Fred Miranda wrote:
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.
I thought about trying to move the tripod to get the same framing, but it seemed like a lot of chimping and the ground is very uneven and I figured I'd mess it up. Also, there was some question as to the viability of using the the 20 in place of the 35, so I decided to show what you'd actually get in APS-C mode.
mjk115 wrote:
I thought about trying to move the tripod to get the same framing, but it seemed like a lot of chimping and the ground is very uneven and I figured I'd mess it up. Also, there was some question as to the viability of using the the 20 in place of the 35, so I decided to show what you'd actually get in APS-C mode.
Yes, you first test was close enough and very useful imo. The FE 20/1.8 G is a great lens.
GMPhotography wrote:
Not a fan of these set ups to compare lenses with different focal lengths. I guess there is some use to it. I'll compare 35 to 35 once I get my stuff
FE 35/1.8 vs Sigma 35/2 ?
using the A7C?
that is what I am waiting for to make a decision between the two
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.
Yes sure that's one way. What I suggested was just another way of comparing the rendering of the lenses. Instead of using APS-C mode, try to match the FOV and use the same aperture on both lenses.
offtraildog wrote:
FE 35/1.8 vs Sigma 35/2 ?
using the A7C?
that is what I am waiting for to make a decision between the two
GM 35 to this. From what I can tell now is this Sigma renders nicer than the 35 1.8 which is a very nice lens and for what it is a modern well corrected lens very nice but it has no mojo
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I did a large rendering comparison, and both have been reviewed quite extensively as this point by many places. What are you hoping to see/find?
It would be nice to see a comparison using the camera (a7C) that I will be using and I know that Guy is selecting his lens kit for that camera.
offtraildog wrote:
FE 35/1.8 vs Sigma 35/2 ?
using the A7C?
that is what I am waiting for to make a decision between the two
I posted this is a comparison a while back....but having shot both lenses pretty extensively now, the difference in rendering is underemphasized in these shots because the lighting is pretty flat.
Real world shooting....Sigma is easily the better choice.
offtraildog wrote:
It would be nice to see a comparison using the camera (a7C) that I will be using and I know that Guy is selecting his lens kit for that camera.
Okay its here and so are my 2 grand boys 4 and 6 and there in a peaceful moment. So real quickies as we need to get ready of Mommys BD . But I do like the rendering and the OOF look nice. I do not like over the top backgrounds I like it to look natural. Watch the EXIF
Mystik wrote:
I posted this is a comparison a while back....but having shot both lenses pretty extensively now, the difference in rendering is underemphasized in these shots because the lighting is pretty flat.
Real world shooting....Sigma is easily the better choice.
Interesting its saying Zeiss Loxia in the EXIF. Normal
So Pro tip back when I shot the 24mpx sensor I would cheat when I went into post so clients did not realize it was 24mpx, well not that I was hiding it but you want to look good too. But in C1 I can increase the resolution when I go into processing after a lot of testing I liked going only as far as 150 percent without much degradation . Ill start doing it on these test coming
GMPhotography wrote:
Interesting its saying Zeiss Loxia in the EXIF. Normal
So Pro tip back when I shot the 24mpx sensor I would cheat when I went into post so clients did not realize it was 24mpx, well not that I was hiding it but you want to look good too. But in C1 I can increase the resolution when I go into processing after a lot of testing I liked going only as far as 150 percent without much degradation . Ill start doing it on these test coming
Oh A7C Tungsten WB no corrections
Noticed the same "Zeiss Loxia 2/35" on the image of the dog @gordec posted .. also with a A7C...
Thanks for the samples. Hope you have a nice evening
mjk115 wrote:
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.
Interesting with the EXAGE 1.8 verses 2.0 closeups the Sony crop looks sharper than the Sigma full frame.
Same with the 1.8 verses 2.8 EXAGE comparison.
Nice comparison. The 20 1.8 in APS-C mode seems indeed a bit smoother in the bokeh, and has less Loca.
I could try the af-c of the Sigma 35 on a moving subject yesterday, on a guest in my garden which likes to visit us sometimes.
Of course, she didn't move very fast but all cat owners know the tendancy of this little fur balls to get immediately very, very close every time you point a camera at them (you know, whith this look in the eyes which means : "if I was 80 pounds heavier I would eat you"). A9, af-c, small flexible spot (neither real time tracking activated or animal AF). The first picture was the closer she gets while maintaining a sharp picture around the eyes wide open.
