Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 4

6 end

The f/1.2 "Look"

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · The f/1.2 "Look"

chiron wrote:
I am unlikely ever to own the Sigma 35/1.2 because of its size and reported weak autofocus, which I know would annoy me enormously (though I'm not sure to what extent the AF issues are better or nonexistent with some camera bodies). But I do think that the Sigma 35/1.2 lens, even with apertures smaller than f1.2, has unique rendering characteristics that are quite beautiful.

Can't speak for how it performs on other bodies, but I've predominantly used it on the A9 mk1, and it's been rock solid for me in the AF department. It's actually one of the things I was so pleasantly surprised by right out of the gate. I would imagine that it could be even better with some of the more modern high-end bodies.

Quickest sample I could find on my Flickr.

Sigma 35/1.2 Art E Mount by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Aug 31, 2024 at 01:31 PM

ramesesthe2nd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · The f/1.2 "Look"

What's the issue with 35/1.2 AF? Is the issue on specific cameras? I had absolutely no issues with it, but I used it with Sony A9, one of the best AF cameras.

I have been thinking about buying it again and selling my 35 GM, but I have switched to A7RIV from A9. Sigma AF is the reason I sold all my Sigma lenses, but I thought 35/1.2 was an exception. Sigma AF works most of the time, but it never works consistently like G/GM lenses.

chiron wrote:
---------------------------------------------

Certainly j4nu is perceptive and right on the issue of the degree to which there are out-of-focus areas in these three pictures and whether the 1.4 GM would show any differently in terms of what is out-of focus.

However, I also think that the two lenses would still portray the scenes with subtle but important differences apart from the issue of what is out-of-focus.

There have been many comparisons on the Forum of the same or similar focal length lenses shot at the same apertures and yielding different renderings of the scene. This doesn't surprise us since every lens has a unique...Show more →

Aug 31, 2024 at 07:15 PM

StoneCrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · The f/1.2 "Look"

One thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned here is what happens when you crop the images. Many people on this forum like to use primes and high resolution bodies and crop top get their preferred framing instead of using zooms. Using a 35/1.4 with crop can get you a field of view and depth of field equivalent to a 50/2. Cropping the 35/1.2 gets you a 50/1.7 or a 60/2 (but still with a 1.2 light transmission). Maybe not big differences but they are still meaningful. Plenty of people would take 20% more range in their zoom lens, particularly if it also have them an aputure advantage in the other part of the range.
There's also going to be certain factors to the image quality determined by the size of the entrance pupil. Subtle for sure, but most people who have aesthetic opinions can't always place their finger on what specifically makes a piece enjoyable to them - but those subtle details are often what the artists focus on. So even if it doesn't necessarily change the aputure, the large front element and entrance pupil will make a difference on the outcome.

Sep 01, 2024 at 03:32 AM

j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · The f/1.2 "Look"

ramesesthe2nd wrote:
What's the issue with 35/1.2 AF? Is the issue on specific cameras? I had absolutely no issues with it, but I used it with Sony A9, one of the best AF cameras.

I have been thinking about buying it again and selling my 35 GM, but I have switched to A7RIV from A9. Sigma AF is the reason I sold all my Sigma lenses, but I thought 35/1.2 was an exception. Sigma AF works most of the time, but it never works consistently like G/GM lenses.

Yes, 35/1.2DN AF is very good, as it was one of the last Sigma e-mount lenses still with HSM motors before Sigma switched to steppers...

Sep 01, 2024 at 04:24 AM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · The f/1.2 "Look"

StoneCrop wrote:
One thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned here is what happens when you crop the images. Many people on this forum like to use primes and high resolution bodies and crop top get their preferred framing instead of using zooms. Using a 35/1.4 with crop can get you a field of view and depth of field equivalent to a 50/2. Cropping the 35/1.2 gets you a 50/1.7 or a 60/2 (but still with a 1.2 light transmission). Maybe not big differences but they are still meaningful. Plenty of people would take 20% more range in their zoom lens, particularly...Show more →
I get the logic, but shooting and framing is one and the same thing for me. Framing while shooting is part of the fun.

StoneCrop wrote:
There's also going to be certain factors to the image quality determined by the size of the entrance pupil. Subtle for sure, but most people who have aesthetic opinions can't always place their finger on what specifically makes a piece enjoyable to them - but those subtle details are often what the artists focus on. So even if it doesn't necessarily change the aputure, the large front element and entrance pupil will make a difference on the outcome.

I think there's truth in here. I've seen some pics from the 85mm f/1.4 GM mkII, and I think I will stick with the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art, despite the weight and the less flexible focal length. The Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.0 is a zoom, but it's rendering is prime like.

Sep 01, 2024 at 06:11 AM

Donzo98
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · The f/1.2 "Look"

steamtrain wrote:
I get the logic, but shooting and framing is one and the same thing for me. Framing while shooting is part of the fun.

I think there's truth in here. I've seen some pics from the 85mm f/1.4 GM mkII, and I think I will stick with the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 Art, despite the weight and the less flexible focal length. The Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.0 is a zoom, but it's rendering is prime like.

I just picked up the Sigma 105 F1.4 Art... WOW!! The wow is both for the weight, and image quality.

Sep 01, 2024 at 12:17 PM

steamtrain
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Donzo98 wrote:
I just picked up the Sigma 105 F1.4 Art... WOW!! The wow is both for the weight, and image quality.

f/1.8 or f/2.0, that's where the magic happens imo. Such a lovely rendering. It's designed to picture brides, but you can shoot soccer with it as well. 4 times faster shutter speeds than a 70-200mm, not bad for freezing action. :-)

Sep 01, 2024 at 03:18 PM

Donzo98
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · The f/1.2 "Look"

steamtrain wrote:
f/1.8 or f/2.0, that's where the magic happens imo. Such a lovely rendering. It's designed to picture brides, but you can shoot soccer with it as well. 4 times faster shutter speeds than a 70-200mm, not bad for freezing action. :-)

I'm gonna say there's magic at 1.4 too...

Sep 01, 2024 at 06:08 PM

StoneCrop
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Yeah I just got a sigma 105 1.4 too. I was actually pleasantly surprised by it's weight and size. Yes big but reviews made it out to seem bigger still.
Excited to do some Brenizer type panos with it and see if I can create some aspects of the large format look. A lot easier to use indoors (both for framing and for light gathering) than a 200 2.8, and I don't currently have a 135/1.8, but this can replace that one as well.

Sep 02, 2024 at 03:36 AM

zeitlos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I have the Sony 50mm 1.2 and love it. Anyone who also has a 50mm 1.2 and has also bought the Sigma 50mm 1.2? I’m wondering, if this lens make sense or whether this is too close to the 50mm 1.2 in terms of focal length. Any experiences? If I buy a 35mm 1.2, the 1.2 version it the only one I would consider. I already have a 40mm 2.0 Batis which is quite universal. I consider the 35mm 1.2 a kind of “specialist” due to the aperture of 1.2 and its weight. I would only use it if I want to shoot around 1.2.

Sep 02, 2024 at 08:03 AM

j4nu
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · The f/1.2 "Look"

zeitlos wrote:
I have the Sony 50mm 1.2 and love it. Anyone who also has a 50mm 1.2 and has also bought the Sigma 50mm 1.2? I’m wondering, if this lens make sense or whether this is too close to the 50mm 1.2 in terms of focal length. Any experiences? If I buy a 35mm 1.2, the 1.2 version it the only one I would consider. I already have a 40mm 2.0 Batis which is quite universal. I consider the 35mm 1.2 a kind of “specialist” due to the aperture of 1.2 and its weight. I would only use it if I...Show more →

Do you mean 50/1.2GM and 35/1.2DN? If so, I use both - but I just find the difference between 35 and 50 mm enough to warrant it. 50/1.2GM is a lot smaller and lighter, but I like that 35mm perspective too much to get rid of it

...

Sep 02, 2024 at 08:40 AM

zeitlos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Yeah sure

I meant the 35 1.2

Sorry, too many 50mm lenses in my head

Sep 02, 2024 at 09:08 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · The f/1.2 "Look"

StoneCrop wrote:
Yeah I just got a sigma 105 1.4 too. I was actually pleasantly surprised by it's weight and size. Yes big but reviews made it out to seem bigger still.
Excited to do some Brenizer type panos with it and see if I can create some aspects of the large format look. A lot easier to use indoors (both for framing and for light gathering) than a 200 2.8, and I don't currently have a 135/1.8, but this can replace that one as well.

This one is from a while back, but it's the first Sigma 105 pano sample I could find easily on my Flickr. Agreed, the weight and size isn't an issue for me. I just don't personally shoot at 105 that often. lol. That being said, it is an amazing piece of glass.

With regard to the 135/1.8, having the Sigma 105 is what prevented me from keeping it. The Sigma is actually the reason I dumped both the 135 and the Canon 85/1.2.

Sigma 105 Pano by John Dizzo, on Flickr

Sep 02, 2024 at 06:43 PM

hiepphotog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I would not use the GM 50 1.2 as much as I did if it is not for the blazing fast AF speed. I had shots that were not completely smooth, but it did not matter when I was able to capture the moments. All of these were shot at f/1.2. So in the end, 1.2 or 1.4 might not matter much when you can get the shots you want. I personally love these "boring" new lenses with smooth bokeh and sharp enough WO so that I can mold its photos to however I want.

Sep 03, 2024 at 04:01 AM

Grenache
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Many f/1.2 lenses, especially from older eras, had different design goals…not just a hair wider aperture. Most had significant curvature, making them pleasing for portraits but often less useful for landscape, than an f/1.4 (or f/2…) lens, better corrected across the frame.

Sep 03, 2024 at 10:55 AM

JohnDizzo15
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Just looking over the numbers from the poll, the results are pretty interesting, as I initially imagined there would be more people voting for the third option. As it stands, it seems like half of all voters believe there's a real difference, a quarter believe there is an insignificant difference (albeit still there), and the last quarter believing there is zero difference.

What I would be interested to know from the group that voted for the second and third option is, have you primarily based that opinion/vote on personal use of 1.2 lenses versus 1.4 variants, or is it an opinion formulated from reading and looking at images from other shooters? If based on use, which lenses did you all use?

Sep 03, 2024 at 08:40 PM

macadphotos
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · The f/1.2 "Look"

I would need side-by-side comparisons to tell the difference probably. More often than not, the difference might be due to bokeh characteristic rather than the wider aperture.

As for when f1.2 would matter most compared to f1.4 or even f1.8, it is probably at distances where the subject is barely separated from the background, so a boost in aperture size would improve that separation. Since I use the 35mm and 50mm (f1.8 and f1.4) frequently, my experience is that portraits of 3/4, full body length and 2x length (i.e. 2 full body length needed to fill the frame) tend to benefit most from that wider aperture. These are typically environmental portraits.

At distances where the background is already sufficiently blurred anyway, f1.2 wouldn't do much to the background. This is true typically for half body or head shots, so f1.2 doesn't really do much unless the background has elements really close to the plane of the face, or if the portrait style is one that focuses on an element of the face while blurring other parts away.

At distances where the background is highly detailed, f1.2 might reduce the background detail slightly when zoomed in at 100%, but doesn't meaningfully impact the photo otherwise. In fact, I think f1.2 is detrimental for such photos except under low light conditions.

Overall, I think f1.2 has its uses, but where it excels is actually different from most common expectations of obliterating the background in portrait photos.

Sep 04, 2024 at 09:22 PM

SloanSimpson
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · The f/1.2 "Look"

Yes, f/1.2 images have a distinct "look". No doubt.

Sep 05, 2024 at 06:29 AM

jowul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · The f/1.2 "Look"

A6600 + Viltox 75/1.2 at f1.2

I also believe they have a certain look.

DSC08980_ji by Joachim Wulfers, on Flickr

Sep 05, 2024 at 09:19 PM

Charlie N
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · The f/1.2 "Look"

between 1.2 and 1.4, both being high end lenses, and that's the key here, the difference is small to negligible IMO. f2 and slower to f1.2, there is quite an impact, and even then, cant say I really care. Clear imagery is good enough for me, give me a nicely lit f4 over a faster lens, don't feel like torturing myself over photos/videos....... heck, give me good subjects to work with is really #1....

Sep 05, 2024 at 10:07 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end

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