JVan_02 wrote:
@fjablo@ well, maaaaybe Nokishita is just hiding the function of the clutch. I hope
Very odd to just include a clutch with no function.
I definitely think there is some sort of function with that center area. It doesn’t make sense to be “off balance” the way it is and you can also see the focus range text that is normally on the bottom of the lens - note how the 24mm text can’t be seen? The rings on the 35 and 65 must be rotated 90 degrees to the right. Hopefully it’s a close focus / full range focus limiter of some sort.
fjablo wrote:
Really? I was just looking at the pictures thinking „man this 35mm and 65mm are ugly“ - don’t like this clutch-thingy that doesn’t seem to have a purpose. Also hate the lens hood
I guess design is a very subjective thing
I don't use hoods all the time but I have to admit that the hood design for these lenses (Series I) are very thought-out and Sigma spent a lot of attention to detail producing them. The images themselves do not do justice to how nice they are designed.
fjablo wrote:
Really? I was just looking at the pictures thinking „man this 35mm and 65mm are ugly“ - don’t like this clutch-thingy that doesn’t seem to have a purpose. Also hate the lens hood
I guess design is a very subjective thing
I think that they're beautiful. The hoods on the 45/2.8 and Sigma DG DN Art 85/1.4 are huge, but when reversed they store quite nicely.
I'm most interested in the 35/2 - still looking for the RX1R mojo in a 35mm lens for my A7R4.
The 24 is mighty slow.
The 45 is wonderful save for somewhat suboptimal AF-C.
The 65 is very nice but 65mm is a focal length that, in terms of gapping, doesn't play well with my other lenses. Also, I have the Voigtlander 65/2 APO Macro which gets a lot of use as a 1:2 flower and critter macro lens and is essentially optically perfect. Still, wish I had a space for the Sigma 65...
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't use hoods all the time but I have to admit that the hood design for these lenses (Series I) are very thought-out and Sigma spent a lot of attention to detail producing them. The images themselves do not do justice to how nice they are designed.
The hoods look overly large to me and I'm on the fence with the aesthetics. Unless using filters, I use a hood almost all the time just to protect the front element from a needless bump...but I don't need a large hood to do this.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't use hoods all the time but I have to admit that the hood design for these lenses (Series I) are very thought-out and Sigma spent a lot of attention to detail producing them. The images themselves do not do justice to how nice they are designed.
Aesthetically, I think the riffled finish makes the hoods look unnecessarily(?) busy. But I've never handled one and if it actually makes them nicer in use, then that could actually change my mind
(Voigtländer FE and Canon RF are among the nicest-looking lenses in my opinion. Just very clean, no-frills design)
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't use hoods all the time but I have to admit that the hood design for these lenses (Series I) are very thought-out and Sigma spent a lot of attention to detail producing them. The images themselves do not do justice to how nice they are designed.
Yes, I agree, the hood is one the best looking hood from any lens. The mechanics on and off are also good.
For 45mm, I reverse the hood on lens most of time so it will take less space and offer similar bump and drop protection. This will prevent manual focus access but for AF lens, I use AF full time and most time LCD arm length shooting, never turned focus ring
Having them offered at different schedule is a plus for me as I will have hard time to pick 24&35 or 35&65 first. Now I will just pre-order 35/65. These will be operate full auto mode for day trip or travel. I hope sigma pay attention to rendering here, thought for fun and bokeh, I doubt 65 will have more to offer than 75mmf1.5 Voigtlander for me.
For me regardless 99 percent of the time im replacing the hoods with screw in metal hoods. Something I have done for years and if I sell a lens there is a unused hood .
Like to see what the 35mm F2 can do over my Sony 35 1.8 but I regard this as a working lens not so much a artistic type. The 24mm is just to slow for me personally.
The 35mm is the one that interests me. Either this or the 35mm GM could finally be the 35mm (AF) I have been waiting for. Never use hoods unless it's chucking it down rain or snow. Now a days I have the Magnetic screw on filter caps to protect the very front of the lens. Been shooting something like 35-40 years and I have never scratched a front element yet. Nothing like Jinxing myself
Although not a top priority in my kit expansion, 35mm is a focal that has my attention.
I will be interested to see the outcome of Sigma 35mm f2 reviews to be disclosed soon.
While the Sony 35mm f1.8 has 1 more element than the Sigma 35mm f2 (11 vs 10), the latter has 3 times more aspherical elements and 1 SLD element so, there's hope that it may perform/render better.
zhangyue wrote:
Yes, I agree, the hood is one the best looking hood from any lens. The mechanics on and off are also good.
Totally agree. The bayonet mechanism is smooth as silk and locks with confidence. The ribbing is oriented the proper way to give positive grip for turning: Zeiss could learn something here!
It could be 'the one'. Before they were released, they all could have been 'the one'. 35mm is an anchor lens for any range, and Sigma have many more hits than misses in recent times. They are a prolific producer and one of the more interesting lens makers. I hope this range clicks well enough with the user community. Comparisons with Sigma's 35/1.2 will be interesting for the drawing style if nothing else. December 18.
GMPhotography wrote:
For me regardless 99 percent of the time im replacing the hoods with screw in metal hoods. Something I have done for years and if I sell a lens there is a unused hood .
Like to see what the 35mm F2 can do over my Sony 35 1.8 but I regard this as a working lens not so much a artistic type. The 24mm is just to slow for me personally.
Can you still use filters when using a screw in metal hood?
philip_pj wrote:
It could be 'the one'. Before they were released, they all could have been 'the one'. 35mm is an anchor lens for any range, and Sigma have many more hits than misses in recent times. They are a prolific producer and one of the more interesting lens makers. I hope this range clicks well enough with the user community. Comparisons with Sigma's 35/1.2 will be interesting for the drawing style if nothing else. December 18.
They really are an active dichotic company. They produce these uber-corrected monster lenses, and you can know the rendering qualities and optical prowess before you ever shoot it.
Then they have the left-brain output of the company, with products like Foveon sensors and the Simga FP.
Perhaps this will be a marriage of the two--which I can't recall seeing beyond the 45/2.8C.
Am I wrong in thinking that every company except sigma seems to think that a prime, to be interesting, has to be uber-fast?
As someone who lived and died by f4 lenses in medium format film forever, I find myself in the FF digital world disappointed that interesting lenses (seemingly) have to be f1.2 or f1.4. Some of my favorites are the f2.8 lenses on the DP Merrills, and the f2 sonnar on the rx1rii (which everyone seems to like). I am a great fan of the 21/3.5 color skopar from CV. I think it's great that at least one company is thinking of small, interesting, and high performance without thinking that also has to be f1.2. Personally, I get bored of ultrathin DOF as a primary composition tool very quickly, and indeed how many iconic images that will pass the test of time have that character? I am intrigued by lenses that are slow enough to keep enough DOF that the subject is all in focus, but nevertheless renders the OOF areas in either a smooth or an interesting way. Fingers crossed.
I was just looking at the pictures thinking „man this 35mm and 65mm are ugly“ - don’t like this clutch-thingy that doesn’t seem to have a purpose. Also hate the lens hood 
