TakenWild wrote:
Well not really. There are lots of lenses they haven’t tested.
We know the APO 50 is even a bit better than the APO 65. They haven’t even got that lens listed, let alone tested.
I have owned the APO 65 and still own the APO 50 and 110. The sharpest lens I’ve ever tested on Sony is the Canon TSE 90 II. Roger from lens rentals says the Sony 135 GM is the sharpest lens they have tested on a consumer budget.
I think all lenses up at this supremely awesome level (which the Sigma 65 is) are essentially more similar in IQ than dissimilar.
The Lenstip test shows around 25% fall-off from centre to edge (presumably image height of 18mm), that's around 200-250% greater than the 'flatliner' CV 50/2 APO. And the 65/2 Sigma needs f2.8 to really reach its heights, where Cosina's 50/2 is within a few percent of maximum even at f2. I could not even find a mention of residual field curvature, which is emerging as the last serious challenge for high end lenses. Not to disparage the Sigma lens, but best to point out the facts of the matter.
It's to be expected the review community will also ignore the forthcoming CV 35/2 APO in favour of the rash of AF 35mm lenses about to grace the scene. To the industry, Cosina is a M mount provider. Two different worlds. Steve Huff will at least acknowledge such lenses.
"Frankly, I have a hard time to tell the difference between the crops in terms of sharpness ... Anyhow, the sharpness wide open is simply stunning! Resolution is surprisingly uniform across the frame without any noticable field curvature." Indeed it is. Even if almost no one wants you to know about it.
Even the comments are helpful:
'It does have some focus breathing but I think it is very well controlled. Just did a rough measurement: at infinity the lens has a FOV of ~39.5°, at minimum focus distance it is ~33°.'
Having appreciated all of the hard work others have devoted to this community to compare lenses, I decided to use some down time this afternoon while the puppy slept to drive to the top of the hill to compare the Sigma 35/2, 65/2 and 24-70DGDN @ 35mm and approximately 65mm (I slightly missed 65mm on the zoom), and 24mm between the 14-24 and 24-70. All focused in the middle of the frame. Mind you, I don't normally test lenses, and this wasn't a test of OOF or other rendering - just sharpness. And the cloud cover was constantly changing, so the comparisons may be worth a grain of sand, but I have uploaded all of the raw files to the following dropbox for those interested to compare: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u88acib7bvy0rnl/AAAx536G4YikeqIdfS5u1cl4a?dl=0
The Sigma 35/2 honestly isn't much sharper than the 24-70DGDN, although the sharpness is a smidge better into the corners. The 65/2 is noticeably sharper across the frame.
The biggest takeaway for me was just how impressive the 24-70DGDN is in terms of sharpness. I was curious how much resolution and sharpness I might be missing in my landscape shots by using the zoom versus one of these prime lenses. The answer, to my eye at least, is not much at all. Except for the corners of the 65/2, I really don't see much difference - certainly not enough to warrant the pains of an additional lens while hiking up to 12,000ft alpine lakes. I can, however, see the benefit of the 35/2 in daily life to photograph moments at home or on walks instead of carrying the 24-70. On a day with better weather, I'll try to take some shots to compare the rendering between the 24-70DGDN and the I series. All in all, I'm incredibly impressed with Sigma's 24-70 as a do it all lens - I just wish it had less of an issue with ghosting and flare (and dust).
Reviewer's frequent adjective for the lens is sterile. I don't own the 65 f2, but I did rent one for a week. Except for the distortion - which the reviewer didn't seem to notice - I found the 65's sharpness, contrast, and color very pleasing and, hmm well, pure. One person's sterility is another's purity. Or maybe I just like sterile lenses.
Are we at the point where a lens that images as well as the sigma 65/2 at such a reasonable price gets tagged seriously as sterile? Where have I been these years?
The CV 65 might be better for landscapes (need to shoot them both together more over time, but I suspect that to be the case) and macro, but I generally find the bokeh more pleasing on the Sigma. Softer bokeh, especially towards the corners as well as less cat's eye.
I haven't really thought of comparing the Sigma 65 to the CV 50/2 APO as they seem to be different enough in FL to make me think that they aren't out right interchangeable.
But I guess your comment is in regards to the sharpest lens tested (at center) on Lenstip. In which case that does open the discussion up to every lens, not just 65mm lenses.
philip_pj wrote:
The Lenstip test shows around 25% fall-off from centre to edge (presumably image height of 18mm), that's around 200-250% greater than the 'flatliner' CV 50/2 APO. And the 65/2 Sigma needs f2.8 to really reach its heights, where Cosina's 50/2 is within a few percent of maximum even at f2. I could not even find a mention of residual field curvature, which is emerging as the last serious challenge for high end lenses. Not to disparage the Sigma lens, but best to point out the facts of the matter.
It's to be expected the review community will also ignore the forthcoming CV 35/2 APO in favour of the rash of AF 35mm lenses about to grace the scene. To the industry, Cosina is a M mount provider. Two different worlds. Steve Huff will at least acknowledge such lenses.
"Frankly, I have a hard time to tell the difference between the crops in terms of sharpness ... Anyhow, the sharpness wide open is simply stunning! Resolution is surprisingly uniform across the frame without any noticable field curvature." Indeed it is. Even if almost no one wants you to know about it.
Even the comments are helpful:
'It does have some focus breathing but I think it is very well controlled. Just did a rough measurement: at infinity the lens has a FOV of ~39.5°, at minimum focus distance it is ~33°.' ...Show more →
photosbyjaron wrote:
The Sigma 35/2 honestly isn't much sharper than the 24-70DGDN, although the sharpness is a smidge better into the corners. The 65/2 is noticeably sharper across the frame.
I've been wondering how the 24-70DG compared to this new Sigma series and if it would be worth it to get one of these primes for an optical advantage over the zoom. Sounds like from your experience the 65 could be worth it, but not the 35? Thanks for posting those examples; I'm gonna check em out in Lightroom to have a look for myself.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Reviewer's frequent adjective for the lens is sterile. I don't own the 65 f2, but I did rent one for a week. Except for the distortion - which the reviewer didn't seem to notice - I found the 65's sharpness, contrast, and color very pleasing and, hmm well, pure. One person's sterility is another's purity. Or maybe I just like sterile lenses.
Are we at the point where a lens that images as well as the sigma 65/2 at such a reasonable price gets tagged seriously as sterile? Where have I been these years?
It doesn't have the glow of a lens that leave SA uncorrected...i.e. the 35i. Some may call consider this sterile/clinical. I can work with it. I'd say it has a neutral rendering that gives you a good baseline to create what you want in post.
The main take-away for me is that unlike many lenses that achieve high technical marks, the rendering may be 'sterile', but it's never harsh. i.e. the 35 1.8 has a really gritty rendering that not only has less than ideal bokeh....the skintones from that lens can get nasty in high contrast light, and its something that is difficult to correct.
65i reminds me of shooting the 85gm at f1.8 where the glow goes away and the rendering turns very neutral. Even in some pretty punishing light, the 65i has a mostly pleasing rendering.....you can pick out flaws in the bokeh if you really try, but the skintones are pleasing. This is an area where Sigma native e-mount lenses have excelled IMO.
tsdevine wrote:
I'll have to check that, haven't noticed it in regular shooting so far.
Hi Tim, I just read the CameraLabs review of the Sigma 65mm DG DN here https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-65mm-f2-dg-dn-review/4/ and Thomas found with his copy that 'there is some field-curvature softening the extreme corners of flat or distant subject a bit'. I know Fred found no consequential FC at infinity with his sample, but I'm wondering if you'd picked any up at MFD to mid-distance on your copy?: it would certainly explain why the bottom right corner of your pergola samples stubbornly refuses to sharpen as you stop down, as I noted above.
I replaced my first copy, while it was decently centered at infinity, there did seem to be an unevenness in depth of field in the foreground. Haven’t noticed anything odd in my second copy.
-Tim
Petegh wrote:
Hi Tim, I just read the CameraLabs review of the Sigma 65mm DG DN here https://www.cameralabs.com/sigma-65mm-f2-dg-dn-review/4/ and Thomas found with his copy that 'there is some field-curvature softening the extreme corners of flat or distant subject a bit'. I know Fred found no consequential FC at infinity with his sample, but I'm wondering if you'd picked any up at MFD to mid-distance on your copy?: it would certainly explain why the bottom right corner of your pergola samples stubbornly refuses to sharpen as you stop down, as I noted above.
They seem very thorough in their work.
