Fred Miranda wrote:
I will have a similar compact AF kit: 24/3.5i, 45/2.8i and 90/2.8i. They are more or less similar in size and weight but not low light lenses.
freaklikeme wrote:
From the looks of Frost's tests on FF and APSC, the 24 may have a mid-zone dip (wavy FC at the chart distance, maybe?). If so, that's what used to drive me nuts about the Sony a-mount 24/2 for environmental portraits. Right in the place where some portion of your subject is framed, the lens gets a little gutless. It's still on my rental list, so I guess I'm cautiously optimistic it's focus-distance specific.
I will keep my 24/3.5i, 45/2.8i, and pick up the 90/2.8i for my 3 lens small prime travel kit.
I will sell my 35/2i and 65/2i lenses since when I want/need more speed I have my 14/1.8GM, 20/1.8G, 35/1.4GM, 85/1.4 DG DN. The weight differential is pretty noticeable as is the volume of the speed lenses vs these truly compact iSeries lenses. Great to have so many options with the Sony FE mount cameras!
I saw that in your review. It's not a lens I'm keen to own, despite the otherwise attractive draw and size. The Rokkor 58/1.2's the only normalish portrait lens I'll ever need.
I suspect I'm going to end up with the Nikon AF-S 24/1.8G for my fast 24. It's got a relatively flat field down to about 2m and overall looks like the best compromise over spending for the 24GM.
Just need an a7cR to mate with all these stellar small primes.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will have a similar compact AF kit: 24/3.5i, 45/2.8i and 90/2.8i. They are more or less similar in size and weight but not low light lenses.
Seeing a few different reviews, it seems the bokeh will be smooth if the picture is taken close to subject...? seems when subject is farther away the blur gets less flattering..
Also wondering if sigma might launch a 90 f2 within the next year..
Tonzah78 wrote:
Yup. This is why I think I'm going to keep my current 24mm f/3.5. The close focusing is just such a nice feature and such a wide angle ain't my "environmental portraiture" option either as I prefer either 35 or 40mm option for that. Sure, I was tempted to switch (no need for both) when I heard of the 24/2, but I decided against it after watching again some of my own pictures with my current 24mm. To my eyes, all of these lenses are decently priced, considering their incredible build quality, controls and overall high IQ. I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use.
The new 90mm so far looks just as good as I hoped for. I really like the overall look of the sample images. Rendering and colours looks very similar to my Sigma 65mm & 105mm lenses. Considering the miniscule size, the cat-eye bokeh (which I don't mind) is a fair trade-off. I think I am going to build my af-kit with the 24/3.5, 35/2, 65/2 and 90/2.8. Still missing the 35 & 90. The mid-range is where I need the light-gathering abilities....Show more →
“I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use”
I’ve got the Samyang 35mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8, both are perfect copies. Dustin Abbott also thinks highly of Samyang.
I’ve read plenty of posts in this forum about people having issues with Sigma lenses. I don’t think any manufacturer can claim to be immune from the issues you mention.
jaybr wrote:
I’ve got the Samyang 35mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8, both are perfect copies. Dustin Abbott also thinks highly of Samyang. I’ve read plenty of posts in this forum about people having issues with Sigma lenses. I don’t think any manufacturer can claim to be immune from the issues you mention.
Yes, it's pure lottery we are playing with any brand.
Just to clarify; my own feelings are just based on personal history with these brands. From the last three Samyangs one was a complete dud, didn't even work (75mm f/1.8) and the 24mm f/2.8 didn't impress either - pretty average IQ and super-flimsy build quality (just how it felt to me). Returned it pretty fast and replaced it with CV21mm f/3.5 (which is now replaced with Sigma 24mm f/3.5 as the close focus and af is pretty nice to have - only regret losing CV's sunstars and a bit wider FOV). The only Samyang I've had that felt pretty nice was the Samyang 35mm f/1.8 but the focus/aperture ring in it felt pretty horrible and numb. Nothing like the smooth metallic ones in Sigma I-series. Sold it once the first test reports from Sigma's 35mm f/2 came out, as I'm planning on buying it at some point. Not in a hurry though, as I love my 40mm f/1.2 Nokton which stays on my camera most of the time.
From Sigma's I've owned a few and currently I have the 24mm f/3.5, 65mm f/2 and 105mm f/2.8 Art and all work perfectly. Never had any issues with sigmas and the build and IQ have kept on impressing.
I preordered the 90/2.8 now and should receive it on launch day (9/24). Looking forward to it I also happen to have a day off on that day so should have some time for shooting (hopefully the weather will co-operate).
I went through 5 Samyang/Rokinon 35/2.8's and couldn't get one that was perfectly centered 2 stops down from wide open. I'm glad some people are having good experiences getting good copies.
jaybr wrote:
“I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use”
I’ve got the Samyang 35mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8, both are perfect copies. Dustin Abbott also thinks highly of Samyang.
I’ve read plenty of posts in this forum about people having issues with Sigma lenses. I don’t think any manufacturer can claim to be immune from the issues you mention.
grahamgibson wrote:
Yes, the hoods on all of these i series lenses reverse-mount.
Excellent!
That's one of my chief gripes with the Sony 85/1.8 - the hood is so big in diameter that it's hard to carry, so I cobbled up a threaded metal hood just larger in ID than the 85/1.8 OD and use that.
For me, I value lens compactness - both while mounted on a body AND while in the bag and that includes the included hood which should always be able to snugly reverse mount for storage.
I have the 24mm F3.5 that I use on the Panasonic S5. I love the small size, and I don't know if I should sell it to buy the F2. Anyone going to sell to buy the new one?
Tonzah78 wrote:
Yes, it's pure lottery we are playing with any brand.
Just to clarify; my own feelings are just based on personal history with these brands. From the last three Samyangs one was a complete dud, didn't even work (75mm f/1.8) and the 24mm f/2.8 didn't impress either - pretty average IQ and super-flimsy build quality (just how it felt to me). Returned it pretty fast and replaced it with CV21mm f/3.5 (which is now replaced with Sigma 24mm f/3.5 as the close focus and af is pretty nice to have - only regret losing CV's sunstars and a bit wider FOV). The only Samyang I've had that felt pretty nice was the Samyang 35mm f/1.8 but the focus/aperture ring in it felt pretty horrible and numb. Nothing like the smooth metallic ones in Sigma I-series. Sold it once the first test reports from Sigma's 35mm f/2 came out, as I'm planning on buying it at some point. Not in a hurry though, as I love my 40mm f/1.2 Nokton which stays on my camera most of the time.
From Sigma's I've owned a few and currently I have the 24mm f/3.5, 65mm f/2 and 105mm f/2.8 Art and all work perfectly. Never had any issues with sigmas and the build and IQ have kept on impressing.
I appreciate reading your observations. I have the Tamron 24mm 2.8 and actually like it quite a lot. I do wish it were wider at times though...or smaller. I'm still on the fence with the Sigma 24mm 3.5. It is smaller and since I have the 45mm 2.8...I'm sure a bit more enjoyable to use. More expensive though and slower. The Voigtlander 21mm 3.5 has the advantage of wider and small size and I do have several Voigtlanders already.
I have nothing wider than 24mm though. I've considered the Tamron 17-28mm but not sure about that range. When I had the Panasonic 7-14mm I used it mostly at 7mm. The Sigma 12-24mm 2.8 is to big.
I'm rambling. Will probably end up with the Sigma 24mm 3.5 to pair with the 45mm 2.8. That way I have an excuse to buy the 90mm 2.8 and complete the set. I do hope Sigma or Tamron release a compact wide zoom that starts at 14mm though.
I like my 24/3.5 C a lot. The optics is excellent and the mechanical feel and haptics are both beyond reproach. Indeed Sigma’s all metal finish beats Sony’s combination of composite materials and metal hands down. The feel of the metal aperture ring on the Sigma 24/3.5 is much nicer than on the plastic one on the Sony 20/1.8 G, but the Sony 20/1.8 G is optically outstanding. I’m keeping both.
I bit the bullet a while ago and got the Batis 25mm F2.0. Iight but not so small and expensive. I, innocently, bought the small, light Sony 28mm F2.0 first. Now I understand it’s approx a 25mm FL but so distorted it auto profiles down to 28mm after a cropped correction.
So my Batis lets me keep the extra, wider, pixels if I wish and mimes the FL of my 26mm iPhone’s “Normal” lens If I want a real Hi IQ 28mm lens it’s my Sigma 28mm F1.4. Not small or light but rather expensive.
Fortunate to acquire a discontinued CV APO 90mm F3.5-small but not light. Bought it from KEH as a to cheap to pass up Bargain condition lens in the low $300s. Overjoyed when it arrived complete with CU lens, etc in mint condition.
To my eyes, all of these lenses are decently priced, considering their incredible build quality, controls and overall high IQ. I've had
I also happen to have a day off on that day so should have some time for shooting (hopefully the weather will co-operate).