Fred Miranda wrote:
<font size=5>35mm</font> EXTREME CORNER resolution/contrast comparison between Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN vs Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 III E-mount
The Sigma looks clinical and sterile when compared to the Voigtlander, which has a lot more rendering, especially in the corners.
Anyone have any experience or even thoughts on how this would compare to the Loxia 35mm or Tamron 35mm f2.8 for landscape? I have the Tamron, but may be in the market for a better 35mm. I don't see myself going for 35 GM or CV 35 APO due to cost, but might be able to justify the Loxia or Sigma 35 f2
Fair enough, Bill. Well, it just made the CV 35/1.2 look pretty shabby, so there's that. It's a very well-rounded modern lens with sound decisions made across the design. For a lot of work, the lack of curvature is important, as is the generally excellent behaviour.
I always look for lenses that are versatile and make images 'look special'. We talk about this and that, but in the end you have to like what the lens does for your work. I'd prefer it over the two you mention and be very happy with it, and so would a great many photographers. Bokeh is smooth and assured. With the better lenses, as abberations are removed or mitigated, images take on a much cleaner clearer look; it's a learned appreciation. It's ready for 61mp, no mean feat, even in corners.
In contemporary times, Sigma really excel with skin tones and the draw on subjects is smooth and artistic, nothing jars. It's an autofocus lens that feels like a manual focus unit, all metal. Not easy to do, at any price point. I'm an MF guy, but if not this would do me well. They could easily ask $200 more.
billsnature wrote:
Anyone have any experience or even thoughts on how this would compare to the Loxia 35mm or Tamron 35mm f2.8 for landscape? I have the Tamron, but may be in the market for a better 35mm. I don't see myself going for 35 GM or CV 35 APO due to cost, but might be able to justify the Loxia or Sigma 35 f2
It will be great to see such comparisons. I am also wondering if 35 1.2 APO worth $1150 since the sigma one costs half.
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
I can't say I share the same experience. To me, the Sigma 35/2 DG DN has fast and accurate AF on my A7R IV.
Phase detect works great with this lens even though is has residual SA. I have not seen any miss-focus even at close distance since I started testing it. It's night and day compared to the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 which has issues with PDAF (AF-C).
Just today, I took 46 images in low contrast lighting testing Eye-AF and to all images were in focus. My subject was moving and posing without being perfectly still and Eye-AF was keeping up just fine......Show more →
Can you please share your settings for this AF test you did?
AF Mode
AF Area
Priority Set
AF Tracking Sensitivity
Aperture
Drive Mode
Hard to find any reviews where you can do an apples to apples comparison. (And even if you could, you don't know for sure if they had good copies of each lense, except maybe Lenrentals as they test multiple copies. I can't say in regards to the Loxia 35. But ePhotozine has the Sigma resolving a bit more than the Tamron, and PC Magazine has the Tamron outresolving the Sigma. That's purely on resolving power, not color contrast, etc.
I cancelled my order for the Sigma, as I pre-ordered the CV. I may get the Sigma at some point in the future, I'll post a comparison if I do. (I have the Tamron as well.) I'm only shooting the a7R III though, so comparisons I do may not be really show as large of a difference as the a7R IV would.
Tim
billsnature wrote:
Anyone have any experience or even thoughts on how this would compare to the Loxia 35mm or Tamron 35mm f2.8 for landscape? I have the Tamron, but may be in the market for a better 35mm. I don't see myself going for 35 GM or CV 35 APO due to cost, but might be able to justify the Loxia or Sigma 35 f2
The Tamron is a very good lens for landscape. I’d expect the Sigma is just as good as far as resolving power goes. The Loxia 35 is below those lenses. It just isn’t as sharp.
I think if you would benefit for changing from your Tamron to the Sigma it depends on what matters to you. The Tamron has better flare resistance than the Sigma from reading the reviews, but the Sigma has a far better manual focus. The sigma has different feel and looks to have better sunstars.
For me personally. I currently own the Tamron 35/2.8 and I’ll be buying the CV35 APO. I’ll be keeping my Tamron because I love using it for Macro as well as landscape. I would love the Sigma for AF family photos, but can’t justify it. It is a very interesting lens and I’m sure you’d love it for landscape. If I were you I certainly go for the Sigma over the Loxia. I think the Loxia 35 is really dead in the water after all these new 35s coming out.
billsnature wrote:
Anyone have any experience or even thoughts on how this would compare to the Loxia 35mm or Tamron 35mm f2.8 for landscape? I have the Tamron, but may be in the market for a better 35mm. I don't see myself going for 35 GM or CV 35 APO due to cost, but might be able to justify the Loxia or Sigma 35 f2
I'm taking a similar path, I have the CV 35/2 APO on order and I'm keeping the Tamron. I may add the Sigma 35/2 or the GM 35/1.4 in the future, but I need to let the dust settle and see how I like using these two lenses, as well having the benefit of more time to vet the Sigma and Sony to see if there is a useful improvement that would warrant spending more money on an AF lens. It comes down to whether a want a faster 35, one that renders better, and whether I want to spend more money on top of this to get it.
-Tim
TakenWild wrote:
The Tamron is a very good lens for landscape. I’d expect the Sigma is just as good as far as resolving power goes. The Loxia 35 is below those lenses. It just isn’t as sharp.
I think if you would benefit for changing from your Tamron to the Sigma it depends on what matters to you. The Tamron has better flare resistance than the Sigma from reading the reviews, but the Sigma has a far better manual focus. The sigma has different feel and looks to have better sunstars.
For me personally. I currently own the Tamron 35/2.8 and I’ll be buying the CV35 APO. I’ll be keeping my Tamron because I love using it for Macro as well as landscape. I would love the Sigma for AF family photos, but can’t justify it. It is a very interesting lens and I’m sure you’d love it for landscape. If I were you I certainly go for the Sigma over the Loxia. I think the Loxia 35 is really dead in the water after all these new 35s coming out.
tsdevine wrote:
I'm taking a similar path, I have the CV 35/2 APO on order and I'm keeping the Tamron. I may add the Sigma 35/2 or the GM 35/1.4 in the future, but I need to let the dust settle and see how I like using these two lenses, as well having the benefit of more time to vet the Sigma and Sony to see if there is a useful improvement that would warrant spending more money on an AF lens. It comes down to whether a want a faster 35, one that renders better, and whether I want to spend more money on top of this to get it.
I'm pretty much in the same boat as Tim -- waiting to see how the CV 35 APO and the 35GM stack up.
For me, any new MF lens has to significantly improve on the Loxia 35 in areas that I care about, and to date I haven't seen anything that does so at reasonable price and size. Perhaps the APO will have better defined sunstars (not of a large multi-point design, such as 18 points, and up) and have better ghosting and flare control when shooting into backlit scenes with sunlight entering front element. And most important -- at a reasonable price (it is pretty hard to beat the Loxia for quality MF 35mm).
The 35 GM is a little more problematic as an AF lens, and requires greater sacrifice on my part, since I won't be able to use it as a cross-platform lens (as I do with Canon 35/1.4L). Perhaps it will prove irresistible as I see more examples of landscape and architecture using the new Sony GM.
Douglas Liu wrote:
Just received the Sigma 35 f2 and sold the CV 35 f1.2 SE..
Funny, I've been contemplating picking up the Sigma 35f2 but keeping my CV 35 1.2 SE. I originally was going to sell it and have the GM pull double duty. But the Sigma looks good enough for everyday stuff for sure (and more compact) and when I want fast and the CV look I'll have it. Hmmmmm.
I’m one who doesn’t like to have to choose between several good primes. If I’m going to put a 35mm prime on my camera, I want one that can do it all. That’s why the 35GM will be my choice. Thinking of a 24GM, 35GM, and 50GM gets my juices flowing.
...
.