mjk115 wrote:
So perhaps a dumb question, but if you're shooting the 24 in APS-C mode, are the distortion characteristics of the cropped file the same as a FF 35? Do you still get big noses and distorted heads or is that effect mitigated by being able to shoot at a 35mm distance?
Nope the FOV changes so the distortion characteristics do too.
That said...not a fan of buying a 24mm for the purposes of using it in crop mode. Waste of space and $$ to not use the outer portions of that glass.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
It would be interesting to see it compared to the 20mm 1.8 then in crop mode?
The 20 F1.8 in crop mode is wider. I think the Sigma is more like 32-33mm. I've done quick and dirty test, nothing on tripods.
I am hoping that this is better then the 35/1.8. I am looking for a everyday walk-around prime for the A7C to pair with my 20/1.8 and then I'll add a longer prime like 50/55
offtraildog wrote:
I am hoping that this is better then the 35/1.8. I am looking for a everyday walk-around prime for the A7C to pair with my 20/1.8 and then I'll add a longer prime like 50/55
Same here I have the 20 1.8 which I really like and the 35 1.8 is and was a nice lens but had no real juice IMHO. I mean by rendering and just kind of a oh and ah standard. Very clinical so if this Sigma can give me some look I’m all in.
offtraildog wrote:
I am hoping that this is better then the 35/1.8. I am looking for a everyday walk-around prime for the A7C to pair with my 20/1.8 and then I'll add a longer prime like 50/55
Sigma 35i is the closest thing to RX1R's Sonnar's bokeh and transition area for a 35/2 lens. Sure the 35GM and other bigger 35s will be better, but I'm strictly talking about compact 35. If that's important to you, it is a significant upgrade to 35/1.8. If you are purely looking at overall sharpness, the 35/1.8 is pretty good as is.
GMPhotography wrote:
I actually like the fact it is wider. Reason being is it maybe a great one lens run out the door lens and being like a 32 might be perfect for that
I can certainly see that being a plus for some, it was for me at first... but then I found that it was just a bit too close to the long end of my 17-28 (but who am I kidding, I was just looking for justifications to get the 35 GM).
I got one a few days ago. Nice lens, decently sharp up to the corners. My top right corner is just a little bit weaker but I can live with it (borders are fine). The cat's eye bokeh can indeed be a little bit distracting at f/2 but as Fred mentionned, it mostly goes away at f/2.5 f/2.8.
I really wanted to get the Samyang in the first place, but I gave up after two copies noticeably weaker on one corner. Too bad, the Samyang looks less sturdy but was way lighter. The construction of the Sigma is flattering but damn this thing is heavy for its size... but I love the rendering.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Yes I know, it's 30mm. But 30mm is closer to 32 than the 24GM is which is 36mm.
So this is a far cry from Fred's tests, but I did a quick tripod test between the i35 and he 20G. I had to adjust the exposure slightly to make them look the same, and the light was a bit variable which may have created some differences. I shot the 20 in APS-C mode at 1.8, and the 35 at 2.8. Anyway, this is for anyone who might find it useful:
Another bokeh torture test between the Sony 20F1.8G in Aps-C Mode and the Sigma 35 at 2.8. Truly ugly photo, but it shows what the lenses can do with a bad situation.
mjk115 wrote:
So this is a far cry from Fred's tests, but I did a quick tripod test between the i35 and he 20G. I had to adjust the exposure slightly to make them look the same, and the light was a bit variable which may have created some differences. I shot the 20 in APS-C mode at 1.8, and the 35 at 2.8. Anyway, this is for anyone who might find it useful:
Background bokeh of the Sony 20/1.8 looks smoother in your comparisons. Foreground is better with the Sigma.
Here is the same comparison with the 35 at F2. Note the focus point was right on the EXAGE printed on the derailleur. Also the last crop is so horrible that I don't know if any lens could render it pleasing.
I mean if you move closer to the subject with the 20mm to match the framing of the 35mm, then you can leave both at F2 and have a comparable image.
The Sony should be set to f/1.8 and the Sigma at f/2.8 for this to work.
20/1.8 x 1.52 = 30.5/2.75
I thought that @mjk115's first comparison using these settings were very useful, athouth the Sigma's image still has slight more blur since the framing was not quite the same. (subject shot at same distance)
Some think the 20/1.8 is actually wider than 20mm though. (More like 19mm) so the best comparison would using the same framing (as close as possible) while the Sony set to f/1.8 vs Sigma at f/2.8.
