ramesesthe2nd wrote:
@Fred Miranda@. Thanks for this review.
Do you have a post/list that shows all your highly recommended to not recommended lenses in one place?
---------------------------------------------
photosbyjaron wrote:
I also would be very interested in such a list.
My personal lens choices depend on the application they are used for. For landscapes, I look for lenses with high resolution/contrast and low lateral CA. I also prefer carrying smaller lenses.
For portraits, I care for the shape and quality of specular highlights more than resolution/contrast. For general photography and travel, I am bias towards compact lenses with high IQ and great rendering...so, it's a mix.
Currently my landscape set-up is:
Sigma 14-24/2.8, Sigma 35/2, Sigma 65/2 and Zeiss 100-300. (May replace the Sigma 35/2 with the Voigtlander 35/2 APO depending on performance). Sometimes bring the Batis 135 instead of Zeiss 100-300.
For portraits I really like the Sigma 65/2 and FE 85/1.4 GM but also have the Batis 135/2.8.
General and travel, I always carry FE 24/1.4 GM (my favorite GM) and Sigma 45/2.8C. These lenses together with the FE 85/1.4 GM have the most pleasant rendering to my eyes but because of the latter's size, the Sigma 65/2 took its place for travel.
I have tried pretty much all E-mount lenses and the list above could be easily replaced by other lenses. For example, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 could be replaced by the Sony 12-24/2.8 but I do not shoot 12mm much and prefer the size of the Sigma...and so on. :-)
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
My personal lens choices depend on the application they are used for. For landscapes, I look for lenses with high resolution/contrast and low lateral CA. I also prefer carrying smaller lenses.
For portraits, I care for the shape and quality of specular highlights more than resolution/contrast. For general photography and travel, I am bias towards compact lenses with high IQ and great rendering...so, it's a mix.
Currently my landscape set-up is:
Sigma 14-24/2.8, Sigma 35/2, Sigma 65/2 and Zeiss 100-300. (May replace the Sigma 35/2 with the Voigtlander 35/2 APO depending on performance). Sometimes bring the Batis 135 instead of Zeiss 100-300.
For portraits I really like the Sigma 65/2 and FE 85/1.4 GM but also have the Batis 135/2.8.
General and travel, I always carry FE 24/1.4 GM (my favorite GM) and Sigma 45/2.8C. These lenses together with the FE 85/1.4 GM have the most pleasant rendering to my eyes but because of the latter's size, the Sigma 65/2 took its place for travel.
I have tried pretty much all E-mount lenses and this list above could be easily replaced by other lenses. For example, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 could be replaced by the Sony 12-24/2.8 but I do not shoot 12mm much and prefer the size of the Sigma...and so on. :-) ...Show more →
Fred...I've been looking at the Contax 100-300mm as a telephoto for landscape work. What adapter do you use? My instinct says I should go for one with a tripod mount...how do you find the balance?
Dave Sanders wrote:
Fred...I've been looking at the Contax 100-300mm as a telephoto for landscape work. What adapter do you use? My instinct says I should go for one with a tripod mount...how do you find the balance?
Hi Dave,
Mine has the Leitax adapter (permanent and solid) + the Novoflex tripod collar (ASTAT-NEX)
Well once again this forum has convinced me to buy a lens. The reviews and reports here convinced me to replace my FE 55 with the Sigma 65. But since I still have both lenses, and since Tim Devine's comparison of these two lenses was useful to me, I thought I'd post my own.
Both lenses are at f/2. The comparisons are not framed exactly the same, but I tried to keep the overall FOVs the same. EFCS was off and the files were processed at the default settings using Capture One. The EXIF for the Sigma identifies it as the Voigtlander 65, but that's a C1 error.
To my eye the Sigma has considerably more resolution and contrast in the plane of focus. Also the CA of the FE 55 shows up in the second set. The bokeh of both lenses seems comparable, and good.
I don't see the bokeh as that close on these two lenses though "close" is personally defined. There's a difference in AOV, but 65 to has way better axial CA control (not surprising), much smoother bokeh, less cat's eye, and better contrast. Good illustrative test.
WillR wrote:
Both lenses are at f/2. The comparisons are not framed exactly the same, but I tried to keep the overall FOVs the same. EFCS was off and the files were processed at the default settings using Capture One. The EXIF for the Sigma identifies it as the Voigtlander 65, but that's a C1 error.
Thanks for the comparison. The Sigma 65 is a gem. It's sharper, cleaner, and smoother than the Sony 55 at web size.. At 100%, the Sony 55 has nothing left to complete.
Fred Miranda wrote:
---------------------------------------------
My personal lens choices depend on the application they are used for. For landscapes, I look for lenses with high resolution/contrast and low lateral CA. I also prefer carrying smaller lenses.
For portraits, I care for the shape and quality of specular highlights more than resolution/contrast. For general photography and travel, I am bias towards compact lenses with high IQ and great rendering...so, it's a mix.
Currently my landscape set-up is:
Sigma 14-24/2.8, Sigma 35/2, Sigma 65/2 and Zeiss 100-300. (May replace the Sigma 35/2 with the Voigtlander 35/2 APO depending on performance). Sometimes bring the Batis 135 instead of Zeiss 100-300.
For portraits I really like the Sigma 65/2 and FE 85/1.4 GM but also have the Batis 135/2.8.
General and travel, I always carry FE 24/1.4 GM (my favorite GM) and Sigma 45/2.8C. These lenses together with the FE 85/1.4 GM have the most pleasant rendering to my eyes but because of the latter's size, the Sigma 65/2 took its place for travel.
I have tried pretty much all E-mount lenses and the list above could be easily replaced by other lenses. For example, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 could be replaced by the Sony 12-24/2.8 but I do not shoot 12mm much and prefer the size of the Sigma...and so on. :-) ...Show more →
Noticing the common theme in your three set-ups is the Sigma 65/2. I'm going to have to check out this lens.
fotografur wrote:
Noticing the common theme in your three set-ups is the Sigma 65/2. I'm going to have to check out this lens.
Thanks Fred $$
I returned mine for the 85DGDN, since I wanted a 35/85 1.4 setup and had never had a 85 1.4, but I’ll definitely be ordering it again as soon as funds permit. The 65i is a phenomenal lens and frankly seems like a Goldilocks focal length. My only wish was that it was fully sealed. Then again, maybe that doesn’t make much difference since my 24-70 Art is weather sealed, and I’ve already had to take the front element off to remove all the dust it collected.
I don't see the bokeh as that close on these two lenses though "close" is personally defined. There's a difference in AOV, but 65 to has way better axial CA control (not surprising), much smoother bokeh, less cat's eye, and better contrast. Good illustrative test.
Well perhaps what I wrote on my opinion of the bokeh was imprecise. I agree that the bokeh is better on the Sigma 65, but I don't think the bokeh of the 55 is bad.
When evaluating a lens I'm maybe a little less analytical than the norm on FM. I tend to respond to an overall feel. Basically, I'm looking for "wows" and ughs".
When I look at the Sigma 65 the "wow" for me is the contrast and color separation in the plane fo focus. In particular, I give a wow to the back of the bench in the first set of photos.
My ughs for the FE 55 are mainly the CA in the second set. The rest of its bokeh is fine with me, if not quite as good as the Sigma 65.
I do think the FE 55 is a good lens, aside from the CA. I like its size, and how quick the autofocus is. But for my needs the Sigma 65 fits my kit better.
WillR wrote:
Well perhaps what I wrote on my opinion of the bokeh was imprecise. I agree that the bokeh is better on the Sigma 65, but I don't think the bokeh of the 55 is bad.
When evaluating a lens I'm maybe a little less analytical than the norm on FM. I tend to respond to an overall feel. Basically, I'm looking for "wows" and ughs".
When I look at the Sigma 65 the "wow" for me is the contrast and color separation in the plane fo focus. In particular, I give a wow to the back of the bench in the first set of photos.
My ughs for the FE 55 are mainly the CA in the second set. The rest of its bokeh is fine with me, if not quite as good as the Sigma 65.
I do think the FE 55 is a good lens, aside from the CA. I like its size, and how quick the autofocus is. But for my needs the Sigma 65 fits my kit better.
WillR wrote:
Well once again this forum has convinced me to buy a lens. The reviews and reports here convinced me to replace my FE 55 with the Sigma 65. But since I still have both lenses, and since Tim Devine's comparison of these two lenses was useful to me, I thought I'd post my own.
Both lenses are at f/2. The comparisons are not framed exactly the same, but I tried to keep the overall FOVs the same. EFCS was off and the files were processed at the default settings using Capture One. The EXIF for the Sigma identifies it as the Voigtlander 65, but that's a C1 error.
To my eye the Sigma has considerably more resolution and contrast in the plane of focus. Also the CA of the FE 55 shows up in the second set. The bokeh of both lenses seems comparable, and good.
For the LoCA correction alone I am strongly considering replacing the 55 with this Sigma. And the bokeh is better, to be sure. 55 isn’t terrible aside from CA but the Sigma seems quite exceptional. Microcontrast too.
