Those videos are very illuminating as well as disappointing and surprising. Interesting Sigma made a comment about MFD performance. Gerald's look at the weak focal plane (he should call it that) (6:30) illustrates why near APO correction matters so much these days. It will assist AF presumably and it makes MF so much easier. The CA inspection is at 8:05, and really the Sony 35/1.8 should not be the standard here.
As an aside, some makers (Arri) actually engineer the colour of residual CA to blend into the scene less noticeably.
Maybe the slower focus is connected to the weaker close up focal plane (a pure MTF issue) (16:33). Good to see attention to breathing extent as well. Couldn't help but think this one is a good advertisement for Sigma's tidy 35/2. It shows the extent of trade-offs in lens design, maybe Sigma concentrated on bokeh here.
Maybe they rushed it out. No excuses given how complex it is, no one wants to stop down in a 650g lens just to get decent bite. Thanks for posting. Gerald is good at this.
Good on Sigma to build this one. I have their 35mm lens on the Nikon F-mount, where it was in many respects superior to Nikon's own offering. Here though, it looks like Sony's native lens has the advantage - over 100g lighter and about 20% shorter without being unreasonably expensive. I'll still be lusting after the Sony, but kudos to Sigma for providing a viable alternative!
Ok, now I've viewed Gerald's video and, as always, he's delivering a well-balanced review and showing that, due to relatively high CAs, higher minimum focus distance (vs GM and f1.8),
the new Sigma 1.4 is squeezed between these 2 lenses.
As such, unless you like to stop down the lens to f2 or f2.8 and like to shoot at "infinity", there's nothing obvious (all factors considered, including price) that would make us prefer it vs the GM, the f1.8 or the Sigma f2...
Hmm mixed reviews. Dustin abbot is having a positive review, Gerald not so. I guess this makes me just hold on to my sigma 35 1.2 and be happy with it for now. This does make the CV 35 APO bit more interesting tho I must say the 35 GM is just that darn good if you need AF If only sigma remakes the 40 1.4 now...
It does really seem to be a mixed bag. Yes resolution and sharpness seem great, pretty much across the frame but I agree that CAs and softness near MFD are somewhat unacceptable nowadays in a $899 lens.
I had higher hopes, but that's probably due to how good the Sigma 35/1.2, Sigma 35/2 and Sony 35/1.4GM are
why is everyone complaining about softness at close focus distance? I mean who shoots at F1.4 up close? just stop the lens down to F2.8 when you are very close to the subject.
the CA thing on the other hand is a bit weird and might be due to copy variance.
keepcoding wrote:
why is everyone complaining about softness at close focus distance? I mean who shoots at F1.4 up close? just stop the lens down to F2.8 when you are very close to the subject.
I think it depends on the look you want to create, the available light, how close the lens can focus (and related what the max magnification is). If it cannot focus all that close and the max magnification isn't so great then it kind of sucks to have to stop down twice to get something sharp.
As Gerald points out it differs from the DSLR version. Which is also visible in C Frosts reviews of the two lenses. It's a bit of a shame that the DSLR version has been price hiked lately. It's also fairly evident that most fast 35s aren't great wo at mfd if judging by C Frost's reviews but some are better than others and this new Sigma isn't one of the better.
I don't see that everyone is complaining about that though. Far from everyone likes to use a 35mm lens like that I guess.
New high end prime lenses tend to get a close examination upon release, it's understandable and shows interest, and gives makers valuable feedback. But the checkbox list is too easy to reach for and to treat as the main things to know. But the checklist items are evolving too - now breathing is being reported on.
You need to see the micro view (CA, MFD, corners, vignette, IQ by aperture, etc.) and the macro overview (the images), both matter. You can miss the good things the lens can do very easily, in the absence of a set of typical images, done well. It can go the other way too, like with Sony using Albert Dros to shoot a nice portfolio that the average guy would be lucky to be able to emulate. Tough business. ;-)
philip_pj wrote:
New high end prime lenses tend to get a close examination upon release, it's understandable and shows interest, and gives makers valuable feedback. But the checkbox list is too easy to reach for and to treat as the main things to know. But the checklist items are evolving too - now breathing is being reported on.
You need to see the micro view (CA, MFD, corners, vignette, IQ by aperture, etc.) and the macro overview (the images), both matter. You can miss the good things the lens can do very easily, in the absence of a set of typical images, done well. It can go the other way too, like with Sony using Albert Dros to shoot a nice portfolio that the average guy would be lucky to be able to emulate. Tough business. ;-)...Show more →
Sigma also set the high standard for themselves with all the amazing releases lately. Of course people are going to look more in-depth because of that and of course that makes people disappointed if a lens doesn't meet the almost unrealistic expectation going around.
kaldur wrote:
I think it depends on the look you want to create, the available light, how close the lens can focus (and related what the max magnification is). If it cannot focus all that close and the max magnification isn't so great then it kind of sucks to have to stop down twice to get something sharp.
As Gerald points out it differs from the DSLR version. Which is also visible in C Frosts reviews of the two lenses. It's a bit of a shame that the DSLR version has been price hiked lately. It's also fairly evident that most fast 35s aren't great wo at mfd if judging by C Frost's reviews but some are better than others and this new Sigma isn't one of the better.
I don't see that everyone is complaining about that though. Far from everyone likes to use a 35mm lens like that I guess....Show more →
Close-up performance is just another aspect of a lens, just as infinity performance.
You could ask the same way, why people care about rendering of busy backgrounds when you can simply choose to shoot non-busy backgrounds...
From what I've seen center sharpness at MFD is good enough for me, it's the CA that worries me (but then again, Dustin's review does not show it to be that bad...).
kaldur wrote:
I think it depends on the look you want to create, the available light, how close the lens can focus (and related what the max magnification is). If it cannot focus all that close and the max magnification isn't so great then it kind of sucks to have to stop down twice to get something sharp.
As Gerald points out it differs from the DSLR version. Which is also visible in C Frosts reviews of the two lenses. It's a bit of a shame that the DSLR version has been price hiked lately. It's also fairly evident that most fast 35s aren't great wo at mfd if judging by C Frost's reviews but some are better than others and this new Sigma isn't one of the better.
I don't see that everyone is complaining about that though. Far from everyone likes to use a 35mm lens like that I guess....Show more →
Gerald completely misses the point and half of his review is about how soft the lens is at MFD wide open.
I am pretty sure it was a design choice that Sigma made to not fully correct spherical aberration on this lens (they obviously know how to do it since the older model was well corrected for this). I do like their approach and much prefer it to pinpoint sharpness and high contrast wide open at MFD. The Sony 35/1.8 is a good example of the latter properties and what we get in return is atrocious bokeh rendering.
j4nu wrote:
Close-up performance is just another aspect of a lens, just as infinity performance.
You could ask the same way, why people care about rendering of busy backgrounds when you can simply choose to shoot non-busy backgrounds...
From what I've seen center sharpness at MFD is good enough for me, it's the CA that worries me (but then again, Dustin's review does not show it to be that bad...).
I agree and found Dustin's review interesting and somewhat "balancing". We all talk about what characteristics we care about from the reference points we have.
---------------------------------------------
keepcoding wrote:
Gerald completely misses the point and half of his review is about how soft the lens is at MFD wide open.
I am pretty sure it was a design choice that Sigma made to not fully correct spherical aberration on this lens (they obviously know how to do it since the older model was well corrected for this). I do like their approach and much prefer it to pinpoint sharpness and high contrast wide open at MFD. The Sony 35/1.8 is a good example of the latter properties and what we get in return is atrocious bokeh rendering.
Whether or not he misses the point depends on whether you care about the particular characteristic he focuses on. As for the Sony I agree regarding the bokeh, I've not seen a single f/1,8 shot from it with bokeh that I particularly like I think. (And from Frost's review it doesn't seem precisely stellar wo at mfd either )
All in all this Sigma seems nice a bit further away than mfd and I think it'll make quite a number of people happy.
keepcoding wrote:
why is everyone complaining about softness at close focus distance? I mean who shoots at F1.4 up close? just stop the lens down to F2.8 when you are very close to the subject.
I do
Sony ILCE-7RM3
FE 35mm F1.4 GM
ƒ/1.4
35.0 mm
1/125
ISO 2500
Cameralabs is not the site for me.
I prefer wait for user's comparisons or technically standardized test like Lenstip or Lensrentals.
Looking at D. Abbott comments this lens is spectacular.
Yes it’s an absolutely insane price difference in Europe for some reason. That’s really its saving grace as that means it can find its place within the market better. Just not sure whether it’s worth the ‘Art’ badge.
now take that same photo at F2.8 and put them side-by-side. I don't think there would be a "loss" by stopping down in such a situation. and as a bonus that loca would also disappear.
If only sigma remakes the 40 1.4 now...
)
