Sndr wrote:
This lens looks quite tempting. I'm wondering what the color rendering is like, especially when compared to the Batis series?
Right now I have the Batis 40, and I like its colors: punchy and saturated compared to the Sony 55mm/1.8 and 35mm/2.8. Where does the 35i fit in?
If you like Zeiss colors, keep the Batis. I went from the Batis 40mm to the Sigma 45mm and a few other Sigma Art lenses and disliked the color rendering. I've moved to all Sony lenses since then. Zeiss > Sony GM > Sigma for color rendering if you like Zeiss colors.
I have Rokinon 35mm F1.8 FE. It is impressive center sharpness.
Moderate sharpness in corner and edge.
But strong point of this lens is not sharpness, but gorgeous color rendition.
Its merit is its noble and elegant and charming color.
I think case by case would be different. In my case I just took most image near forest or trees.
So In other subject or scenic landscape, it may clearly not s great as you mentioned.
lora_to wrote:
Some thoughts - it doesn't explain why the other manufacturers lenses look good and the Sigma's are all tilted on one side, but the consistent tilt is more likely a problem with the setup in my opinion than a consistent error in all the Sigma lenses.
How do you align the camera with the shelf to make sure it is perpendicular? Small deviations from perfectly square can have a big effect on sharpness due to depth-of-field, especially so close to the target. That is why labs have a permanent setup and most hobbyists check centering at infinity. If you have a permanent setup, did you maybe accidentally shift it after testing the other lenses?
It's also possible your camera's mount has some tilt, you could try to focus the lens and then rotate the lens as if you were to take it off the camera while making sure it stays on the camera (that'd disconnect the electronic contacts). If it's the lens, then the region of softness should move, otherwise it's the camera lens-mount or camera/shelf alignment.
Generally though, the Sigma 35/2 is probably not the lens for close-focus sharpness - they made different trade-offs here. The upcoming Sigma 35/1.4 DN will probably do better. ...Show more →
That doesn't explain the sharp dip on the right side (misalignment would show in a more gradual decrease). To me it doesn't look like a user / measurement error.
Also, the 35i should be perfectly capable to take sharp photos from 1m+ distance even wide open.
@tzhang4284 thanks for that - I've been on the look-out for a proper 35mm (instead of 40mm), but for me color and contrast are more important than pure sharpness.
The primes that have been coming out for Sony FE the last few years are probably all sharp enough - it's really remarkable how good lenses have become compared to what was considered good in the early 2000s.
Jonas B wrote:
Maybe somebody can explain a little about this? Is it about bad quality control or a bad quality policy? Is it about bad karma or are all the 35i lenses like this? Why at one side only - is that a result from a polishing machine in need of some adjustment? (...)
lora_to wrote:
Some thoughts - it doesn't explain why the other manufacturers lenses look good and the Sigma's are all tilted on one side, but the consistent tilt is more likely a problem with the setup in my opinion than a consistent error in all the Sigma lenses.
I agree, and that's the puzzling thing. Or one of them.
lora_to wrote:
How do you align the camera with the shelf to make sure it is perpendicular? Small deviations from perfectly square can have a big effect on sharpness due to depth-of-field, especially so close to the target. That is why labs have a permanent setup and most hobbyists check centering at infinity. If you have a permanent setup, did you maybe accidentally shift it after testing the other lenses?
Aligning (the same target and the same method for all the lenses in the graph):
I adjust a tripod so the center of the lens mount is at the same height above the floor as the shelf is. I place the tripod at approx. the correct distance.
Correct distance, to me, is when the USAF patches, all the patches and nothing besides the patches is framed (border to border of course). With a 35mm lens that would be around 0.85-0.9 meters. This is followed by measuring the distance from the central electric contact in the hotshoe to each end of the shelf. Patch No. 4 is in the middle of the target and the optical axis is very very close to perpendicular to the shelf (and patch No.4). The camera and shelf forms an isoceles triangle (I think that is right?).
EDIT 3: Here is an overview taken with a cell phone, and from an angle just to show the shelf used:/END EDIT (April 20)
Seven small patches, crops, from an USAF chart (year 1951 tech.), evenly spaced along the side of an IKEA shelf.
This is all simple and pretty easy as the resulting test shots usually are are for me only, eye-balled and easy to judge just by reviewing the images in the camera. In this case I measured carefully as I knew I would have to look at the images again after having a first glance at the first series.
lora_to wrote:
It's also possible your camera's mount has some tilt, you could try to focus the lens and then rotate the lens as if you were to take it off the camera while making sure it stays on the camera (that'd disconnect the electronic contacts). If it's the lens, then the region of softness should move, otherwise it's the camera lens-mount or camera/shelf alignment.
Hmm. Then it would be a special Samyang/Sony 35GM/Pentax FA31..../xxx tilt. I used the same method for the RX1 for a comparison. It worked as expected.
This is the first time I got a result looking this way. Please let me know if my description is faulty - English is not my first language.
lora_to wrote:
Generally though, the Sigma 35/2 is probably not the lens for close-focus sharpness - they made different trade-offs here. The upcoming Sigma 35/1.4 DN will probably do better.
But is it reasonable to believe the trade-off is the smearing and ugliness at a part of the right side of the image?
I don't know... I can't explain the situation really. Would it be reasonable to believe a grinding machine at Sigma making an aspherical piece of glass is in need of some adjustment? But surely Sigma should have noticed? Then what?
In any case the lens is a no-go for some of my needs, no matter how nice it is.
EDIT 1: Here used to be a close-up of one of the patches. Removed as somebody looked at it and thought it was good. It was. But from near MFD and not with the Sigma. (April 20)
EDIT 2: My findings about these three copies of the Sigma 35/2.0 DG DN seem to be of very low interest. Interesting! (April 20)
Actually I don't understand the popularity of sigma 35/2 over FE35/1.8:
- sigma has a bit better sharpness (mostly offcenter and more open) but bigger distortion so after correction the sharpness may be very similar
- on f8 the sharpness is very similar
- sigma has onion bokeh:/
- is 50g heavier
- 1/3EV darker
- in my country it's more expensive
- doesn't have a button
- has worse AF performance
- worse MFD
- worse focus breathing
So what makes it so special? I need some arguments for the sigma to justify buing it but with this whole list it's really difficult...
If it helps I also had loxia 35/2 and really liked to use it (but suddenly all the babies started to walk and my manual focusing skills occured to be not as good as I thought...).
Apr 20, 2021 at 10:45 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ikit wrote:
Actually I don't understand the popularity of sigma 35/2 over FE35/1.8:
- sigma has a bit better sharpness (mostly offcenter and more open) but bigger distortion so after correction the sharpness may be very similar
- on f8 the sharpness is very similar
- sigma has onion bokeh:/
- is 50g heavier
- 1/3EV darker
- in my country it's more expensive
- doesn't have a button
- has worse AF performance
- worse MFD
- worse focus breathing
So what makes it so special? I need some arguments for the sigma to justify buing it but with this whole list it's really difficult...
If it helps I also had loxia 35/2 and really liked to use it (but suddenly all the babies started to walk and my manual focusing skills occured to be not as good as I thought...)....Show more →
The Sigma looks to have a lot better bokeh especially in the transition zone and has a lot less axial CA. Those two factors matter to me a lot more than anything else that you mention. On the alt board nehemiahphoto did a blind test of a number of different shots and the Sigma was consistently ranked near the top and the 35 f/1.8 was consistently ranked near the bottom. You might want to check out that test.
I have never used the Sony 35 FE 35 f/1.8, but I do own the Sigma I 35 f/2. I tried the Samyang 35 f/1.8, and while I liked the compactness, it just wasn't inspiring to use. That led me to look into the Sigma I series.
In regards to the advantages of the Sigma, I love the build quality, handling and aperture ring while still maintaining a compact form factor. I also like the colors, rendering and special sauce in the Sigma that make it a great package.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The Sigma looks to have a lot better bokeh especially in the transition zone and has a lot less axial CA. Those two factors matter to me a lot more than anything else that you mention. On the alt board nehemiahphoto did a blind test of a number of different shots and the Sigma was consistently ranked near the top and the 35 f/1.8 was consistently ranked near the bottom. You might want to check out that test.
No comparison. The Sony 35 1.8 is a nice lens dont get me wrong but very sterile and very little rendering quality that many of us love to have. Its very sharp so if that is what you want there you go. Im more interested in how the rendering is as almost every time it makes my images look and feel better. Simple definition its about how it feels to the viewer
The one and only bad thing on the Sigma is the distortion the rest of that list is overblown IMHO
Jonas B wrote:
But is it reasonable to believe the trade-off is the smearing and ugliness at a part of the right side of the image?
I don't know... I can't explain the situation really. Would it be reasonable to believe a grinding machine at Sigma making an aspherical piece of glass is in need of some adjustment? But surely Sigma should have noticed? Then what?
In any case the lens is a no-go for some of my needs, no matter how nice it is.
Don't mean to say that you've made a mistake, just want to say that this is _reeeallly_ hard without an almost lab-grade setup.
Jim Kasson has some great resources on how to easier test lenses with a single large target that you can frame within the center and sides at appropriate distance here. With a single target for a 35mm f/2 lens, 42mpix you'd need to be about 40m away, but that eliminates any and all alignment errors by allowing the camera to rotate edge-to-edge while keeping target within DoF.
I did some quick napkin math to check which tolerances you need to align to, (disclaimer: I'm prone to make math mistakes ):
If you take half the sensor pitch of a 24mpix full-frame camera as acceptable circle of confusion for depth of field calculations (~3 microns), you're left with a depth of field of 6mm at 0.85m (and oops, that's at f/2.8, not f/2).
I calculated the maximum angle deviation at 0.85m to be 0.81 degrees to stay within the DoF of the lens. That means your measurements of patches 1 to hotshoe and 7 to hotshoe need to be accurate to under 7mm over a distance of ~1m. That's less than 1% error, or five 1 cent coins stacked (don't know about about krona, but 4 quarters for the rest of us ), or about 1/3 the width of the A7 hotshoe.
And edit: I assume you shot wide-open, sorry if I missed that the lens was stopped down for the tests - that would make it easier to calibrate.
Jonas B wrote:
I agree, and that's the puzzling thing. Or one of them.
Aligning (the same target and the same method for all the lenses in the graph):
I adjust a tripod so the center of the lens mount is at the same height above the floor as the shelf is. I place the tripod at approx. the correct distance.
Correct distance, to me, is when the USAF patches, all the patches and nothing besides the patches is framed (border to border of course). With a 35mm lens that would be around 0.85-0.9 meters. This is followed by measuring the distance from the central electric contact in the hotshoe to each end of the shelf. Patch No. 4 is in the middle of the target and the optical axis is very very close to perpendicular to the shelf (and patch No.4). The camera and shelf forms an isoceles triangle (I think that is right?).
This is all simple and pretty easy as the resulting test shots usually are are for me only, eye-balled and easy to judge just by reviewing the images in the camera. In this case I measured carefully as I knew I would have to look at the images again after having a first glance at the first series.
Hmm. Then it would be a special Samyang/Sony 35GM/Pentax FA31..../xxx tilt. I used the same method for the RX1 for a comparison. It worked as expected.
This is the first time I got a result looking this way. Please let me know if my description is faulty - English is not my first language.
But is it reasonable to believe the trade-off is the smearing and ugliness at a part of the right side of the image?
I don't know... I can't explain the situation really. Would it be reasonable to believe a grinding machine at Sigma making an aspherical piece of glass is in need of some adjustment? But surely Sigma should have noticed? Then what?
In any case the lens is a no-go for some of my needs, no matter how nice it is.
EDIT 1: Here used to be a close-up of one of the patches. Removed as somebody looked at it and thought it was good. It was. But from near MFD and not with the Sigma. (April 20)
EDIT 2: My findings about these three copies of the Sigma 35/2.0 DG DN seem to be of very low interest. Interesting! (April 20)...Show more →
Have not read a thing on this but I can tell you right now as someone that test lenses . This test is off big time. Look at the angle to this image . It needs too be dead on to subject and center. That means all sides must be perfectly even to the other side. This image is not even close. Everything has to be level. Not reading anything this is a invalid test right out of the gate. I have this lens as well and tested it on several subject and there is nothing bad about it. Sure there maybe copy variance and if you see that return it get another.
So maybe I'll give the sigma a chance Because... After switching from loxia35 to FE35/1.8 I feel like I've lost something... The sony is great and I know that I should like it... but I don't know what is wrong that I don't have fun with this lens... Maybe it's the rendering, I'll look for this comparison.
Maybe it's the build quality... It looks like some other lenses I had. Definitely I hate the hood
I was ready to buy the 35/1.8 for my A7C prime kit but 35/2s rendering changed my mind.
There have been lots of images that demonstrate the rendering of the 35/2 which is a style of rendering I prefer. Don't shoot fast moving things and AF works fine for street scenes or slower. Animal and People Eye-AF is great.
First day of using the 35/2, I wanted to MF a close-up and my hand naturally found the MF button, focus wheel and the aperture wheel without moving my eye from the viewfinder. That and the rendering are big Pluses to me for a lens. The handling and ergonomics work great for me on the A7C and I expect just as well on a A7Rxxx
I have also found that other then some mild distortion which if your friends are viewing on a tablet or phone is not discernible, there is very little I have had to PP in C1 regarding color, saturation, sharpness, etc. During my limited outdoor shooting, the image representation is very accurate to reality. I am shooting uncompressed raw with Highlight metering and usually <+1EV . slight ETTR approach.
As others have stated, figure out what is most important to your needs since no lens will be perfect in all aspects.
ikit wrote:
So maybe I'll give the sigma a chance Because... After switching from loxia35 to FE35/1.8 I feel like I've lost something... The sony is great and I know that I should like it... but I don't know what is wrong that I don't have fun with this lens... Maybe it's the rendering, I'll look for this comparison.
Maybe it's the build quality... It looks like some other lenses I had. Definitely I hate the hood
I've walked sort of similiar walk: FE2.8/35 Loxia2/35 FE1.4/35 FE1.8/35 (&more 35mm vintage glass), now settled on the Sigma2/35. Been happy so far. To me it's the right mix of Voigtlander and Loxia glas with Sony AF
).
):