For this comparison, I will only show the Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM and Sigma FE 35mm f/2 DG DN because similarly to the Sony lens, the Voigtlander does not cause this issue.
With the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN it's very common to get streaks like this one. Perhaps the hood is a must to avoid it.
keepcoding wrote:
Interesting, most of you seem to agree that the Bigma renders smoother. So far I haven't seen a comparison that shows a clear advantage for the Bigma...
There were examples posted already, but it depends on what one wants to see I guess...
j4nu wrote:
There were examples posted already, but it depends on what one wants to see I guess...
I don't "want" to see anything (as I'm not going to buy either of the two lenses), I am just trying to understand how you guys came to that conclusion. It is very possible that I missed one of the convincing comparisons...
keepcoding wrote:
I don't "want" to see anything (as I'm not going to buy either of the two lenses), I am just trying to understand how you guys came to that conclusion. It is very possible that I missed one of the convincing comparisons...
This is what I was talking about:
For some this is minor, for others not - so they see what they want to see.
...but even the biggest Sony enthusiasts here, who owned both, agree on the rendering front, if my picture is not convincing .
The FE 35mm f/1.4 GM has very good Longitudinal (axial) chromatic aberration correction.
The Sony at f/1.4 has similar axial CA correction compared to the Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN but at f/2 it does slightly better.
The Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO does better than both lenses which is to be expected.
Here are some side by sides showing the focused area (to see purple fringing) and the de-focused area showing color error for the three lenses:
The Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM is very well corrected for lateral CA which is great news for landscape shooters. For this comparison below, CA correction was turned off in-camera and in-post but keep in mind that Lightroom has an automatic correction profile applied to Sony lenses that can't be turned off. (Unless covering the lens' contacts). If you are using Capture one, your result may vary.
Comparison showing:
Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM (LEFT) | Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO (MIDDLE) | Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (RIGHT)
Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 GM (LEFT) | Voigtlander 35mm f/2 APO (MIDDLE) | Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN (RIGHT)
Based on what I’m seeing so far this looks better than the sigma 35i. Waiting for the next round and rendering to see if sigma can even the score. Great review so far as always, Fred! Thank you.
Looks like it’s kicking ass and taking numbers. It’s pretty obvious the detail in these test. I’ll probably be selling my Sigma anyway. I literally bought 3 cars in 24 hours. Need to catch up a little
The sigma is very slightly creamier on the bokeh but it’s so slight you have to look closely. I actually sold my sigma 1.2 for the GM. The size difference is a no brainer for me. I hated using the Sigma after couple hours of shooting.
sye46 wrote:
The sigma is very slightly creamier on the bokeh but it’s so slight you have to look closely. I actually sold my sigma 1.2 for the GM. The size difference is a no brainer for me. I hated using the Sigma after couple hours of shooting.
Yes, that's because the Bigma is a bit less corrected for SA compared to the GM. The same can be said for their new 35/1.4 DG DN Art. (From the few examples I've seen)
Being under corrected for SA improves rendering in exchange for some "bite" especially at close distance. Just different optical design priorities.
The difference is there but isn't that huge or deceisive for me; additionally we see the change in FL: The boy is more magnified in the Sigma image, just look at the buttons on the shirt compared to the GM which is clearly wider. Moving closer with the GM makes the background smoother, although the Sigma should still provide for a nicer OOF rendering.
For me the difference is not justifying the size and weight, after having used it for weddings and really felt the difference after 12h of constant use. A great lens if you are not required to haul it around permanently.
darbo wrote:
12h of constant use certainly makes for an overpowering strong argument for switching to the 35GM.
I am very fit, working out 6 times a week, but still feel the toll after such a day clearly, for my wife it was even worse. The results were worth it temporarily, but having a much smaller and lighter option with fantastic performance, I don't see a reason to stay with the Sigma, although I can understand that many still do.
Going for the 50GM/1.2 is another thing and no-brainer for us, as it is similar to the present 50/1.4 in size and weight.
sye46 wrote:
The sigma is very slightly creamier on the bokeh but it’s so slight you have to look closely. I actually sold my sigma 1.2 for the GM. The size difference is a no brainer for me. I hated using the Sigma after couple hours of shooting.
my thought as well. the difference is marginal and not worth the extra size/weight in my opinion
Exactly, I even wrote in one of the comments that if I were to shoot full body portraits in sunlit woods I'd take the Bigma . You don't have to blow-up the photo to 100% to see the difference then.
... but it seems we're alone in this... Mystik wrote:
It depends on how you shoot.
If you regularly shoot stuff like this, the nuanced differences in bokeh start to matter than size
.
