JVan_02 wrote:
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....Show more →
Rendering is definitely a subjective, but an important criteria. I've rented the 135GM a couple times, and the rendering didn't fit what I was looking for. i.e. this shot was usable and I delivered it to the client, but the rendering bugs the hell out of me so it's been hard for me to pull the trigger on the lens.
The 35 f2 has earned its keep, but I still have the 35 GM on pre-order....mostly to see how it stacks of up to Sigma 35 1.2. The rendering is the sticking point for me with regards to the lens.
Mystik wrote:
Rendering is definitely a subjective, but an important criteria. I've rented the 135GM a couple times, and the rendering didn't fit what I was looking for. i.e. this shot was usable and I delivered it to the client, but the rendering bugs the hell out of me so it's been hard for me to pull the trigger on the lens.
The 35 f2 has earned its keep, but I still have the 35 GM on pre-order....mostly to see how it stacks of up to Sigma 35 1.2. The rendering is the sticking point for me with regards to the lens. ...Show more →
I suspect you'll keep the 35 1.2 then. Personally, I slightly prefer the look out of the Sigma over the GM as the Sigma was on release the second sharpest 35 of all time according to lensrentals (and the GM probably puts it at #3), but the rendering looks to be a bit better on the Sigma 1.2.
However, I think where a lot of people are going to take the GM anyway is that it's something like ~.25x the volume and less than half the weight. I completely understand choosing the superior image—especially if you're a working pro. But I feel a lot of people would rather have something they can use for most of the day haha.
Feb 08, 2021 at 11:03 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
This is exactly why I'm ecstatic that they made the 24mm an f/3.5 instead of f/2 or f/2.8, which would have definitely made it bigger and heavier. It was a bold decision on their part, knowing how obsessed everyone seems to be with MAX BOKEHHH these days. Fortunately, the OOF and transition zones are very smooth wide open- for a wide angle, and the quasi-macro close focusing ability still yields plenty of background blur if one needs.
JVan_02 wrote:
I suspect you'll keep the 35 1.2 then. Personally, I slightly prefer the look out of the Sigma over the GM as the Sigma was on release the second sharpest 35 of all time according to lensrentals (and the GM probably puts it at #3), but the rendering looks to be a bit better on the Sigma 1.2.
However, I think where a lot of people are going to take the GM anyway is that it's something like ~.25x the volume and less than half the weight. I completely understand choosing the superior image—especially if you're a working pro. But I feel a lot of people would rather have something they can use for most of the day haha. ...Show more →
Replying to the question about how the 35i compares to the Sony FE 35mm f/1.8...
I have the Sony and had settled on that being my main 35mm prime until the Sigma came along. I think it’s a very good lens. Really only the CA bothers me. It’s very sharp, maybe sharper than the sigma in the corners. But, I had to return my Sigma because there was an obvious problem causing one corner to be blurry. I have a replacement on the way. Fingers-crossed that it has no issues. If so I plan to sell the Sony.
The main thing that shifts the balance in favor of the Sigma, for me, is the aperture ring. That’s just how I prefer to shoot. I also like the rendering but that’s a little harder to put my finger on.
I’m also excited about the opportunity to get the 24 and 65 to have a nice three lens kit, all with the same handling and rendering. Coming from Fuji X, I’m spoiled on lenses. It’s been hard to replicate the Fuji lens kit for Sony FE but I think this Sigma line might be the closest option.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
This is exactly why I'm ecstatic that they made the 24mm an f/3.5 instead of f/2 or f/2.8, which would have definitely made it bigger and heavier. It was a bold decision on their part, knowing how obsessed everyone seems to be with MAX BOKEHHH these days. Fortunately, the OOF and transition zones are very smooth wide open- for a wide angle, and the quasi-macro close focusing ability still yields plenty of background blur if one needs.
I think most would agree the I-series is pretty excellent, quality at the size being the biggest draw to the whole group. Just wish they would seal the damn things haha. Ah well.
JVan_02 wrote:
I suspect you'll keep the 35 1.2 then. Personally, I slightly prefer the look out of the Sigma over the GM as the Sigma was on release the second sharpest 35 of all time according to lensrentals (and the GM probably puts it at #3), but the rendering looks to be a bit better on the Sigma 1.2.
However, I think where a lot of people are going to take the GM anyway is that it's something like ~.25x the volume and less than half the weight. I completely understand choosing the superior image—especially if you're a working pro. But I feel a lot of people would rather have something they can use for most of the day haha. ...Show more →
Lol while size isn't an issue for paid photography, I don't enjoy the size of the Sigma 35 f1.2 for my personal photography so that's why I've been so ecstatic about the 35 F2. If the GM is lighter and shaper than the Sigma and still renders nicely, I'll swap them out for paid stuff. I have to at least test drive the GM and rule it out since its such a crucial focal length for me.
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.
All that matters is real-world depth-of-field. The actual aperture (measured an N=f/d), depth of field tables etc are all meaningless, calculated, arbritary figures. The difference in the degree of defocus between these two lenses is so great at the 'same' aperture, that you really can only compare them at or near to the image plane.
Having to shoot the Sigma one stop down to get the same depth-of-field is all well and good, except if it pushes me into dffraction territory.
I guess my personal preference would be the forground of the Voigt, with the background of the Siggy: there's an interesting focus stack challenge for you Tim!
If more depth of field at a given aperture is the priority, then get the CV. I botched the aperture on some of the shots, but if I get a chance I can post some of them. Then you can compare the lenses at different apertures.
Petegh wrote:
All that matters is real-world depth-of-field. The actual aperture (measured an N=f/d), depth of field tables etc are all meaningless, calculated, arbritary figures. The difference in the degree of defocus between these two lenses is so great at the 'same' aperture, that you really can only compare them at or near to the image plane.
Having to shoot the Sigma one stop down to get the same depth-of-field is all well and good, except if it pushes me into dffraction territory.
I guess my personal preference would be the forground of the Voigt, with the background of the Siggy: there's an interesting focus stack challenge for you Tim!...Show more →
The only thing where I find the Sony 1.8 being superior is in close up focus performance and more so sharpness. The 35 f2 Sigma gets a bit soft near close focus which is noticable in small kids portraits when they move towards the lens.
I have used my 65mm in heavy snow and it was drenched and no issues so far.
JVan_02 wrote:
I think most would agree the I-series is pretty excellent, quality at the size being the biggest draw to the whole group. Just wish they would seal the damn things haha. Ah well.
davidmathar wrote:
The only thing where I find the Sony 1.8 being superior is in close up focus performance and more so sharpness. The 35 f2 Sigma gets a bit soft near close focus which is noticable in small kids portraits when they move towards the lens.
I noticed that too. For some reason on my R4 if I use small vs medium spot it helps especially on close distance.
tsdevine wrote:
If more depth of field at a given aperture is the priority, then get the CV. I botched the aperture on some of the shots, but if I get a chance I can post some of them. Then you can compare the lenses at different apertures.
Yes, I did my best, but light was changing and I had to try to find some consistency....but it wasn't always perfect. We had a snowstorm the following day, so it was either this or nothing.
gbinoz wrote:
The 65 Voigt is brighter with sharper defined shadows but it looks possible the lighting conditions have changed slightly between lenses?
Now we will have a Voigtlander 35 f2 APO, how will this change the equation if you are getting the Sigma f2, of course one is MF and the other is AF....
Boy I wish the CV had been a 28mm, but we know there is a global moratorium on E mount 28mm lenses. This is what I'm agonizing over right now. I was able to get an order in with Amazon for $100, when they were briefly listed it for a reduced price. It has a vague Feb 26 - March 28 ship date. Maybe I have a little time to ponder this.
Douglas Liu wrote:
Now we will have a Voigtlander 35 f2 APO, how will this change the equation if you are getting the Sigma f2, of course one is MF and the other is AF....
