£849 in the UK, that's a really good price, probably about half or slightly over what the new 50/1.4 GM is likely to be. They've clearly gone all out on optics - near flat MTF and field curvature, bokeh looks beautiful in the few sample shots so far.
---
- In addition to the brightness and large, beautiful bokeh produced by the large aperture of F1.4, various aberrations are optimally balanced to pursue uniform and well-balanced image quality from the center to the periphery of the image.
- Based on the latest optical design technology, it is equipped with 14 lenses in 11 groups, including 3 aspherical lenses and 1 SLD glass.
- It effectively suppresses various aberrations such as astigmatism and curvature of field that cannot be corrected in the camera.
- Despite its large aperture of f/1.4, it is designed to pursue imaging performance in the image periphery, suppress sagittal coma flare, and withstand harsh starscapes and nightscapes with point light sources from wide open.
- Clear image quality with no color bleeding over the entire image circle.
---
Has dual linear motors, so the major disadvantage to GM is likely to be mostly the size and weight. Interesting!
j4nu wrote:
Looks nice, but onion rings will be a bit disappointing for bokeh enthusiasts .
Yes perhaps. He illustrated well how the purple fringing is almost gone vs the SLR version (and why removing it in post was a compromise) as well as how this lens appears to have similar levels of pincussion distortion as the 85mm that he thinks of as less of an issue.
As a 50 GM owner, was hoping this Sigma would be smaller and lighter than it is, like they did with the 85 art relative to the 85 GM. Rumored 50GM II is supposed to be 35GM size, likely won’t have the CA issues this sigma has, and will work with focus breathing comp - if it’s priced around 1400 like the 35 GM then it will probably be worth the extra cost over the Sigma if budget allows.
I agree. I don't expect any of these lenses, at half or less of the GM prices, to be neck and neck, but most of Sigma's recent lenses get so close. Many reviewers either base it on one copy, fail to compare under controlled conditions, et cetera.
One can't really say that two lenses compete optically until they reach a resolution that demands greater optics. That's usually not the case with what most use, and most screens won't be accurate enough to tell. That's one reason for why I skip most reviewers who don't test lenses with the sensors of highest resolution available for the given system, and then claim that there are no visible differences.
There will always be differences, but Sigma certainly gets close. It seems that most of Marc's copies of Sigma lenses are subpar. His results with the DNs: 14-24, 24-70, 24 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4, are quite conflicting to other experienced reviewers as Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost, who claim that they are equally as good optically to the GM counterparts.
I wouldn't mind swapping my GMs, which were released first, for DNs. I simply don't use fast lenses often anymore, and will just get two Samyangs for now. But if need may be, the DNs will be in my next kit.
GMPhotography wrote:
I have that Samsung 75 1.8 coming today to take on a trip. Ill use that for awhile
I'm giving the Samyang 35 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 a go as well. I got a GM prime set of 14, 24, 50 and 135, but I don't plan to go professional anyway. For that, I will get rid of them. If I do, it will only be through abstracts or wildlife, if that opportunity ever comes. People and portraits isn't for me, but I know that's where the demand is. Until then, I will study chemistry. The Samyangs will do for my nieces, while the birds, mammals and insects are much more demanding models.
.