Hodie wrote:
Or they decided that the 35 shouldn't have the distortion the 85 has. I say this without knowing how distortion is corrected for in lens design.
I'm thinking a borrowed design from the 1.2. They did the same thing with the 24-70 -> 28-70 with some borrowing of design for faster turnaround.
Honestly I wouldn’t mind sigma giving a few lenses the 40 1.4 treatment and using the mount advantage to make them more reasonable in size. The GM is great but vignettes like hell.
I also thought this will be a lens similar to the GM, but Sigma already has:
* compact 35i
* large Bigma
so it only makes sense they went with a medium-size ...
However, as someone noted, this is basically SY35f1.4 size&weight-wise, so in my experience it's not close to the GM in handling at all.
I hope they prioritized rendering instead of sharpness, but I'm also not that sure since 35i and the Bigma excel at that. On the other hand, I don't think they can match the GM in sharpness...
So, it might be a bit of an oddball this one ... or the perfect all-rounder .
nehemiahphoto wrote:
Rendering wise, you found the 35i more pleasant at f2? At mid, near or far distance?
Yes, very similar rendering around center area (I've done some 'side by sides' at many distances) and better rendering off-axis. Way less optical vignetting for the Sony at f/2 which translates to smooth rendering towards the edges (no increase in DOF) and less cat's eye specular highlights. I will post the comparison when I start the FE 35/1.4 GM review thread.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree Rob. Many shooters don't even mind the bigger Sigma 35/1.2. However there are those who value compactness and differences in mm and grams count. I see many FM members preferring the Sigma 35/2 DG DN vs Sony 35/1.4 GM just for the size difference alone. It's also a consideration how a lens balances. The Sigma 35/1.2 is front heavy while the GM is well balanced. The new Sigma could sit in between them. (Similar to Sony 35/1.4 ZA and Samyang 35/1.4 E)
I do always find it astonishing, however, that a few grams here counts but many kilos over there (birders etc.) isn't a problem.
I'd always take the lighter, smaller lens too, but not at the cost of IQ.
The Sigma 1.2 has that -and it only costs a few grams.
Choosing to save a few grams at the expense of IQ is daft logic to me.
But that's me.
I drove a Lotus Elise to work everyday this week, in Melbourne rain and cold.
Bob_S wrote:
I do always find it astonishing, however, that a few grams here counts but many kilos over there (birders etc.) isn't a problem.
I'd always take the lighter, smaller lens too, but not at the cost of IQ.
The Sigma 1.2 has that -and it only costs a few grams.
Choosing to save a few grams at the expense of IQ is daft logic to me.
But that's me.
I drove a Lotus Elise to work everyday this week, in Melbourne rain and cold.
After shooting with Sony 200-600mm lens and Sigma 105mm 1.4 for a while even my 135mm GM seems small and light. lol
I have owned a couple of lens that seemed almost too small and light on my camera such as the 35mm 2.8 ZA.
Looks to be lighter and cheaper. Just as good center, slower AF and not as good in the corners. If the OOF rendering is nice, it sounds like a good alternative at 500.00 cheaper.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
Looks to be lighter and cheaper. Just as good center, slower AF and not as good in the corners. If the OOF rendering is nice, it sounds like a good alternative at 500.00 cheaper.
The SAR quote is talking about the 28-70mm Sigma versus the 24-70mm Sony GM. The text is entirely incorrect. Nokishita has already posted the size and weight of the Sigma 35, and it is longer, wider, and heavier than the 35 GM.
trogdon wrote:
The SAR quote is talking about the 28-70mm Sigma versus the 24-70mm Sony GM. The text is entirely incorrect. Nokishita has already posted the size and weight of the Sigma 35, and it is longer, wider, and heavier than the 35 GM.
trogdon wrote:
SAR posted a leaked image of the sigma
Looks like an elongated 85/1.4 DG DN Art Which is curious because isn't making a 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 about the same in terms of optical complexity? I wonder what makes the 35 larger in size. I thought of this because I remember comments along the lines of "if Sony can make a small 50/1.2GM, sure that means they can make a 85/1.2GM of equal size". The same would go reversely for the Sigma I'd imagine?
The GM will have a hard time competing with this in terms of value, esp. here in Europe (the GM 35 costs 1.700€ here and the Sigma will likely come in at about 1.000€ maybe even less)..
trogdon wrote:
The SAR quote is talking about the 28-70mm Sigma versus the 24-70mm Sony GM. The text is entirely incorrect. Nokishita has already posted the size and weight of the Sigma 35, and it is longer, wider, and heavier than the 35 GM.
There is nothing to indicate that the SAR quote is talking about the 28-70mm. It seems to be very much talking about the 35mm 1.4. Yes SAR could be wrong and Nokishita could be right but Nokishita is not an official announcement. So why not wait till the official sigma announcement to see what the actual specs are.
... since I’m trying to offload my Sony 35mm f/1.4 ZA. Not a lens in high demand here, so I will probably have to hit the bargain bin price point. Oh well....
curious80 wrote:
There is nothing to indicate that the SAR quote is talking about the 28-70mm. It seems to be very much talking about the 35mm 1.4. Yes SAR could be wrong and Nokishita could be right but Nokishita is not an official announcement. So why not wait till the official sigma announcement to see what the actual specs are.
Well couple factors
SAR is rarely correct
Second I can’t shoot a rumor
Third I can’t make money or produce from a lens that don’t exist
Four is it real on a shelf I can actual buy today
Conclusion don’t even think about this stuff. Better yet in 45 years I never made a nickel off a rumor. That’s not going to change. Just sayin
SAR is rarely correct
Second I can’t shoot a rumor
Third I can’t make money or produce from a lens that don’t exist
Four is it real on a shelf I can actual buy today
Conclusion don’t even think about this stuff. Better yet in 45 years I never made a nickel off a rumor. That’s not going to change. Just sayin
Sure but I am saying the same thing - why insist on believing one rumor vs the other. Why not wait on the actual announcement?
GMPhotography wrote:
I don’t believe either rumor site. Actually I think they are a deservice to the consumer to sell click bait.
Definitely not a disservice to me. SAR helps me keep up to date with what might be coming down the pike. I think he is pretty up front about his sources and perceived credibility. When actual announcements are made, he lists them immediately and gathers lots of reviews, too.
Respectfully, your comment reminds me of the old adage: "They write that just to sell newspapers."
onthebeam wrote:
Definitely not a disservice to me. SAR helps me keep up to date with what might be coming down the pike. I think he is pretty up front about his sources and perceived credibility. When actual announcements are made, he lists them immediately and gathers lots of reviews, too.
Respectfully, your comment reminds me of the old adage: "They write that just to sell newspapers."
Well, nokishita is simply a lot more reliable... if we believed everything they write on SAR, we'd have had A7SIII 2 years ago .
...
Which is curious because isn't making a 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 about the same in terms of optical complexity? I wonder what makes the 35 larger in size. I thought of this because I remember comments along the lines of "if Sony can make a small 50/1.2GM, sure that means they can make a 85/1.2GM of equal size". The same would go reversely for the Sigma I'd imagine?