jhinkey wrote:
Thanks.
My light weight backpacking kit has now evolved to:
A7C
21/3.5 CV
40/2.5G
90/2.8i
just need Sony to come out with at 16mm fisheye that's spectacular and someone to come out with a light weight 200/4 that's excellent right from wide open. Ah the wait continues . .
Nice images! Beautiful area. Nice small kit as well.
Still undecided if I will keep my 24/3.5i or trade it for the 24/2i.
What I don't love about the 24/2i:
Strong barrel distortion. The f/3.5 is virtually distortion free
Higher optical vignetting wide open (cats-eye bokeh shape, swirling rendering) compared to the f/3.5 wide open. They would probably be comparable when both set to f/3.5 but the 24/3.5's specular highlights are round to the edges from wide open
Size and weight: Almost twice as heavy/big than the f/3.5
Maximum magnification. It's not bad at 1:6.7 but the f/3.5 version does half-size macro lens at 1:2
What I don't love about the 24/3.5i:
Not much blur at mid/long distance (subject separation)
f/3.5 under low light: I wish it were 2/3 stop brighter at f/2.8 in exchange for extra weight/size
Fred Miranda wrote:
Still undecided if I will keep my 24/3.5i or trade it for the 24/2i.
What I don't love about the 24/2i:
Strong barrel distortion. The f/3.5 is virtually distortion free
Higher optical vignetting wide open (cats-eye bokeh shape, swirling rendering) compared to the f/3.5 wide open. They would probably be comparable when both set to f/3.5 but the 24/3.5's specular highlights are round to the edges from wide open
Size and weight: Almost twice as heavy/big than the f/3.5
Maximum magnification. It's not bad at 1:6.7 but the f/3.5 version does half-size macro lens at 1:2
What I don't love about the 24/3.5i:
Not much blur at mid/long distance (subject separation)
f/3.5 under low light: I wish it were 2/3 stop brighter at f/2.8 in exchange for extra weight/size
I have not received my 24/2i yet but it would be great to compare their resolution/contrast/rendering side by side....Show more →
To me, this reads like a good case for the 24/3.5 and not much of a case for the 24/2.0. If you wanted to shoot more open than 3.5 and were willing to accept the size/weight to do so, why wouldn't you just go the Sony 24/1.4 GM?
The 24/3.5, 45/2.8, and (perhaps) the 90/2.8 seem to excel at rendering in a very small, light, and well-built form factor. Does the 24/2.0 fit in there?
chiron wrote:
To me, this reads like a good case for the 24/3.5 and not much of a case for the 24/2.0. If you wanted to shoot more open than 3.5 and were willing to accept the size/weight to do so, why wouldn't you just go the Sony 24/1.4 GM?
The 24/3.5, 45/2.8, and (perhaps) the 90/2.8 seem to excel at rendering in a very small, light, and well-built form factor. Does the 24/2.0 fit in there?
Just brainstorming in case someone else is also in a pickle.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Still undecided if I will keep my 24/3.5i or trade it for the 24/2i.
What I don't love about the 24/2i:
Strong barrel distortion. The f/3.5 is virtually distortion free
Higher optical vignetting wide open (cats-eye bokeh shape, swirling rendering) compared to the f/3.5 wide open. They would probably be comparable when both set to f/3.5 but the 24/3.5's specular highlights are round to the edges from wide open
Size and weight: Almost twice as heavy/big than the f/3.5
Maximum magnification. It's not bad at 1:6.7 but the f/3.5 version does half-size macro lens at 1:2
What I don't love about the 24/3.5i:
Not much blur at mid/long distance (subject separation)
f/3.5 under low light: I wish it were 2/3 stop brighter at f/2.8 in exchange for extra weight/size
I have not received my 24/2i yet but it would be great to compare their resolution/contrast/rendering side by side. ...Show more →
I'm also finding more benefits for 24/3.5i and my 24/1.4 GM is also making it easier to stick to my current options even though I have 24/3.5i in both E and L mounts and swapping one of them for 24/2i could be interesting. Haven't found any strong motivation to do that though as I really like many aspects of the 24/3.5i and it fills a purpose for me in both mounts.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
I thought I had read that off center sharpness at close focusing on the 24/3.5 is not stellar; but will appreciate reading your findings here!
Yes, even at center, resolution/contrast at close distance is not optimal wide open, especially at MFD due to SA. However, stopping it down to f/5.6 improves things dramatically. So for 1:2 macro, I would use f/5.6 or smaller on the 24/3.5i.
memzinla wrote:
I ended up returning my Sigma 24mm F2, and now I'm stuck without a lens. I ended up selling the 24mm F3.5 for a good price. I regret it! lol
What is SA? I think I know from what I also saw from close up shots.
memzinla wrote:
I ended up returning my Sigma 24mm F2, and now I'm stuck without a lens. I ended up selling the 24mm F3.5 for a good price. I regret it! lol
What is SA? I think I know from what I also saw from close up shots.
SA is spherical aberration. AFAIK it is basically the lens' inability to bundle all rays in one focal point. Instead, the rays are scattered along the optical axis, which creates a soft glow.
I've always liked the build quality and overall aesthetic of the Sigma I-series lenses, and the 24mm f/2 is no exception. Although the lens gives me a nice travel set of I series primes at 24 f/2, 65 f/2, and 90 f/2.8, the barrel distortion is concerning with the 24 f/2. Pictured first is a low-light SOOC photo taken from about four meters with center focus on the wall-hangings showing quite noticeable barrel distortion. There is no ACR Sigma 24i f/2 profile yet, but the second photo shows Photoshop correction using the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN Adobe Camera Raw profile resulting in some improvement but with some slight pincushion distortion. The third photo shows a Photoshop correction of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN ACR profile by moving the slider 10 points to the left at 90 from a base of 100, and it could probably use a few more clicks to the left.
The problem with swapping the 24i f/2 out for the 24i 3.5 lies in light gathering capabilities. In a travel lens, a small form factor with more versatility for indoor/outdoor wide shots is what I prefer. Yes, I had and sold the 24 f/1.4 as I already have the 35 GM that can cover IQ shots, and I wanted something a little smaller that was within a stop of the 24 GM's aperture. I'll see what Fred says in his comparisons and may go to the 24i 3.5 after all. But, if I go with the 24i 3.5, I'll be wondering why I just didn't keep Sony's very good 28-60. Plus, I'm just a hobbyist who has time to fiddle with distortion corrections. Decisions, decisions.
24I f/2 SOOC from four meters with focus on wall hangings
ACR profile correction using Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN profile
Photoshop correction of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN ACR profile by moving the slider 10 points to the left at 90 from a base of 100.
FJR1 wrote:
I've always liked the build quality and overall aesthetic of the Sigma I-series lenses, and the 24mm f/2 is no exception. Although the lens gives me a nice travel set of I series primes at 24 f/2, 65 f/2, and 90 f/2.8, the barrel distortion is concerning with the 24 f/2. Pictured first is a low-light SOOC photo taken from about four meters with center focus on the wall-hangings showing quite noticeable barrel distortion. There is no ACR Sigma 24i f/2 profile yet, but the second photo shows Photoshop correction using the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN Adobe Camera Raw profile resulting in some improvement but with some slight pincushion distortion. The third photo shows a Photoshop correction of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN ACR profile by moving the slider 10 points to the left at 90 from a base of 100, and it could probably use a few more clicks to the left.
The problem with swapping the 24i f/2 out for the 24i 3.5 lies in light gathering capabilities. In a travel lens, a small form factor with more versatility for indoor/outdoor wide shots is what I prefer. Yes, I had and sold the 24 f/1.4 as I already have the 35 GM that can cover IQ shots, and I wanted something a little smaller that was within a stop of the 24 GM's aperture. I'll see what Fred says in his comparisons and may go to the 24i 3.5 after all. But, if I go with the 24i 3.5, I'll be wondering why I just didn't keep Sony's very good 28-60. Plus, I'm just a hobbyist who has time to fiddle with distortion corrections. Decisions, decisions....Show more →
Thanks for the comparison!
I don't mind higher distortion zoom lenses but it bothers me to see it in a prime regardless of the fact that it can be corrected in post with minimal loss in IQ. Yes, it a design compromise that Sigma seems to embrace to achieve their size and price goal.
Still, looks to be a great lens.
keepcoding wrote:
SA is spherical aberration. AFAIK it is basically the lens' inability to bundle all rays in one focal point. Instead, the rays are scattered along the optical axis, which creates a soft glow.
Fred, when you get around to making your usual thorough landscape tests for the 90/2.8, could you please include some images that are corrected for distortion?
If you wanted to shoot more open than 3.5 and were willing to accept the size/weight to do so, why wouldn't you just go the Sony 24/1.4 GM?
