Juha Kannisto wrote:
All 4 I-series lenses are internally focusing / none of them extend while focusing.
Thanks, I started to worry. That also means they are not unit focussing, but focus by means of a small focus group inside the lens, and in all four lenses the front element does not move inside the barrel. Am, I right?
bjornthun wrote:
Thanks, I started to worry. That also means they are not unit focussing, but focus by means of a small focus group inside the lens, and in all four lenses the front element does not move inside the barrel. Am, I right?
Yes, the front element never moves inside the barrel on all 4.
bjornthun wrote:
Thanks, I started to worry. That also means they are not unit focussing, but focus by means of a small focus group inside the lens, and in all four lenses the front element does not move inside the barrel. Am, I right?
"It has a rounded 9-blade diaphragm which translates to sunstars with 18-points and it has an internal focusing mechanism which means the front element neither extends nor rotates when focusing the lens." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/0?nc=1#chapter1
Like Juha wrote, all 4 lenses in the Sigma's I Series behave the same way. There is a single group of elements for focusing but there is no indication that there is additional floating elements. (Which can improve the close-focus performance)
Fred Miranda wrote:
"It has a rounded 9-blade diaphragm which translates to sunstars with 18-points and it has an internal focusing mechanism which means the front element neither extends nor rotates when focusing the lens." https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/0?nc=1#chapter1
Like Juha wrote, all 4 lenses in the Sigma's I Series behave the same way. There is a single group of elements for focusing but there is no indication that there is additional floating elements. (Which can improve the close-focus performance)
Thanks, Fred and Juha for the explanation. All is good now!
I read the specs on https://www.sigma-global.com and there it only said «inner focus», which is ambiguous or just a poor translation from Japanese. I was afraid «inner focus» could mean a barrel within a barrel, similar to the Zeiss Touit 32/1.8 or Tamron 20/2.8, 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 lenses. That was the origin of my worries, that have now been laid to rest.
I will never buy a tamron lens again, I tested a few and they were all decentered, different models too and looking at online reviews they were also all decentered, whereas every sigmas so far has been perfect. I used to be all Sony but sigma has impressed me with the quality and when my last sony 35mm lens needs replacing it will be with a this sigma 35mm.
I currently use a Loxia 21mm, sony 35mm f2,8, sigma 65mm f2,, and sigma 100-400mm.
Petegh wrote:
Tim, I am no longer curious to see how the Sigma 35 and Tamron 35 compare, in light of the just announced apo-Voigt; just thought I'd better let you know, as you are such a generous contributor I didn't want you to feel obliged to go out and shoot some comparisons. I expect the Voigt to be superior in almost every way.
My Tamron 35mm 2.8 is perfectly centred. First try. Guess I was lucky. I will test them eventually. I will probably end up with the Tamron 35/2.8, Voigtlander 35APO and the Sigma 35/2. But someone else will probably end up testing them before me. I’m in no rush to buy the sigma, I’ll wait for a good sale.
A centred Tamron 35/2.8 probably isn’t worth selling, as they are so cheap now, but an awesome lens if you get a good copy.
jfvdenning wrote:
I will never buy a tamron lens again, I tested a few and they were all decentered, different models too and looking at online reviews they were also all decentered, whereas every sigmas so far has been perfect. I used to be all Sony but sigma has impressed me with the quality and when my last sony 35mm lens needs replacing it will be with a this sigma 35mm.
I currently use a Loxia 21mm, sony 35mm f2,8, sigma 65mm f2,, and sigma 100-400mm.
My Tamron 35/2.8 is perfectly centered as well. As far as Sigma goes, I'm batting .500. Someone pointed out some depth of field oddness with my 65 (have to go back through the thread, I forget who it was), and sure enough there was uneven depth of field from what I assume is a tilted element (which I believe he also surmised.) I also had to send my first 14-24 back.
Sigma 14-24 - 2 tries
Sigma 45 - 1 try
Sigma 65 - 2 tries? (making its way back for replacement)
Sigma 105 - 1 try
By far the worst luck I've had is with Samyang. I've had pretty tough luck with Zeiss (both Loxia and Batis.) Believe it or not, I've been pretty lucky with Sony. I've also had pretty good luck with CV (50, 65, 110), my 15 was maybe not as good as some copies, but was better than many of the samples I had seen (there was some known variability with the 15.) And of course batting 1000 with Tamron, but that's only 1 lens so I would argue my sample size is too small.
tsdevine wrote:
My Tamron 35/2.8 is perfectly centered as well. As far as Sigma goes, I'm batting .500. Someone pointed out some depth of field oddness with my 65 (have to go back through the thread, I forget who it was), and sure enough there was uneven depth of field from what I assume is a tilted element (which I believe he also surmised.) I also had to send my first 14-24 back.
Sigma 14-24 - 2 tries
Sigma 45 - 1 try
Sigma 65 - 2 tries? (making its way back for replacement)
Sigma 105 - 1 try
By far the worst luck I've had is with Samyang. I've had pretty tough luck with Zeiss (both Loxia and Batis.) Believe it or not, I've been pretty lucky with Sony. And of course batting 1000 with Tamron, but that's only 1 lens so I would argue my sample size is too small.
-Tim...Show more →
Just curious, are you performing Fred’s test and then deciding to return if a corner is less sharp than the others, or is your standard perfectly symmetrical corners?
I'm more forgiving of zooms than primes, but I do expect near perfection at apertures of f/5.6 or smaller. The Sigma 65 was not perfect at 2.8, was "good enough but not perfect" at f/5.6. I had sort of accepted that. But the kicker was the oddness with depth of field. I had a similar issue with my first Batis 25 and asymmetry with depth of field does show up with normal shooting. Once you notice it, you can't unsee it. Meaning I'd always be looking for it in my shots, and I would probably feel as though I'd need to try to stop down to compensate for it.
My first 14-24 copy had a weak corner as it reached 24mm and didn't go away when stopping down to f/5.6. My second copy wasn't perfect either, but it was close enough. Meaning I don't think I would see anything noticeable in normal shooting.
My Sigma 45 and 105 were effectively perfect, as was my Tamron 35. I had issues with 2 copies of a Loxia 25, I've had issues with the Batis 25 and Batis 40.
As the cost of the lens increases, so do my expectations, although with zooms I'm a little more forgiving. Especially with something like the 14-24 which is very complex optically.
-Tim
tbpeur01 wrote:
Just curious, are you performing Fred’s test and then deciding to return if a corner is less sharp than the others, or is your standard perfectly symmetrical corners?
Are any of you who have the Sigma 35 also planning to buy the Sony 35/1.4 GM?
If so, how will you use both lenses?
Also, I'd appreciate any thoughts on the Sigma 65 vs the Voigtlander APO Macro 65/2. I can't keep them both, I really love the 65mm focal length, I shoot most macro with my Sigma 105 Macro, and I love the AF and MF behavior of the Sigma 65. But selling off my CV 65 just feels wrong - it's arguably the most optically perfect lens that I have ever used.
smpetty wrote:
Are any of you who have the Sigma 35 also planning to buy the Sony 35/1.4 GM? If so, how will you use both lenses?
Also, I'd appreciate any thoughts on the Sigma 65 vs the Voigtlander APO Macro 65/2. I can't keep them both, I really love the 65mm focal length, I shoot most macro with my Sigma 105 Macro, and I love the AF and MF behavior of the Sigma 65. But selling off my CV 65 just feels wrong - it's arguably the most optically perfect lens that I have ever used.
There is really no point in buying both. I understand if someone wanted to pair 35/2 with Bigma 35/1.2, but GM is half the weight of Bigma and quite compact for a 35/1.4. I am still deciding between the two. GM is going to be the new 35 king, but it's over 1 lb and I think I will feel the weight, if I keep it on the camera as my main lens most of the time. Sigma is turnning out to be a fantastic lens and ticking most of the checkboxes for me, but I know I won't be able to resist GM long once the image thread picks up momentum here.
I think I will get 35/2 first to replace my 35/2.8 ZA and then decide what should I do with my Bigma 35. I mainly use Bigma at home, so weight is not a major concern, but it is a bit too long and overwhelming to handle a lens this big. I don't see myself carrying a bigma to a local zoo trip or a family event ever.
For Sigma 65 v/s CV 65, keep both for a while maybe and then decide which ones sparks the joy for you (Marie Kondo Method).
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
There is really no point in buying both. I understand if someone wanted to pair 35/2 with Bigma 35/1.2, but GM is half the weight of Bigma and quite compact for a 35/1.4. I am still deciding between the two. GM is going to be the new 35 king, but it's over 1 lb and I think I will feel the weight, if I keep it on the camera as my main lens most of the time. Sigma is turnning out to be a fantastic lens and ticking most of the checkboxes for me, but I know I won't be able to resist GM long once the image thread picks up momentum here.
I think I will get 35/2 first to replace my 35/2.8 ZA and then decide what should I do with my Bigma 35. I mainly use Bigma at home, so weight is not a major concern, but it is a bit too long and overwhelming to handle a lens this big. I don't see myself carrying a bigma to a local zoo trip or a family event ever.
For Sigma 65 v/s CV 65, keep both for a while maybe and then decide which ones sparks the joy for you (Marie Kondo Method). ...Show more →
I am going to keep my 35mm F2 because not only is it a great lens but the size and weight. Great on my A7RIV or A7C. However now I am trying to decide whether to add the Sigma 35mm 1.2 or the 35mm GM. Just for something a little faster, subject isolation and the bokeh. If the Sigma it will not be my carry around everyday lens that is for sure. (Well maybe) If the optics are good enough I do not mind carrying around a brick.
Alex W wrote:
I am going to keep my 35mm F2 because not only is it a great lens but the size and weight. Great on my A7RIV or A7C. However now I am trying to decide whether to add the Sigma 35mm 1.2 or the 35mm GM. Just for something a little faster, subject isolation and the bokeh. If the Sigma it will not be my carry around everyday lens that is for sure. (Well maybe) If the optics are good enough I do not mind carrying around a brick.
Bigma is way more than good enough. It is a great lens. I am sure GM will win on sharpness and some other technical metrics, but it won't top Bigma on rendering (it might come close though). Just browse the Bigma image thread here and you will know how amazing it is.
I am actually really liking my 35/1.2 and 35/2.8 combo. The amount of money I will lose to swap Bigma with GM will easily cover the difference of going from 35/2.8 ZA to 35/2 I.
All is good now!
