ramesesthe2nd wrote:
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.
I ordered the Sigma. Goodness knows when they will start shipping the GM anyway. Maybe next week, maybe not until April. From the reviews I have seen the Sigma 1.2 seems plenty sharp enough and like you said the rendering is fantastic which is what is important to me. Plus if I do not like it I will return it and wait for the GM. I rarely return things though. I really try to do my homework before buying. Flare issues is the only thing that might be concerning. Just will have to be aware and smarter in my shots. I think it along with the Sigma F2 will be a great pair of 35s. Both great but both different enough if you know what I mean. Like I said I do not mind the weight if the optics are worthy of carrying around the weight. Heck my 135mm goes with me often and doesn't bother me at all. Excited to get the 35mm 1.2 on Thursday and try it. Just hope its a problem free well centered copy.
Alex W wrote:
I ordered the Sigma. Goodness knows when they will start shipping the GM anyway. Maybe next week, maybe not until April. From the reviews I have seen the Sigma 1.2 seems plenty sharp enough and like you said the rendering is fantastic which is what is important to me. Plus if I do not like it I will return it and wait for the GM. I rarely return things though. I really try to do my homework before buying. I think it along with the Sigma F2 will be a great pair of 35s. Both great but both different enough if you know what I mean. Like I said I do not mind the weight if the optics are worthy of carrying around the weight. Heck my 135mm goes with me often and doesn't bother me at all. Excited to get the 35mm 1.2 on Thursday and try it. Just hope its a problem free well centered copy.
I am of the opinion that as long as you can stomach the size, the Bigma is a fantastic option, not matter how good the GM is Enjoy the new lens and good luck on centering!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am of the opinion that as long as you can stomach the size, the Bigma is a fantastic option, not matter how good the GM is Enjoy the new lens and good luck on centering!
I could not stomach it. but love the optics. Still not sure how the GM will compare to the Sigma f/1.2.
I find the Sigma 35/2's rendering to be lovely and under corrected SA helps it (Although way less than what I see on the 45/2.8C's). Still not sure if the GM will offer similar rendering at f/2.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I could not stomach it. but love the optics. Still not sure how the GM will compare to the Sigma f/1.2.
I find the Sigma 35/2's rendering to be lovely and under corrected SA helps it (Although way less than what I see on the 45/2.8C's). Still not sure if the GM will offer similar rendering at f/2.
I also could not stomach it--and I didn't even bother picking it up as I know my limits.
We are in agreement. I like the 35i so much, that I am no longer even pre-ordered on the GM 35. The 35i is as close as we are getting to an RX1 as far as I am concerned. I have a 35/1.4 Apoqualia which has a wild fun draw and only weighs 120g. Together they are still lighter than the GM 35. One is a very smooth modern controlled rendering, the other has much more character but can produce gorgeous files.
Question for current owners - when trying to focus on low contrast areas such as a blank wall (forcing the lens to hunt), do you hear more of a noise in the motor than you do with easier targets? Mine is silent unless I really challenge it, and this seems normal based on other lenses, but wanted to confirm here. A mild high pitch is what I hear as it looks for a focus point.
Never held a good vintage lens but love the look and feel of the new Sigma i series. I have read a couple of reviews like this one that say the center sharpness is okay but not great wide open. How sharp has a lens got to be? My 35mm F2 seems sharp as does my 65mm F2. Contrast does seems to step up and help a bit when I move up to 2.5, 2.8 etc. but the sharpness is fine wide open. (In my opinion.) Maybe not 135mm GM sharp but sharp enough for my 63 year old eyes. lol. I was just out taking some shots with the 35mm and think the rendering and sharpness is great. Really like the images it produces. Only thing I wish it had was an aperture adjustment ring lock especially when in "A" position.
To be melodramatic about it, there is a battle for the soul of stills photography. At the extremes, one end wants very sharp with high separation, rapid fall-off to melted bokeh. At the other end the effort is to enable users to produce images where the content and image 'design' is the first thing the viewer sees, with smooth fall-off and excellent colour/contrast integration.
It was no accident Sigma called these lenses 'Contemporary'. It is a cue from the cine industry, where a similar set of discussions are ongoing.
"We try to provide an almost natural window on reality, with fewer effects and artifacts. It starts with distortion and color. Our over-arching philosophy is to provide a lens that frees the artist, the cinematographer, to add effects and looks rather than “baking” those artifacts into the design.
We listened to customers who said that some of our lenses have been clinical or too sharp. Actually, our new Supreme Primes are as sharp, if not sharper than, previous lenses. However, even though they are sharp, they also have beautiful skin tones and a gentle focus fall-off."
- Christian Bannert
"Gentle sharpness. We insisted on a look that is versatile and flexible. It’s not a vintage lens. It’s not a specialized look .. We make a lens to the best of our abilities so that all possibilities are open. It allows you to have sharpness where you need it, but has also has very smooth skin tones and textures."
Of course it's different for stills users - we inspect the image minutely because it never moves, which changes so much. Nevertheless, cinema moves the needle in popular perception. What seems to have happened is that most stills photographers are now conditioned to the super sharp look, not just sharp but not obviously so, but sharp as the first criterion of image quality, with everything else trailing along behind.
Alex W wrote:
Never held a good vintage lens but love the look and feel of the new Sigma i series. I have read a couple of reviews like this one that say the center sharpness is okay but not great wide open. How sharp has a lens got to be? My 35mm F2 seems sharp as does my 65mm F2. Contrast does seems to step up and help a bit when I move up to 2.5, 2.8 etc. but the sharpness is fine wide open. (In my opinion.) Maybe not 135mm GM sharp but sharp enough for my 63 year old eyes. lol. I was just out taking some shots with the 35mm and think the rendering and sharpness is great. Really like the images it produces. Only thing I wish it had was an aperture adjustment ring lock especially when in "A" position. ...Show more →
Look and feel of a vintage lens? Perhaps they were referring to the build quality and aperture ring.
Anyways, spherical aberration was wisely under-corrected to improve rendering and any resolution/contrast loss is only noticeable at close distance. I think it's a balanced design: Very sharp at infinity at f/2 and super sharp at f/2.8 (center) while the mid-zone and corners improve further one or two stops down from wide open. It's outstanding for landscapes starting at f/4 on the A7R IV. How much more do we need? The slight RSA is pleasant for environment portraits imo.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Look and feel of a vintage lens? Perhaps they were referring to the build quality and aperture ring.
Anyways, spherical aberration was wisely under-corrected to improve rendering and any resolution/contrast loss is only noticeable at close distance. I think it's a balanced design: Very sharp at infinity at f/2 and super sharp at f/2.8 (center) while the mid-zone and corners improve further one or two stops down from wide open. It's outstanding for landscapes starting at f/4 on the A7R IV. How much more do we need? The slight RSA is pleasant for environment portraits imo.
Do you find that the spherical aberration affects AF at all, esp at close distances? How would you say the AF performs in general in terms of speed and accuracy?
Teo Rey wrote:
Do you find that the spherical aberration affects AF at all, esp at close distances? How would you say the AF performs in general in terms of speed and accuracy?
That's a difference between the Sigma 35/2 and 45/2.8 Contemporary lenses. The latter has stronger SA and it does impact AF-C accuracy. It does not seem to be an issue with the former.
So far, I am getting great accuracy from the Sigma 35/2 but have not done any controlled AF tests yet.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a difference between the Sigma 35/2 and 45/2.8 Contemporary lenses. The latter has stronger SA and it does impact AF-C accuracy. It does not seem to be an issue with the former.
So far, I am getting great accuracy from the Sigma 35/2 but have not done any controlled AF tests yet.
I would love to see the results from your AF tests!
Teo Rey wrote:
I would love to see the results from your AF tests!
I remember my 45/2.8 C review was controversial in regards to AF-C inaccuracies and I even tried 3 copies to make sure.
I don't see this behavior on the 35/2 but will know for sure today.
Fred and anyone else - Have you tried the Sigma 45mm on the A9? Does it have the same autofocus issues on those cameras? . . . Great lens. Would be another reason to consider getting an A9. . . .
Fred Miranda wrote:
I remember my 45/2.8 C review was controversial in regards to AF-C inaccuracies and I even tried 3 copies to make sure.
I don't see this behavior on the 35/2 but will know for sure today.
httivals wrote:
Fred and anyone else - Have you tried the Sigma 45mm on the A9? Does it have the same autofocus issues on those cameras? . . . Great lens. Would be another reason to consider getting an A9. . . .
Same results on the A9 series. Basically phase detect AF can't see well through the fog of SA.
Enjoy the new lens and good luck on centering!
