Well, I checked the mentioned rendering test, RX1 rocks, the rest... Actually, nothing special for me. Only once the sigma was better than sony FE but it's only one example with very specific conditions like extremly busy background (that I avoid no matter what lens;p). I'll have to dig more as now I don't see this better rendering comparing to FE35... I've seen the power of rendering in the topic about CV40/1.2, sigma doesn't have this power for me.
But as you know the sigma much better I truly believe you all that there is somehing special in this lens. Well, there is only one way to check it...
I'll start from a visit in a shop to check the build quality;]
ikit wrote:
Well, I checked the mentioned rendering test, RX1 rocks, the rest... Actually, nothing special for me. Only once the sigma was better than sony FE but it's only one example with very specific conditions like extremly busy background (that I avoid no matter what lens;p). I'll have to dig more as now I don't see this better rendering comparing to FE35... I've seen the power of rendering in the topic about CV40/1.2, sigma doesn't have this power for me.
But as you know the sigma much better I truly believe you all that there is somehing special in this lens. Well, there is only one way to check it...
I'll start from a visit in a shop to check the build quality;] ...Show more →
I need to see the entire photo to judge rather than comparing several crops. Check out the I series thread-
ikit wrote:
I've seen probably everything on FM about sigma 35/2 But I've seen also a lot of nice photos from FE35
If you don't see the difference here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1685214/0
then I really think there's no point forcing yourself into it.
For example you have not mentioned the rather bad CA on FE35, so it seems you don't put too much weight on CA correction, which is another area where 35i shines.
We all value different aspects of a photo individually (sharpness, aberrations, flare, smoothness and so on) and there is no right or wrong as Fred once said.
From what I've seen FE35 is a great documentary-style lens with the best AF in that focal length. Coming from the Loxia I think you might be missing Zeiss microcontrast and colors (I know I did when I sold my Batis 40). 35i will not give you those, as it has its own characteristics in those areas.
lora_to wrote:
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 agree about Jim Kasson. For testing how a lens performs up close a 40 meter distance doesn't help though.
lora_to wrote:
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).
Hmm... Your napkin may be out with a factor of ten. Then again I also make mistakes... but I suspect something is off with your numbers. Logic also tells us that every lens test made at a short distance is impossible, or close to impossible. Yet people, all IMA-test folks and so on have done this for years.
Anyway, it doesn't matter really as:
a) I can repeat the test easily
b) other lenses work fine with the same setup
c) Check the "resolution" curves I showed and you'll see the Sigmas were better when checked at the right most patch (patch 7) than they were at patch 6. That can then be compared to the result Lenstip showed in their review.
lora_to wrote:
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.
I'm not good at degrees but if your DOF numbers are off I guess your staple of quarters are off as well? The same comment as above basically.
lora_to wrote:
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.
Yes, wide open, I forgot to mention that in the charts. However, the Sigmas never cleaned up really. I shot series from wide open to f/8.
GMPhotography wrote:
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.
Oh... OK. I could have been super clear about that image illustrating what my IKEA test bench look like... The image was taken from an angle, at a larger distance and with a cell phone (but at least with a Sony).
I am a little hurt though.... if you thought that was the actual image/setup I used to evaluate the lenses it has to mean I have about zero credibility at your house. Maybe it is so.
I hope the higher powers, and Barnack as well, forgive for wanting the lens to render a painting at short distance with a reasonably even sharpness over the frame.
About returns, yes. I have borrowed one of the lenses and returned two. Enough. The Samyang 35/1.8 is not as fun (no aperture ring) but it works.
Jonas B wrote:
I agree about Jim Kasson. For testing how a lens performs up close a 40 meter distance doesn't help though.
Hmm... Your napkin may be out with a factor of ten. Then again I also make mistakes... but I suspect something is off with your numbers. Logic also tells us that every lens test made at a short distance is impossible, or close to impossible. Yet people, all IMA-test folks and so on have done this for years.
Anyway, it doesn't matter really as:
a) I can repeat the test easily
b) other lenses work fine with the same setup
c) Check the "resolution" curves I showed and you'll see the Sigmas were better when checked at the right most patch (patch 7) than they were at patch 6. That can then be compared to the result Lenstip showed in their review.
I'm not good at degrees but if your DOF numbers are off I guess your staple of quarters are off as well? The same comment as above basically.
Yes, wide open, I forgot to mention that in the charts. However, the Sigmas never cleaned up really. I shot series from wide open to f/8.
I was going to say that maybe you're still in the (close) distance where the Sigma loses a bit of sharpness and somehow the side areas are more affected than the center but if stopping down does not help, that's probably not it.
Sometime ago there was a strange issue with 24-70 DN reported here, which I reproduced on my copy, that @24mm when focusing in dead center some areas in the photo were less sharp than when focused a bit to the left or right: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620710/21#15325411
I can't really explain that, but maybe you're seeing something similar...
Sndr wrote:
@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.
from the samples I've seen, zeiss > GM ~ Compact G ~ Zeiss Alpha > Sigma ~ Tamron ~ Sony regular > Samyang
very subtle differences, but they're there if you look for it.
j4nu wrote:
I was going to say that maybe you're still in the distance where the Sigma loses a bit of sharpness and somehow the side areas are more affected than the center but if stopping down does not help, that's probably not it.
Sometime ago there was a strange issue with 24-70 DN reported here, which I reproduced on my copy, that @24mm when focusing in dead center some areas in the photo were less sharp than when focused a bit to the left or right: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1620710/21#15325411
I can't really explain that, but maybe you're seeing something similar...
Hi
Not really:
What I see, and what's visible in some images taken up close and with a lot of details in the target, is severe problems with parts of the right side of the images. Focusing on patch six ruins the left side.
I can post 100% crops of the patches if somebody want to evaluate them. But really, the curves from my intense eye balling experience are enough (I think). They also show lens No. 3 has some sideway tilt somewhere inside it.
Just losing some "sharpness" wide open at short distances is not a big problem for me. Heavy loss of resolution and the added lateral CA and fuzziness is.
Jonas B wrote:
Oh... OK. I could have been super clear about that image illustrating what my IKEA test bench look like... The image was taken from an angle, at a larger distance and with a cell phone (but at least with a Sony).
I am a little hurt though.... if you thought that was the actual image/setup I used to evaluate the lenses it has to mean I have about zero credibility at your house. Maybe it is so.
I hope the higher powers, and Barnack as well, forgive for wanting the lens to render a painting at short distance with a reasonably even sharpness over the frame.
About returns, yes. I have borrowed one of the lenses and returned two. Enough. The Samyang 35/1.8 is not as fun (no aperture ring) but it works.
Really any issues will be enhanced when you are close and off center. Period .
Like I said I have read nothing on your test but anytime your close you will lose even more DOF power. You want to do close and on angles your best lens will always be a lens that shifts
GMPhotography wrote:
Really any issues will be enhanced when you are close and off center. Period .
Like I said I have read nothing on your test but anytime your close you will lose even more DOF power. You want to do close and on angles your best lens will always be a lens that shifts
You can do anything you want. I honestly don't care I was trying to help you not scold you in any way. I'm just not sure what your trying to accomplish or expecting
He's not off center when he's actually testing the lenses Guy.....he just posted a snapshot of the "general setup" with his mobile phone. He is applying some rigor to make sure the camera/lens is properly aligned. And the 3 copies of the Sigma 35/2 are the only one's that exhibited this behavior.
So if it's not the lens, then he's consistent in his process in all other lenses, which act as he expects....and consistently doing something different/wrong with his Sigma tests (unless it's the Sigma lenses.) Because all the tests with the Sigma 35/2 are similar (as in bad the same way) and all the tests with other lenses are consistently not showing this behavior.
It does seem to point more to the lens than his process.
GMPhotography wrote:
Really any issues will be enhanced when you are close and off center. Period .
Like I said I have read nothing on your test but anytime your close you will lose even more DOF power. You want to do close and on angles your best lens will always be a lens that shifts
tsdevine wrote:
He's not off center when he's actually testing the lenses Guy.....he just posted a snapshot of the "general setup" with his mobile phone. He is applying some rigor to make sure the camera/lens is properly aligned. And the 3 copies of the Sigma 35/2 are the only one's that exhibited this behavior.
So if it's not the lens, then he's consistent in his process in all other lenses, which act as he expects....and consistently doing something different/wrong with his Sigma tests (unless it's the Sigma lenses.) Because all the tests with the Sigma 35/2 are similar (as in bad the same way) and all the tests with other lenses are consistently not showing this behavior.
It does seem to point more to the lens than his process.
Jonas B wrote:
I agree about Jim Kasson. For testing how a lens performs up close a 40 meter distance doesn't help though.
Hmm... Your napkin may be out with a factor of ten. Then again I also make mistakes... but I suspect something is off with your numbers. Logic also tells us that every lens test made at a short distance is impossible, or close to impossible. Yet people, all IMA-test folks and so on have done this for years.
Anyway, it doesn't matter really as:
a) I can repeat the test easily
b) other lenses work fine with the same setup
c) Check the "resolution" curves I showed and you'll see the Sigmas were better when checked at the right most patch (patch 7) than they were at patch 6. That can then be compared to the result Lenstip showed in their review.
I'm not good at degrees but if your DOF numbers are off I guess your staple of quarters are off as well? The same comment as above basically.
Yes, wide open, I forgot to mention that in the charts. However, the Sigmas never cleaned up really. I shot series from wide open to f/8.
I'm assuming that you keep the tripod in place as you go through the different Sigma lenses. If so, one way to get some evidence on whether it is your setup or the lenses creating the softness would be to break down your setup (tripod, camera, lens, and including dismounting the test charts) and then set it all up again and retest one of the lenses with the second setup.. If the flaw is in your setup, it is very unlikely that your error would occur in the same way a second time. If you get the same results with the second setup, it points to the lens. Alternatively, you could do an equivalent test in another room with different targets.
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?
"Rendering". That ineffable quality that can be always invoked to defend one's preferences against some measurable evidence.
It's applicable though only when convenient. Just check how the Voigtlander APO 35/2 atrocious bokeh doesn't seem to bother anyone.
