p.3 #1 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
Sony would never make a 24mm f3.5 lens with close focus. Just doesn't fit their style. Among other examples. This is what Sigma offers outside of competitive Art lens to GM which usually run a bit less money. They have a niche and they exploit it well.
p.3 #2 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
I've had the 45mm 2.8 for just about two years. I never regret taking it out but I haven't picked up anymore Sigma lenses. For the AF and a bit more sharpness at wider apertures, I ended up with the 40 and 50 2.5. Along with the 28-60 and 85mm 1.8 FE- that makes up my Sony kit.
TBH, I slightly regret the 85mm 1.8. It's not a bad lens but the Sigma 90mm 2.8 would probably have fit my needs/style better. I really don't like large lenses and given some good deals I saw around the holidays, could see me just picking up the Sigma 90mm 2.8 this year.
On another note, I picked up the Tamron 24mm 2.8 again. Really, the Tamron triplet of primes are excellent if not a hair short of superb. The 1:2 is a bonus and even taking into account the AF sluggishness probably the best deals in E mount. I almost bought the Sigma 24mm 3.5 but the Tamron is so cheap and good. However, if I cave for the Sigma 90mm 2.8 I'll probably end up with the Sigma 24mm 3.5. I'd prefer a set of 3 for consistency in rendering.
p.3 #3 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
Thinking about the 60-600 v the Sony 200-600. Have had the Sony for a year, don't love it. I used to buy Sigma glass before I could buy Canon, only issues I had were minor things like the coating peeling off the lens. I don't think anyone beats Canon glass, but that ship has sailed as I shipped 4 boxes of camera and glass to MPB last week and ordered a new A7RV.
p.3 #5 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
Hello
I have two
45-2.8 and 65-2
I have played around with a few zooms but always roll back along to my trusty 24-105g.
The draw for me is the beautiful rendering of these lenses. Yes, they are not the sharpest wide open but they have a wonderful look that I personally enjoy.
I have bought the 45-2.8 twice both off of craigslist and both times the sellers were seemingly apologetic , as if they were selling me a pile of crap and felt guilty. It makes me laugh inside because both times the lenses were in amazing shape, hardly used. It is almost as if a person buys these lenses thinking they are going to be the next coming and quickly adjust to dissonance after reading a few bad reviews, quietly reselling before ever giving the lens a chance to shine. I think a used 45-2.8 is a great deal and can be a one lens solution for some.
I have taken the 45-2.8 and the 65-2 on road trips as the only lens and been more than happy with the photos. There is softness in some scenes but I like my pictures to have character first , feeling next, and then everything else. In this capacity the Sigmas deliver for me.
Yes, the focus is sometimes off on auto but I tend to gravitate more comfortably towards manual and I find the experience on par with legacy manual choices .
p.3 #6 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
Chiming in here on an older thread. I recently rebought the 45mm 2.8 as well. I also have the 40 and 50mm 2.5 G's for compact lenses.
I rebought it because after using the 40 and 50 (Which I do like) they do not have anywhere near the same quality OOF rendition. And I missed the haptics.
Plan on replacing my Tamron 24mm 2.8 next with the 24mm 3.5 Sigma.
p.3 #8 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
I don't have many Sigma lenses like a lot of you.
I've owned only two, a 30mm F2.8 and an 18-35mm. I didn't want to like the 18-35mm prefering small, fast primes. It's kind of turned into a cliche how many people making moving images like the 18-35mm.
But anyway, the reasons I don't like it are it's huge. With a focal reducer it's about 1kg. Also, it's a zoom. The main reason for using a zoom is not having time to change lenses when I'm working. So, even in not liking zooms it's very practical. Also, it is incredibly sharp wide open at f1.2 at both ends of the zoom
Also, the wierd manual aspect to the AF lens part works fine. Never used in AF, I'm dragging the lens from focus point to focus point. Dragging, because there is no dampening. But the actual distance the rotating part is sufficient that even at 1.2 there is no problem finding focus. Many modern lenses don't have sufficient length in their focussing helicoids. It's a lot like my old Voigtlanders in this regard. Even tho' it's a zoom and has had a very hard life it is definitely the sharpest lens I've ever owned. It's a very workmanlike lens.
I've watched a short documentary on Sigma and really feel like they are the lens company par excellence. Also, their short film that was made was absolutely the coolest thing I've seen a company do in celebration of their products. Even in the BTS film the filmmakers were relatively circumspect about the Sigma FP. Not effusive at all. Very cool Sigma. I will own one of those cameras one day.
p.3 #12 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
My first step into Sigma is the remarkable 14-24mm f/2.8 and I've been lusting the 'Bokeh Master' 105mm f/1.4 for some time and will likely pick one up on the used market. I have a stable of remarkable Voigtlander's and not really interested in other Sigma's (though I'd be happy with several of them).
p.3 #13 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
When I bought the a7rv with its reputedly fantastic autofocus system I figured it was time to get some autofocus lenses. I bought the 24/3.5, 45/2.8, and 105/2.8 dg dn in quick succession. I ended up with a very nice compact autofocus system at reasonable cost.
p.3 #14 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
I have the 45, 65, and 90 which I enjoy--I use the 90 more than the others because it's a great small lens when I need something a bit longer than the standard zooms). I also have the 28-70/2.8 which is a nice compact zoom for when I want the extra stop of light (but most of the time I use my 20-70/4). I hope to pick up the new 500/5.6 soon!
p.3 #17 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
It's tempting for the price and IQ, but so far I only have the Sigma 85/1.4 and while I love the IQ I'm less impressed with its AF accuracy, especially in low light. I suspect it's a YMMV thing, but on my A1 It definitely makes me think twice about getting another Sigma lens if I know it'll be for a situation that requires fast and accurate AF. Sigma lenses are also limited to 15fps on the A1, which for an 85mm portrait lens is not an issue but for some other focal lengths it might be.
35/2 and 65/2 are quite reasonably sized. A 35/1.4 Nikon Ai lens is used for comparison. I use aftermarket hoods because I don't like the stock hoods that much. Too heavy, bulky and awkward to use.
I also have 24/1.4, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4. Considering replacing Panasonic 50/1.4 with the Sigma 50/1.2 but I'd like to get more feedback from other people about how the new Sigma lens works in practice.
p.3 #19 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
I have the 45/2,8 and 24/2 currently. I enjoy using both , the 45 is pretty special, I'm thinking I might replace it with the 28-70/2,8 zoom due to seemingly similar optical characteristics and added flexibility for when I'm on the move in the cold and it's impractical to change lenses. Sigma currently have a spring cashback going on herearound but the zoom while affected is more expensive than it was early march during a discount. I'll perhaps take it as an omen that I don't need another lens if it remains at its all time high price while the cashback period runs : )
p.3 #20 · Anyone else ending up with a lot of Sigma lenses?
In general I think f/2 lenses to be the most well balanced lenses with regards to speed, weight and price.
I never managed to get a copy of the DG DN 35/2. I tried three copies and all three had a bad midzone dip to the right side.
The DG DN 50/2 is a nice lens and I use it more than I use the Sony FE 50/1.4 GM which is truly great but also big and heavy (and I should probably sell it). The Sigma is sharp enough, the bokeh is good enough, the AF works well enough and so on.
Like Ihmemies2 above i don't use the original hood as it's a bad example of design taking precendence over function. It's easy to replace with a standard screw-in hood though.
