This topic is in the 2021 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2021Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
p.2 #1Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
I really, really wanted to keep the Sigma - it more than holds its own against the GM here. I just wish its eye-af on older bodies was a little better. No other complaints about that little gem.
Feb 21, 2021 at 09:23 PM
p.2 #2Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Teo Rey wrote:
Congratulations on your baby! We just had ours a few months ago and he makes us happier than anything in the whole world. You are truly in for a real blessing
With regards to the lenses, would it be possible to test them both at full body portrait distances to see how the rendering compares? Also if we could see transition zone comparisons that would be amazing!! You're the real MVP!
I'm guessing he's going to have his hands full with a new baby.
Congratulations on your baby! We just had ours a few months ago and he makes us happier than anything in the whole world. You are truly in for a real blessing
With regards to the lenses, would it be possible to test them both at full body portrait distances to see how the rendering compares? Also if we could see transition zone comparisons that would be amazing!! You're the real MVP!
I'm guessing he's going to have his hands full with a new baby.
Feb 21, 2021 at 09:31 PM
p.2 #3Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
_manny_ wrote:
Thanks for uploading these.
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.
Feb 21, 2021 at 10:41 PM
p.2 #4Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Mystik wrote:
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.
Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?
Feb 22, 2021 at 03:04 AM
p.2 #5Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
I'm really pleased with the Sigma. The size and build of the Sigma is more attractive to me and the blur it provides compared to the Sony GM is so minuscule IMO it is hard to choose one over the other based on that alone. I pulled my pre-order for the GM and may wait to spend that money on the rumored new 16mm GM. But after Fred gives the Sony GM some additional testing and comparisons to the Sigma I may have more reasons to reorder the GM.
Feb 22, 2021 at 05:49 AM
p.2 #6Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Thanks for taking time to do this comparison. Inquiring minds wanted to know. One thing I took away from this is both the GM and Sigma are great choices that fit two different budgets and needs. Whether choosing the GM or the Sigma I doubt you will be disappointed. While the GM looks great for it's price so does the Sigma. I may buy the GM one day but this comparison makes feel better about purchasing the Sigma for now.
Feb 22, 2021 at 07:30 AM
p.2 #7Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
scalanc2 wrote:
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?
Sigma 35 1.2
35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Mystik wrote
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
Sigma 35 1.2
35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on FlickrSigma 35 F2
35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on FlickrFeb 22, 2021 at 09:30 AM
p.2 #8Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
to my eyes, they both look great, and it comes down to AF, full weather sealing, size, and aperture vs price.
@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samples
@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samples
Feb 22, 2021 at 10:15 AM
p.2 #9Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
tbpeur01 wrote:
I really, really wanted to keep the Sigma - it more than holds its own against the GM here. I just wish its eye-af on older bodies was a little better. No other complaints about that little gem.
Which body and settings were you using? What kind of lighting situations did you have issues in?
Feb 22, 2021 at 10:30 AM
p.2 #10Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Mystik wrote:
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?Sigma 35 1.2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Thanks a lot. I think this reflects the difference between a 1.2 and a 2.0 lens.
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Thanks a lot. I think this reflects the difference between a 1.2 and a 2.0 lens.
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
Feb 22, 2021 at 10:47 AM
p.2 #11Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Sigma is probably the best looking 35mm compact for Sony right now. GM is much bigger. Sigma + a7c is what I aim to replace Rx1rii with. Looks promising.
Feb 22, 2021 at 10:54 AM
p.2 #12Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Charlie N wrote:
to my eyes, they both look great, and it comes down to AF, full weather sealing, size, and aperture vs price.
@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samples
You can also see how the shallow DOF of a 1.2 lens can be a disadvantage by not getting the entire subject in focus. Here the flowers in the background are not in focus and not really blurred out resulting in the Sigma image actually more pleasing, at least to me.
to my eyes, they both look great, and it comes down to AF, full weather sealing, size, and aperture vs price.
@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samples
You can also see how the shallow DOF of a 1.2 lens can be a disadvantage by not getting the entire subject in focus. Here the flowers in the background are not in focus and not really blurred out resulting in the Sigma image actually more pleasing, at least to me.
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:03 AM
p.2 #13Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
scalanc2 wrote:
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?Sigma 35 1.2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on FlickrThanks a lot. I think this reflects the difference between a 1.2 and a 2.0 lens.
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
Both were shot at F2 so the difference you are seeing is a matter of the wider FOV shooting from the same position. Wider FOV, means narrower DOF from the same shooting distance. You can of course make up the difference by stepping closer and getting an equivalent subject framing....by shooting from a closer distance, you get higher degree of blur.
This applies to the samples provided by the OP as well.
Edit: OP congrats on the baby!
Mystik wrote
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
Both were shot at F2 so the difference you are seeing is a matter of the wider FOV shooting from the same position. Wider FOV, means narrower DOF from the same shooting distance. You can of course make up the difference by stepping closer and getting an equivalent subject framing....by shooting from a closer distance, you get higher degree of blur.
This applies to the samples provided by the OP as well.
Edit: OP congrats on the baby!
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:03 AM
p.2 #14Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
To echo what's been said in another thread, it's good to have all those choices for 35mm AF lenses.
If you want a pancake lens, there's the ZA f2.8 lens, if you want something compact with fast AF, there's the Sony f1.8, if you want a good balance, the Sigma f2, if you want that GM quality, the Sony f1.4 GM, and if you don't mind the size, the Sigma f1.2.
If you want a pancake lens, there's the ZA f2.8 lens, if you want something compact with fast AF, there's the Sony f1.8, if you want a good balance, the Sigma f2, if you want that GM quality, the Sony f1.4 GM, and if you don't mind the size, the Sigma f1.2.
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:11 AM
p.2 #15Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
Mystik wrote:
It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.The Sigma 35i is definitely wider than 35mm. I encountered the difference in FOV, DOF, and bokeh when testing it against the sigma 35 1.2 and the de 35 1.8. of course if you step closer while shooting the 35i to keep a similar subject framing, you'll get a bit more blur.Can you post sample samples comparing Sigma 1.2 to 2.0?Sigma 35 1.2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on FlickrThanks a lot. I think this reflects the difference between a 1.2 and a 2.0 lens.
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.Both were shot at F2 so the difference you are seeing is a matter of the wider FOV shooting from the same position. Wider FOV, means narrower DOF from the same shooting distance. You can of course make up the difference by stepping closer and getting an equivalent subject framing....by shooting from a closer distance, you get higher degree of blur.
This applies to the samples provided by the OP as well.
Edit: OP congrats on the baby!
I missed this point.
If, as you told, the difference is due to the different FOV it means it is huge.
Not 2, 3mm but something more.
One more reason to own both
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
This applies to the samples provided by the OP as well.
Edit: OP congrats on the baby!
I missed this point.
If, as you told, the difference is due to the different FOV it means it is huge.
Not 2, 3mm but something more.
One more reason to own both
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:21 AM
p.2 #16Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
I'm not saying what you are saying isn't true for this shot, but there are other things that can affect depth of field across 2 lenses, like field curvature and amount of optical vignetting, no?
Mystik wrote:
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
scalanc2 wrote
Mystik wrote
_manny_ wrote
Thanks for uploading these.It looks like the sigma has a wider focal length, which might also contribute to the GM’s smoother bokeh along with sigma having gone for a more contrasty look.
Did you use a tripod though as maybe the apparently slightly different focal length could just be where one stands.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969760531_40bf2859b7_h.jpg35 1.2 @ f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
Sigma 35 F2
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50969867102_4e9e9c6d29_h.jpg35 f2 @f2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr
In conclusion I think that it is worthwhile to own both.
I also believe that this i version is almost perfect on APSC Sony bodies.
This applies to the samples provided by the OP as well.
Edit: OP congrats on the baby!
Feb 22, 2021 at 11:37 AM
p.2 #17Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
I'm not happy with the coma I'm seeing in the Sigma specular highlights on border areas, even slightly stopped down.
The GM looks better, but is it really worth the money when the admittedly larger/bulkier Sigma 1.2 Art is considered?
Still looking for something that suits me better than the Loxia 35 for size, weight, sunstar, and general color/tonality. It's not a perfect lens, but it has aberrations I can embrace.
Perhaps the new Sony will prove to be the best balance in an AF 35mm lens for me? I'll keep an eye on the results over time.
Then again, maybe I need to wait for a unicorn lens: CV 28/2 APO.
The GM looks better, but is it really worth the money when the admittedly larger/bulkier Sigma 1.2 Art is considered?
Still looking for something that suits me better than the Loxia 35 for size, weight, sunstar, and general color/tonality. It's not a perfect lens, but it has aberrations I can embrace.
Perhaps the new Sony will prove to be the best balance in an AF 35mm lens for me? I'll keep an eye on the results over time.
Then again, maybe I need to wait for a unicorn lens: CV 28/2 APO.
Feb 22, 2021 at 12:02 PM
p.2 #18Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
chez wrote:
@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samplesYou can also see how the shallow DOF of a 1.2 lens can be a disadvantage by not getting the entire subject in focus. Here the flowers in the background are not in focus and not really blurred out resulting in the Sigma image actually more pleasing, at least to me.
The caption says 35/1.2 shot at f2. So both used the same aperture.
Maybe the focus point was slightly different + the FOV difference makes for the small difference in DOF.
Charlie N wrote
to my eyes, they both look great, and it comes down to AF, full weather sealing, size, and aperture vs price.@540g, the GM is not super small, but smallest of it's kind by a good bit.
@360g, the sigma is rather heavy, but not much bigger than any of its peers in the 1.8 realm.
both look to produce cream of the crop IQ
excellent comparison samples
The caption says 35/1.2 shot at f2. So both used the same aperture.
Maybe the focus point was slightly different + the FOV difference makes for the small difference in DOF.
Feb 22, 2021 at 12:13 PM
p.2 #19Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
One thing to keep in mind is that while the 35i is obviously wider, the Bigma may also be up a couple mm narrower than the stated FL. The CY 35/1.4 and ZM 35/1.4 are like this, so the difference might be closer to 4/5 mm, and given 35mm Is as wide as you can get will still be “normal,” that’s an appreciable difference.
Feb 22, 2021 at 12:24 PM
p.2 #20Sony 35 GM vs Sigma 35 f2 DG DN
lifeandmylens wrote:
I have the 35 GM for about a week until my real one comes in April.
Here’s a size comparison:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-S8JNtRZ/0/62453a9a/X5/i-S8JNtRZ-X5.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QT7M3mV/0/f6ecdfb4/X5/i-QT7M3mV-X5.jpg
Here are a few quick 5 min tests I did.. All are unedited.
A couple comparisons of a tree with some OOF areas:
Sigma @ f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xLWK2qG/0/7352b0c8/X5/i-xLWK2qG-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-NfFjk9b/0/56028e35/X5/i-NfFjk9b-X5.jpg
Sigma @ f/2.8
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-RwfSzkW/0/b7cea709/X5/i-RwfSzkW-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/2.8
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-NMRzPfP/0/1e6b9ea5/X5/i-NMRzPfP-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/1.4
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-jfp4GCg/0/3f2d3a0a/X5/i-jfp4GCg-X5.jpg
Flare and Sunstars:
GM f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-gMBcgdN/0/baad5917/X5/i-gMBcgdN-X5.jpg
Sigma f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-D78gnDD/0/1a801e98/X5/i-D78gnDD-X5.jpg
GM @ f/11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LRd8VJx/0/5769e600/X5/i-LRd8VJx-X5.jpg
Sigma @ f/11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZJ4Gx5s/0/6e502307/X5/i-ZJ4Gx5s-X5.jpg
Corners and bokeh comparisons
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8xdW3ZD/0/284d1f36/X5/i-8xdW3ZD-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fcgWDwC/0/c8694de5/X5/i-fcgWDwC-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-G3TxW3L/0/90a11f77/X5/i-G3TxW3L-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZM68W74/0/91d94126/X5/i-ZM68W74-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qZQQBPc/0/276b6559/X5/i-qZQQBPc-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sg2Tgwb/0/464e3eae/X5/i-sg2Tgwb-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tzXSWFx/0/b779cc49/X5/i-tzXSWFx-X5.png
Know that I’m not a lens tester (and have no desire to be - you do a great job here Fred!), but I am happy to make some test shot comparisons with the Sigma 35 f/2 DG DN as...Show more →
Dumb question : how do you export LR comparisons windows ? And how do you previously add metadata below the "select" and "candidate" titles ?
I just made a few comparison shots with the 35 GM and the Sigma 1.2, thought you could be interested ;-)
I have the 35 GM for about a week until my real one comes in April.
Here’s a size comparison:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-S8JNtRZ/0/62453a9a/X5/i-S8JNtRZ-X5.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-QT7M3mV/0/f6ecdfb4/X5/i-QT7M3mV-X5.jpg
Here are a few quick 5 min tests I did.
. All are unedited.A couple comparisons of a tree with some OOF areas:
Sigma @ f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xLWK2qG/0/7352b0c8/X5/i-xLWK2qG-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-NfFjk9b/0/56028e35/X5/i-NfFjk9b-X5.jpg
Sigma @ f/2.8
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-RwfSzkW/0/b7cea709/X5/i-RwfSzkW-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/2.8
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-NMRzPfP/0/1e6b9ea5/X5/i-NMRzPfP-X5.jpg
Sony @ f/1.4
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-jfp4GCg/0/3f2d3a0a/X5/i-jfp4GCg-X5.jpg
Flare and Sunstars:
GM f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-gMBcgdN/0/baad5917/X5/i-gMBcgdN-X5.jpg
Sigma f/2
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-D78gnDD/0/1a801e98/X5/i-D78gnDD-X5.jpg
GM @ f/11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-LRd8VJx/0/5769e600/X5/i-LRd8VJx-X5.jpg
Sigma @ f/11
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZJ4Gx5s/0/6e502307/X5/i-ZJ4Gx5s-X5.jpg
Corners and bokeh comparisons
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8xdW3ZD/0/284d1f36/X5/i-8xdW3ZD-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fcgWDwC/0/c8694de5/X5/i-fcgWDwC-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-G3TxW3L/0/90a11f77/X5/i-G3TxW3L-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-ZM68W74/0/91d94126/X5/i-ZM68W74-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qZQQBPc/0/276b6559/X5/i-qZQQBPc-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sg2Tgwb/0/464e3eae/X5/i-sg2Tgwb-X5.png
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tzXSWFx/0/b779cc49/X5/i-tzXSWFx-X5.png
Know that I’m not a lens tester (and have no desire to be - you do a great job here Fred!), but I am happy to make some test shot comparisons with the Sigma 35 f/2 DG DN as...Show more →
Dumb question : how do you export LR comparisons windows ? And how do you previously add metadata below the "select" and "candidate" titles ?
I just made a few comparison shots with the 35 GM and the Sigma 1.2, thought you could be interested ;-)
Feb 22, 2021 at 01:01 PM