For those planning on using the Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN to capture sunstars during sunrise/sunset, it's possible to get pleasant results stopping down the lens to f/20 or f/22 but timing is crucial to avoid ghosting flare and/or elongated rays.
Here is a sequence at f/22, f/20, f/18 and f/16, followed by a comparison with the Voigtlander 65/2 APO @f/8 (where it's capable of defined sunstars)
Wide open images from the Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN have smooth to neutral rendering depending on distance. The specular highlights' inner structure is clean and outlining is well controlled. I was surprised that axial CA is very low and optical vignetting is well behaved providing rendering uniformity across the field.
Compared to super corrected lenses like the Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO, spherical aberration is not as well corrected, and therefore, rendering is smoother when comparing both lenses side by side. For those considering these lenses with rendering in mind, the Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN is the better choice.
Overall, another Sigma I Series with high resolution, pleasant rendering across the field and low CA.
Here are some samples showing rendering with the subject focused at different distances:
Fred Miranda wrote: Rendering compared to Voigtlander 65mm f/2 APO-Lanthar
The Sigma 65/2 DG DN provides slightly smoother compared to the Voigtlander 65/2 APO, especially off-axis due to lower optical vignetting.
Here are some wide open comparisons:
This reminds of back in the day with the "old Sigma". By that, I mean that some old Sigma glass was labeled as APO, and there was consideration that all APO designations are not the same (inferring that Sigma's level of APO wasn't top tier) level of correction.
Here, we now have a non-APO Sigma which is probably better (correction and rendering) than anything the old Sigma APO could have dreamed of. Optics are always challenges in diametric opposition of various kinds. So, having seen Sigma go from old Sigma to Sport Series, to Contemporary Series to Art Series to I Series has been an interesting reflection on their journey.
Not to suggest that they are superior replacements for Leica ... but, since the Alliance, I think they've learned (learning) to take a page from Leica's playbook on striving for those balances. Blashphemy to put Sigma and Leica in the same sentence, for some ... but Sigma certainly isn't the same mfr they used to be.
Nobody really knows what the Alliance with Panny / Leica / Sigma really confers with regard to optics, but I can't help but think that Leica drives the bus, and the other two follow in their wake (it's a good wake) a bit. Yet, providing offerings that Leica doesn't ... so, as to not be a "direct compete". Of course, for Sony shooters they likely don't think as much about the Alliance influence, as L mount shooters might. But, I think we are seeing some benefit of Leica "hand me downs" ... or at least, trying to follow in the footsteps of the big brother.
The Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN is well corrected for lateral and axial color aberration. Even wide open, there is only traces of color error even in very high contrast light (like reflected metal). The results are similar to what we see with many APO lenses at similar focal lengths. Definitely a strength for this lens.
Here is a sample:
At 4m distance to subject
Focused subject at f/2 and f/2.8: Not a hint of purple fringing
f/2 vs f/2.8: OOF area in front of focused subject - Amazing performance for a non-APO lens. Only traces of axial CA
f/2.8 vs f/4: No detectable changes even at 1:1 magnification
f/2 vs f/2.8: OOF area behind focused subject - Amazing performance for a non-APO lens. Only traces of axial CA
f/2.8 vs f/4: No detectable changes even at 1:1 magnification
No in-camera or post-processing correction for lateral CA (although there is a built-in profile in LR that can't be removed). Overall very low LACA
Although not perfect, the Sigma 65/2 DG DN specular highlights have a clean inner structure with minimal outlining wide open. It's hard to detect any traces of onion ring pattern even at high magnification so it's not an issue in real world images.
Optical vignetting is well controlled and a strength for this lens. Images from the Sigma 65/2 DG DN should be free swirling and rendering unevenness.
Clean inner structure although not perfect
Well controlled optical vignetting (specular highlights do not deteriorate to cat-eye shape off-axis)
The Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN has simple pincushion distortion. There are no profiles for Lightroom yet but it's easy to correct the distortion by using the Lightroom slider (-5) as shown:
Got my copy of this lens over the weekend. A really solid and small lens. Has that special super sharp contrast feel similar to the Voightlander of same focal length, without macro ability. AF seems decent. A winner if somebody is interested in a tweener. A for sure keeper.
So I just got my Sigma 65 its a touch and I mean a touch smaller than Sony's 20mm same diameter. The MF is really really nice. Ill test and report anything different but it likes my A7C. My Batis 135 comes tomorrow for the second or is it the third time. Yea I forget.
Oh and FRED is guilty as hell for twisting my arm on this. Do not let him pretend to be the innocent one here.
I think these Sigmas just might be the better option than the Sonys but we will have to see.
GMPhotography wrote:
So I just got my Sigma 65 its a touch and I mean a touch smaller than Sony's 20mm same diameter. The MF is really really nice. Ill test and report anything different but it likes my A7C. My Batis 135 comes tomorrow for the second or is it the third time. Yea I forget.
Oh and FRED is guilty as hell for twisting my arm on this. Do not let him pretend to be the innocent one here.
I think these Sigmas just might be the better option than the Sonys but we will have to see.
The 35/2 and 65/2 are currently my favorite lenses. Here is a snap from an hour ago:
Fred Miranda wrote:
The 35/2 and 65/2 are currently my favorite lenses. Here is a snap from an hour ago:
This is really nice but I really like the one of your wife the 3/4 shot. Not because it’s sharp or anything like that as it is but it’s not jumping out at you saying it is. Make sense
It has a nice glow to it that I like. Oh and say hi.I’m questioning the Sony 35 1.4 I pre ordered over this Sigma 35. I’ll still go ahead with the 1.4 but we can figure that out later and test them both. Is the 35 smaller than the 65
Mar 25, 2021 at 09:27 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
GMPhotography wrote:
This is really nice but I really like the one of your wife the 3/4 shot. Not because it’s sharp or anything like that as it is but it’s not jumping out at you saying it is. Make sense
It has a nice glow to it that I like. Oh and say hi.I’m questioning the Sony 35 1.4 I pre ordered over this Sigma 35. I’ll still go ahead with the 1.4 but we can figure that out later and test them both. Is the 35 smaller than the 65
Yes, the Sigma 35 f/2 I series is just 325g so 80g lighter than the 65 and shorter too. That 35 GM and the Sigma 35 I series are two really nice new additions making it really hard to choose.
