's on average so I'm not super attached to the performance. In that respect, a 35/40G might produce better files one day while (I suspect) maintaining a similar level of close-focus utility and ACTUALLY gathering the amount of light listed by the spec. But by virtue of its superior optics... it would be more bulky than a properly sized 40 CF.
It's why I was super excited when I saw that Sigma might have actually done it: made the 40 CF as it should have been. Slimmed down, presumably great optics, construction, and looking at what I thought was a close focus clutch—I imagined a great level of utility for both the 35 & 65 along with actually being the stated speed at all distances that matter. But the trend of only front & rear gaskets remains, and unless Nokishita got it wrong... that's not a close focus clutch . Depending on how this thing & the 35 GM review, I might get the Sigma anyway, get the 35 GM (almost certainly a better lens, but size might be too much for everyday carry), break down and get the 24 GM (never wanted an everyday lens that wide), or just wait years for a 35/40 G.
The physical size is the main reason the only Batis I've EVER considered has been the 85/1.8. And never tried that one either. I've mostly been a fan of Voigtländer lenses that combine good looks with form and function and great character in compact size. Now these really seem to promise the same in af bodies.
Haven't been this enthusiastic about an set of lenses since Voigtländer introduced the now legendary 40 & 65. (Tbh. never got the 65/2 but considered it many many times. Now I got the Sigma 105/2.8 instead.)
Tonzah78 wrote:
The physical size is the main reason the only Batis I've EVER considered has been the 85/1.8. And never tried that one either. I've mostly been a fan of Voigtländer lenses that combine good looks with form and function and great character in compact size. Now these really seem to promise the same in af bodies.
Haven't been this enthusiastic about an set of lenses since Voigtländer introduced the now legendary 40 & 65. (Tbh. never got the 65/2 but considered it many many times. Now I got the Sigma 105/2.8 instead.)
Batis lenses have an unintended feature that is pleasing.
On days when you feel beat, tired, dead to the world, go and pick up one of your Batis lenses. They are disarmingly light for their size, truly the airy meringues of lenses. I feel like Schwarzenegger in his prime, juggling these Brobdingnagian behemoths with ease.
smpetty wrote:
Batis lenses have an unintended feature that is pleasing.
On days when you feel beat, tired, dead to the world, go and pick up one of your Batis lenses. They are disarmingly light for their size, truly the airy meringues of lenses. I feel like Schwarzenegger in his prime, juggling these Brobdingnagian behemoths with ease.
You juggle your lenses when you're bored? Impressive!
vdo1 wrote:
I like the FL choice for this series. It lets me hope that the DG DN 50mm will be in the Art series.
Yeah, here’s hoping. A 50 1.4 redone like the 85 would be awesome. I could see me getting the 24 & 45 Contemporary lenses for day-to-day and that 50mm Art for low light and portrait work.
Then again, a 35/65 f2 Contemporary pairing is also extremely attractive for the compact size and a bit longer perspective with the 65 for portraits.
How do you guys think the 65 will be for portraits? Should it still have enough background separation at longer distances in comparison to the 85 f1.4? I tried finding full body length portraits shot with the Voigtlander 65 f2 for comparison but they are very difficult to find good examples of.
JVan_02 wrote:
For those of us not significat sticklers of bokeh, it would probably be the ultimate rx1 replacement attached to an α7C. The optical performance and close-focus utility are still there on the lens as-is, of course, but the lens itself is hardly discrete.
After using my 20G for a while, I can see the attraction to the bokeh that Sony seems to be producing these days—but whether it's that or something else with the Sony's lens design ethos I seem to need to spend more time editing the 20G's files than my 40's on average so I'm not super attached to the performance. In that respect, a 35/40G might produce better files one day while (I suspect) maintaining a similar level of close-focus utility and ACTUALLY gathering the amount of light listed by the spec. But by virtue of its superior optics... it would be more bulky than a properly sized 40 CF.
It's why I was super excited when I saw that Sigma might have actually done it: made the 40 CF as it should have been. Slimmed down, presumably great optics, construction, and looking at what I thought was a close focus clutch—I imagined a great level of utility for both the 35 & 65 along with actually being the stated speed at all distances that matter. But the trend of only front & rear gaskets remains, and unless Nokishita got it wrong... that's not a close focus clutch . Depending on how this thing & the 35 GM review, I might get the Sigma anyway, get the 35 GM (almost certainly a better lens, but size might be too much for everyday carry), break down and get the 24 GM (never wanted an everyday lens that wide), or just wait years for a 35/40 G....Show more →
I like to get close, but not usually in the true macro range. The 100STF is a near perfect telephoto for me. The B40 has always appealed to me for this reason...and optically those who own it, love it. Size is one reason I've not bought it, but the main reason is cost. It's a very pricey lens here in Canada and used copies tend to go very quickly. I grabbed the Sigma 45 when it came out and I've been very happy with it. The close focus glow is gone by f/4 and it renders and handles so well. I'm excited to see how these new Sigmas perform. I'm also excited to see what Sony does with the rumoured 35 GM. I suspect that'll be a pricey lens too.
But we appear to be hitting a good time for prime shooters in the 105mm and under area. My bank account my suffer in 2021, but quite differently than it has suffered here in 2020...
Teo Rey wrote:
How do you guys think the 65 will be for portraits? Should it still have enough background separation at longer distances in comparison to the 85 f1.4? I tried finding full body length portraits shot with the Voigtlander 65 f2 for comparison but they are very difficult to find good examples of.
Dedicated for portraits, I don't think there is anything better than the 85/1.4 GM. Rendering is very smooth at any distance (similar to what I get with the Sigma 45/2.8C) and there will be significantly more blur compared to a 65/2 lens, especially when the background is further away.
However, the Sigma 65/2C will be way smaller and lighter and I expect it to exceed in rendering as well.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I like to get close, but not usually in the true macro range. The 100STF is a near perfect telephoto for me. The B40 has always appealed to me for this reason...and optically those who own it, love it. Size is one reason I've not bought it, but the main reason is cost. It's a very pricey lens here in Canada and used copies tend to go very quickly. I grabbed the Sigma 45 when it came out and I've been very happy with it. The close focus glow is gone by f/4 and it renders and handles so well. I'm excited to see how these new Sigmas perform. I'm also excited to see what Sony does with the rumoured 35 GM. I suspect that'll be a pricey lens too.
But we appear to be hitting a good time for prime shooters in the 105mm and under area. My bank account my suffer in 2021, but quite differently than it has suffered here in 2020......Show more →
Yeah, about 5-10% of my shots might be close to maximum magnification of the 40, with the majority of that coming from photowalks and a minority coming from spontaneous documentation. Looking at that figure I could say it's not a must-have maybe, but I know I'm going to miss it if I don't have it. Sony's 35 1.8 is obviously the best replacement in this regard, and it might be what I end up pairing the α7C with—but I know I'm going to miss the 40's optics. Sony's 35 is not a slouch, per say, just not as special as the 40—again, something I hoped the Sigma would remedy.
We'll have to see. To be honest, I have a fascination/trepidation of Sigma's 45. It has produced perhaps the best looking images I've seen in a midspeed prime, but the SA that quality seems to come from has a huge amount of hassle attached to it. The 40 also has some SA—and while I don't agree with Zeiss' decision to take away control of the aperture when SA flares up I can kinda understand it: it takes the hassle out of the equation. However, the best control of this kind of look has to come from Sony's 20 G, 24 GM, and 85 GM: SA out of the plane of focus where you want it at almost any aperture. I hope that the 35 and 65 lean more towards Sony's best—maybe not to that degree but instead something like Pentax's Limited series of primes. Or perhaps even as good as the 35 sonnar.
I have to say, I think I'm more curious about this lens than the upcoming 35 GM. I feel like the GM is more of a known entity in that it will be good, expensive, and the only questions I have will if it will be more like the 135 GM (technical perfection) or the 24 GM (pleasing look) and the size. With the Sigma... I have literally 0 idea.
@scalanc2 not to say it is impossible to have both qualities, or not to say that the 135 GM doesn't have both to some degree, but that I wouldn't say a pleasing look is the focus of the 135 in the same way it seems to be for the 24.
Teo Rey wrote:
How do you guys think the 65 will be for portraits? Should it still have enough background separation at longer distances in comparison to the 85 f1.4? I tried finding full body length portraits shot with the Voigtlander 65 f2 for comparison but they are very difficult to find good examples of.
Not exactly a full body portrait heh, but shows rendering and blur against a bit demanding background imho:
I need to go through all my photos, maybe I can find something more fitting .
zz wrote:
. Depending on how this thing & the 35 GM review, I might get the Sigma anyway, get the 35 GM (almost certainly a better lens, but size might be too much for everyday carry), break down and get the 24 GM (never wanted an everyday lens that wide), or just wait years for a 35/40 G.
.