Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       end
  

Archive 2021 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?

  
 
seaSharp
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


GHarris wrote:
Don't want to derail the thread, it's not either of the two lenses the topic was originally made about, so I hope this doesn't distract too much - but since a few people have mentioned the Batis 40 now - Didn't it have a few issues at launch? Poor close-range eye-AF, and too much forced stopping-down at close range, or something like that? I dimly remember it being criticised, and then a firmware update coming out that was welcomed but still criticised for not being a complete fix. How did all of that turn out? Do the issues amount to
...Show more

I rented one and it seemed fine for me, but I wasn't shooting close up (pretty much everything was > 2M). The Philreeves crew, FWIW, explored the lens' behavior after the update and were not happy:

40 CF Review

"After the firmware update the Batis 2/40 still stops down automatically but only to f/2.8 and only from a distance of 0.65m. AF is now reliable at distances above 0.65m or with the aperture closed to at least 2.8. AF is still unreliable when the 2/40 is used wide open at closer distances which is a typical setting for tighter portraits. For a lens in this price range, this is simply unacceptable in my opinion. This is really disappointing as, focusing issues aside, I really like the versatility and the output I get from the Batis. As some might say, it has quite some character."




May 11, 2022 at 06:06 PM
seaSharp
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


And my solution is to shoot with the Sony 35 1.8 when I care about CF, autofocus and sharpness and speed, and with the Sigma 45 2.8 when I care about mainly about rendering. That's worked well for me.

If I had to start over I might just settle on the Sigma 35 f2 - but it doesn't seem to render quite as nicely as the 45, and I think I'd miss the close focus of the 35 1.8.



May 11, 2022 at 06:11 PM
QuietOC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


seaSharp wrote:
And my solution is to shoot with the Sony 35 1.8 when I care about CF, autofocus and sharpness and speed, and with the Sigma 45 2.8 when I care about mainly about rendering. That's worked well for me.

If I had to start over I might just settle on the Sigma 35 f2 - but it doesn't seem to render quite as nicely as the 45, and I think I'd miss the close focus of the 35 1.8.


FWIW: The Tamron 35/2.8 focuses much closer than the Sony and has at least as good of rendering as the Sigma 35/2.



May 11, 2022 at 06:51 PM
GHarris
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


QuietOC wrote:
FWIW: The Tamron 35/2.8 focuses much closer than the Sony and has at least as good of rendering as the Sigma 35/2.


And it's amazingly cheap. And impeccably sharp.

But its autofocus speed is very poor indeed. All these lenses are tradeoffs of some kind! But perhaps this reminds of why the Sigma is popular - there's not much really "wrong" with it, where most lenses have some kind of gotcha.



May 12, 2022 at 05:39 AM
keepcoding
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I have and like them both. The Sony because it is super lightweight, compact and weathersealed. The Sigma because it renders nicely and is slightly faster and wider.
I would say LoCA is pretty comparable on both lenses. Sharpness is slightly better on the Sony 40mm, but unless you pixel-peep I'd say the difference is marginal. Rendering can be a bit harsh with the Sony and is overall clearly better with the Sigma.

Sony 40mm F2.5 @F2.5: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/A7307239b.jpg

Sigma 35mm F2 @F2.5: https://uploads.keepcoding.ch/A7307241b.jpg




May 12, 2022 at 11:33 AM
Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


sigma 35 f2 isnt something uber special imo, none of these lenses really beat each other by any meaningful margins

sony, sigma, samyang, za, all of them performed similar from what I recall, sony was the busiest, but other than that, there are other factors that set them apart. Sony focuses really close, sigma/samyang render close to each other, za is really small. I would pick the samyang over sigma unless I absolutely had to have the build of a rock solid lens that happens to be quite heavy.....



May 12, 2022 at 11:48 AM
TimCC
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I liked traveling with the A7R4 + 40G combo. It may not wow you but itís a very dependable lens. Very good detail that gives you a lot of flexibility with a crop. Decent color and contrast, color fringing will show up in challenging scenes but not noticeable in most of my usual shots. As far as I can tell the AF is flawless.
I pair it with a Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 and the Sony 85mm f1.8 for a light and compact travel kit.

Hereís a shot with minimal adjustments with the Sony 40G.







May 13, 2022 at 09:03 AM
zeitlos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I have ordered the Batis 40 (again, after selling and missing it). But IĎm also interested in the Sigma 35 f2 (i-series) because of its size. I once had the 65 f2 from Sigma, a really very good lens, however, I thought itĎs character was a bit clinicalÖ ThatĎs what IĎm afraid of as well when picking the Sigma 35 f2 instead of the Batis 40. Is this a justified fear?


Apr 02, 2024 at 03:05 AM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I suspect the main reason why the sigma 35 f2 is popular is because its relatively cheap...

Not only is the 0.175x magnification rather poor for a 35mm, (The 35/1.8 does 0.24x and the 16-35mm F2.8 GM II does 0.32x)

The Sigma is also unacceptably soft when approaching the already poor maximum magnification.

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD.jpg


Yes, stopping down to 2.8 can give better (but still soft) results

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD-2.jpg

but if we have to stop down anyway on a prime, why not just carry a zoom which performs well at 2.8? I see no reason to carry 2-3 primes when one lightweight zoom can out-perform it at f/2.8

Edited on Apr 02, 2024 at 04:47 AM · View previous versions



Apr 02, 2024 at 03:21 AM
Viramati
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I bought the 40G a while ago for street photography work (I alternate between this and the Batis 25) and I really like it. Small, light with aperture ring etc. Vey sharp with nice contrast etc even wide open. Being an f2.5 lens you're not really buying it for it's bokeh or other large aperture benefits. Highly recommended

https://www.flickr.com/photos/viramati/albums/72177720314566540



Apr 02, 2024 at 03:28 AM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


aCuria wrote:

I suspect the main reason why the sigma 35 f2 is popular is because its relatively cheap...

Not only is the 0.175x magnification rather poor for a 35mm, (The 35/1.8 does 0.24x and the 16-35mm F2.8 GM II does 0.32x)

The Sigma is also unacceptably soft when approaching the already poor maximum magnification.

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD.jpg


Yes, stopping down to 2.8 can give better (but still soft) results

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD-2.jpg

but if we have to stop down anyway on a prime, why not just carry a zoom which performs well at 2.8? I see no reason to carry 2-3 primes when one lightweight zoom can out-perform it at
...Show more


Of course there are some people for whom reduced image quality close and at wide aperture will mess with there preferred style and itís a deal breaker.

But many folk use wide apertures at slightly greater distance, where DOF is larger and you need the wider aperture, and actually prefer to stop down a bit at very close distances because otherwise DOF is too thin, and at those distances you get nice backgrounds a stop or so down.


Just as with the Batis 40, for those photographers, the i35 is a very good fit, and performs well in all their use cases, is nice and compact, and does at medium distances what a slower lens could not.



Apr 02, 2024 at 06:07 AM
newdom
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


aCuria wrote:

I suspect the main reason why the sigma 35 f2 is popular is because its relatively cheap...

Not only is the 0.175x magnification rather poor for a 35mm, (The 35/1.8 does 0.24x and the 16-35mm F2.8 GM II does 0.32x)

The Sigma is also unacceptably soft when approaching the already poor maximum magnification.

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD.jpg


Yes, stopping down to 2.8 can give better (but still soft) results

https://dustinabbott.net/wp-content/gallery/sigma-35mm-f2-dn-review/17-MFD-2.jpg

but if we have to stop down anyway on a prime, why not just carry a zoom which performs well at 2.8? I see no reason to carry 2-3 primes when one lightweight zoom can out-perform it at
...Show more

If your focus is on taking closeup shots of banknotes wide open, then yes agreed. You have an obsession/priority on maximum magnification/sharpness wide open as close up as the lens will allow as you repeat this over and over on different lens threads and seem to judge a lens capability based on this one criteria. But that is just one small aspect of a lens performance, and it is clear that Sigma has up until very recently deliberately deprioritised closeup sharpness in favour of wider performance characteristics of the lens. If this is your priority, you're much better off with the Sony 35/1.8 or the GM (or the 50 macro).

For the majority of photographers who this lens will appeal to, however, the general performance of the lens is very good compared to the alternatives.



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:10 AM
PaulMoorePhoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


Yeah, I certainly didnít sell my Sony 35mm f/1.8 and buy the Sigma 35/2 because itís cheaper. I did it because, for me, the Sigma is a much better lens. I prefer the rendering and I use the aperture ring because thatís how I like to shoot.

Close focus is not the best with the Sigma but itís far from unacceptably sharp. I donít do document reproduction, wide open, with a 35mm lens. Close focus for me means close up pictures of my dog, where the majority of the picture is filled with beautiful bokeh and the focus point, the eye, is plenty sharp. Thatís to say I donít shoot at MFD often but when I do Iím perfectly happy with what I get from this lens.



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:11 AM
zugzwang2
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


aCuria wrote:
The Sigma is also unacceptably soft when approaching the already poor maximum magnification.
a

Other than for my electron microscopy of viruses, I've never cared much about maximum magnification and sharpness at close focus, but everyone's different.




Apr 02, 2024 at 10:36 AM
jdcoletv
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


Here are a couple of photos I recently took with the Sony 40 2.5 G. They are both sharp with lovely out-of-focus areas.








Taken with the Sony 40mm 2.5 G f stop:5.6







Taken with the Sony 40mm 2.5 G f-stop: 4.0




Apr 02, 2024 at 11:32 AM
akashyap
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


Eye AF at close distances seems inconsistent: some people report it improved after the firmware, some people say itís still an issue. Iím in the latter group, and I thought about getting rid of the lens because of that.

However, I think the lens is too good otherwise to get rid of, and itís one of those things you have to learn about the lens and work around it (ie manual focus for close distances).

No other lens in the 28-50 range has this much colors and contrast (and ďcharacterĒ) at this weight with AF. Itís bulky, but what are you gonna do, you werenít putting this in your pocket anyway, and it fits well in camera cubes with other GMs and high quality lenses.

The Batis 40 has been stealing the show for the last year for me.

GHarris wrote:
Don't want to derail the thread, it's not either of the two lenses the topic was originally made about, so I hope this doesn't distract too much - but since a few people have mentioned the Batis 40 now - Didn't it have a few issues at launch? Poor close-range eye-AF, and too much forced stopping-down at close range, or something like that? I dimly remember it being criticised, and then a firmware update coming out that was welcomed but still criticised for not being a complete fix. How did all of that turn out? Do the issues amount to
...Show more



Apr 02, 2024 at 12:59 PM
patotts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I haven't used the Sigma, but I have the 40/2.5 - I have nothing negative to say about it. I did have the Batis 40, I wanted to love it, but I didn't see what all the fuzz was about.

https://i.imgur.com/T2Q93pn.jpg



Apr 02, 2024 at 04:19 PM
catacore
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


I once had the Sony 40G lens as part of my travel kit alongside 24G, Sigma 90i and A7c. I liked the lens at that time, found it small, sharp, enjoyable. Then I replaced the 24G + 40G combo with the PZ 16-35/4 for more flexibility.
The Sigma 35i I found it to be the closest, in rendering, to the 45i, so I liked that very much. But I don't use it much, if at all. Just bought it to pair it with the 65i, as the "perfect" gapping combo, but never get to use that combo in fact. I always prefer to take the 40, 45 or 50mm lens with me instead of the said combo. Too bad, as both those lenses deliver, if asked for.
The Batis 40/2 sees, as well, no usage, it is neither small, fast, fast AF, or "inspiring" for my use. Bought it in a whim, due to the excellent images seen here (many of them done by @Schwarzlicht), but took it off only once, to compare it against the Nokton 40/1.2 SE. Found it less sharp, at f/2, against the Nokton at f/2, but with a bit more contrast and saturation. Still prefer the Nokton both image-wise and handling-wise, not to mention size-wise.
Then I got the Sony 50G for the A7c, since manual focusing the 40 or 50 Noktons, on that camera, was a PITA for me. Used the 50G as a travelling lens (alongside 90i) for a couple of months, it got the job done, but there was nothing to get excited about, really. It got sold.

So, for me, since I value much the rendering these days, the Sigma 35i would be the first choice against the 40G. But the Sigma 45i comes in front of the 35i rendering-wise. I really like what Sigma did with this 45i, in creating a niche product in an oversaturated lens market.



Apr 02, 2024 at 06:14 PM
nhsonyshooter
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


Just buy the Sonnar 35mm and get a free camera with it


Apr 02, 2024 at 07:51 PM
aCuria
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Sharpness and Rendering: Sony 40/2.5 vs Sigma 35/2?


newdom wrote:
If your focus is on taking closeup shots of banknotes wide open, then yes agreed. You have an obsession/priority on maximum magnification/sharpness wide open as close up as the lens will allow as you repeat this over and over on different lens threads and seem to judge a lens capability based on this one criteria. But that is just one small aspect of a lens performance, and it is clear that Sigma has up until very recently deliberately deprioritised closeup sharpness in favour of wider performance characteristics of the lens. If this is your priority, you're much better off with
...Show more

While I appreciate your perspective, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my focus and evaluation criteria for lenses. While it's true that I often emphasize the importance of maximum magnification and sharpness in close-up shots, it's not accurate to suggest that this is my sole criterion for judging a lens's performance.

For example, I care very much about flare control, because when using strobes I would often shoot into the sun to get a natural hair light. The 35i is not particularly good at flare control, but its not particularly bad either like the 14GM.

Critical sharpness at longer focal distances, is very important to me in order to support 2x lens gapping. Carrying lenses with closer gapping than this would mean a significantly larger kit.

On a prime, autofocus performance is critical because of the shallow DOF, and tracking of moving subjects in challenging lighting conditions. The sigma is not as good at this as compared to the Sony lenses with XD linear motors, but we all know this already so there is not much value in further discussion.

You seem to have misunderstand something. When discussing "close up performance" with this type of lens, it has
nothing to do with "macro" photography or "bank note" photography at all.

DSC01790 by acurian, on Flickr

This type of shot, if done with a 35mm prime would place the subject between 40 and 60 cm from the camera. If the subject is a kid, it would be 30-40cm. You can mess around with https://dofsimulator.net/en/ if you don't believe me (under "portrait" or "medium shot" )

This is well within the range where the 35i suffers from soft performance, and would have to be stopped down to around... f/4? Note that this kind of softness is NOT a problem with Sigma's own 35/1.2 or Sony's 35GM and 35/1.8. Either an optical design was chosen which does not exhibit the issue (35/1.8) or floating elements were used to correct the problem (35GM, 35/1.2 ART).

This kind of subject distance is extremely common at 35mm, pets, food, flowers, museums and art galleries are all examples of situations where a 35/40mm shines, and close up performance is important.

To suggest that the "majority of photographers" do not capture subjects that demand close-up performance would be inaccurate. In reality, I firmly believe the opposite to be true.

You don't have to look much further than the 35GM image thread to see all sorts of close up use cases by people other than myself. I picked some examples from just the newest few pages:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53353698253_ecdf08948d_h.jpg

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/55/2622455.jpg

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/55/2632555.jpg

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/54/2622454.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53296330196_5f40a00cc4_o.jpg

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/98/2571798.jpg

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53022047187_912b44ca00_h.jpg


Edited on Apr 03, 2024 at 03:56 AM · View previous versions



Apr 03, 2024 at 02:12 AM
1              3       end




FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.