No I never said that. I do have actually two tests with this lens. It’s a little darling. Touch soft in corners but it compares very nicely to the GM. I was looking for the GM as primary go to lens and the Sigma more for travel and such. My other issue is distortion and this lens has it. Let me find you my tests
Here check this out against the GM. Both lenses tested very centered and proof to be great copies. This test is brutal on lenses so it’s a very good resource on resolution for sure.
Not a lens tester by any means, but I have three 35s at the moment and took some sample shots this afternoon. All taken on tripod from the same distance and pretty much in the same light. Bigma is so heavy that it moved the tripod head as soon as I mounted it, so I adjusted it back as closely as I could. Hope this is helpful to someone.
It seems the latest version of Capture One Pro 21 (14.2.0) has finally fixed the problem where Loxia 35/2 lens profile was selected for Sigma 35/2 DG DN RAW photos taken on Sony E-mount cameras by default. Now Manufacturer profile is shown by default instead. I reported the issue to Capture One Support back in December 2020 and they closed the ticket in February stating that it would be looked into at a later time.
I'll try later if similar issue with e.g. Sigma 65/2 shots being mapped as CV 65/2 and CV 50/2 shots being mapped as Loxia 50/2 were also fixed.
scalanc2 wrote:
65 is not fixed still showing Voigtlander 65 instead.
Couldn't they fix this in a minute? I'm sure C1 has been receiving reports on this. What's taking so long? Same for the Voigtlander 35/2 APO showing as Loxia.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Couldn't they fix this in a minute? I'm sure C1 has been receiving reports on this. What's taking so long? Same for the Voigtlander 35/2 APO showing as Loxia.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Couldn't they fix this in a minute? I'm sure C1 has been receiving reports on this. What's taking so long? Same for the Voigtlander 35/2 APO showing as Loxia.
I suppose those reports go into a long queue of issues they've got in the pipeline to fix along with all the work for new feature development and this type of issues don't get prioritized so highly. When I reported the issue for Sigma 35/2 their support engineer asked for some RAW files for reference and then he raised a report to their R&D team and then he noted that the issue would get looked into although the couldn't commit to specific timing. I suppose they need the lenses or some RAW files to confirm the details from EXIF and if they get many reports for the same issue(s) it could probably increase the priority.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I suppose those reports go into a long queue of issues they've got in the pipeline to fix along with all the work for new feature development and this type of issues don't get prioritized so highly. When I reported the issue for Sigma 35/2 their support engineer asked for some RAW files for reference and then he raised a report to their R&D team and then he noted that the issue would get looked into although the couldn't commit to specific timing. I suppose they need the lenses or some RAW files to confirm the details from EXIF and if they get many reports for the same issue(s) it could probably increase the priority....Show more →
I suppose that EXIF is handled by the same module in their software, so it would likely be more cost effective for them to deal with several lenses at a time.
This issue indicates to me that C1 has poor communication and cooperation with the various lens manufactures. Don’t they know that several mounts have an opened mount specifications to third parties. I can count Sony E/FE, micro43, Fujifilm X and L-mount conforming to an open policy from the top of my head. Of course Nikon and Canon are missing in action here. One must wonder if C1 still lives in the old DSLR duopoly world.
Things like this and the fact that there is still no C1 iPad app and cloud solution has made me move to LR.
bjornthun wrote:
I suppose that EXIF is handled by the same module in their software, so it would likely be more cost effective for them to deal with several lenses at a time.
This issue indicates to me that C1 has poor communication and cooperation with the various lens manufactures. Don’t they know that several mounts have an opened mount specifications to third parties. I can count Sony E/FE, micro43, Fujifilm X and L-mount conforming to an open policy from the top of my head. Of course Nikon and Canon are missing in action here. One must wonder if C1 still lives in the old DSLR duopoly world.
Things like this and the fact that there is still no C1 iPad app and cloud solution has made me move to LR....Show more →
They implemented lens profiles for Loxia 35/2, Loxia 50/2 and CV 65/2 early on and I think their lens recognition implementation based on EXIF data is rather simplistic and doesn't take into account that other newer lenses could have identical data in some key EXIF fields and it's inadvertedly recognizing other lenses that have no dedicated profiles as these pre-existing ones, possibly just based on focal length and aperture and all being E-mount lenses. I don't think it has anything to do with mount specifications...
I do agree that they probably don't get lens samples from all the 3rd party manufacturers and they are not implementing so much lens profile support for recent Sigma, CV etc. lenses but the good thing is that all those lenses are supported by "manufacturer profile" data from EXIF which is resulting in identical distortion corrections as e.g. in in-camera JPEGs. I think C1 still would need some access to RAW file samples taken with those lenses to figure out what strings are used in various EXIF data fields for those lenses so that they could recognize them properly and write the corresponding correct lens name in EXIF that is shown in and output by C1 and they need to avoid mapping an incorrect lens profile for these newer lenses by default (user can change it but it requires a manual step).
I used LR in the old days but I moved to C1 Pro in 2014 or 2015 and I haven't missed LR at all. Certainly there is some room for improvement but I personally much prefer C1.
bjornthun wrote:
I suppose that EXIF is handled by the same module in their software, so it would likely be more cost effective for them to deal with several lenses at a time.
This issue indicates to me that C1 has poor communication and cooperation with the various lens manufactures. Don’t they know that several mounts have an opened mount specifications to third parties. I can count Sony E/FE, micro43, Fujifilm X and L-mount conforming to an open policy from the top of my head. Of course Nikon and Canon are missing in action here. One must wonder if C1 still lives in the old DSLR duopoly world.
Things like this and the fact that there is still no C1 iPad app and cloud solution has made me move to LR....Show more →
This likely explains why they are so late releasing lens profiles as well. I'm not trying to diss them, just offering constructive feedback.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This likely explains why they are so late releasing lens profiles as well. I'm not trying to diss them, just offering constructive feedback.
I think you’re right, and I may be a bit hard on C1 too.
This lens is fantastic for landscape too. Tack sharp stopped down. This is is a 2 shot pano of the Golden Gate Park and Downtown San Francisco from Grandview Park.
Not a lens tester by any means, but I have three 35s at the moment and took some sample shots this afternoon. All taken on tripod from the same distance and pretty much in the same light. Bigma is so heavy that it moved the tripod head as soon as I mounted it, so I adjusted it back as closely as I could. Hope this is helpful to someone.
i am considering upgrading from the zeiss 2.8 to the sigma.
i would really like to extra stop and the gm was disappointing to me for the price, and it was decentered.
is this a great upgrade from the zeiss?
If you appreciate ergonomics & build quility you can't go wrong on this lens, a good update form the Zony. IQ compaired, I find them close from f/2.8 upwards. The Sigma boosts f/2, nice but not WOW factor.
