RoamingScott wrote:
I've never understood the 135GM drum beaters. It's has horribly clinical rendering for the types of subjects this length is historically used for.
The 135 GM is wonderful for indoor sports photography, IMO. I have used it with very nice results for that purpose, but I have the Sony/Zeiss 135 f/1.8 ZA for its rendering when I want to shoot portraits. Horses for courses in my view. Just like this 28-70 f/2. It ought to be a wonderful lens if you had to shoot events in pretty low light. I think Sony generally has a clear purpose for most of the lenses they produce and they generally perform well in that role.
wind30 wrote:
Everything is subjective… some people might like a soft photo, or loca, etc. As photographers, unless u are shooting just for yourself, we try to appeal to the masses. Most people don’t like onion rings, most people prefer a softer edge to their bokeh balls. How hard the edge of a bokeh ball at full body portrait distance is easily quantifiable and much more noticeable than say slight decentering of the lens at corners.
The dc lens rendering is very nice and there are modern lens that render closer to that and other lens that have very sharp edges in the bokeh.
I think the internet focus on stuff like sharpness makes Sony overly optimize the lens in that direction…. The best example is the 85mm Gm 1 vs 2…. Sony needs to course correct or they will lose out in the future. ...Show more →
I think the 85mm GM version 2 is brilliant. I like the sharpness and don't mind the slight difference in background blur. I love the smaller size. So I don't see Sony losing out in any way. But this is subjective, as you noted.
NJPhotographer wrote:
I think the 85mm GM version 2 is brilliant. I like the sharpness and don't mind the slight difference in background blur. I love the smaller size. So I don't see Sony losing out in any way. But this is subjective, as you noted.
There is probably a smaller difference in sharpness between the sigma dg dn and sony gm ii... vs the rendering of gm 1 and gm 2.
Honestly, sharpness is overrated. Sigma has nailed sharpness down at half the cost...
j4nu wrote:
Or it means rendering is overrated ...
It means things like sharpness is overrated… because without bokeh, no one can tell the difference between lens… all modern lens above a certain price are decently sharp…
Actually, we are talking about very small differences… it is just how small. I think rendering is the”biggest” difference among all the small differences
wind30 wrote:
It means things like sharpness is overrated… because without bokeh, no one can tell the difference between lens… all modern lens above a certain price are decently sharp…
Actually, we are talking about very small differences… it is just how small. I think rendering is the”biggest” difference among all the small differences
Yes, I was half-joking .
That recent "rendering" thread got me thinking how much it actually matters in the end for most shots.
Though to myself, if I compare 35/1.4GM with 35/1.2DN in difficult conditions, the difference is quite stark...
j4nu wrote:
Yes, I was half-joking .
That recent "rendering" thread got me thinking how much it actually matters in the end for most shots.
Though to myself, if I compare 35/1.4GM with 35/1.2DN in difficult conditions, the difference is quite stark...
Could you elaborate on the diff between the 35GM and Siggy? I have been thinking about adding the Siggy to my collection.
Donzo98 wrote:
Could you elaborate on the diff between the 35GM and Siggy? I have been thinking about adding the Siggy to my collection.
In short:
1) the GM is super flat field compared to the Sigma, so you get more depth/3d impression from the latter
2) if you shoot in tough conditions, e.g. back-lit foliage in the background, the Sigma produces smoother (less outlining) bokeh balls. In general, the Sigma is less contrasty in my eyes (like it has that super thin smooth veil over the frame when you compare it 1-to-1 with the GM).
3) I don't have to mention that small but extra blur coming from 1.2 v 1.4 I guess .
The bokeh at 70mm is, obviously, not as creamy as you'd get from an 85/1.4 or even 1.8 lens but it's for sure superior to any normal zoom. The transitions look reasonably decent to me.
For event shooters, the narrower 28mm wide end might be a bit limiting, especially for wide group shots or indoor events where a 24mm would be preferable. However, if the size and weight are significantly reduced compared to the Canon 24-70mm f/2, it could still appeal to those prioritizing portability and fast aperture for shallow depth of field. Ultimately, it would come down to personal preference and shooting style, but for many event photographers, the 24mm wide end is often more useful than a 28mm.
Just received this lens on Saturday. Feels quite light for its size.
Bought to use it for indoor dance photography but also going to use it for fun. Going to be taking some test photos at a christmas market soon.
Kevin8 wrote:
Just received this lens on Saturday. Feels quite light for its size.
Bought to use it for indoor dance photography but also going to use it for fun. Going to be taking some test photos at a christmas market soon.
Congrats on the new lens!
Would love to see some images if you feel like sharing some
Kevin8 wrote:
Just received this lens on Saturday. Feels quite light for its size.
Bought to use it for indoor dance photography but also going to use it for fun. Going to be taking some test photos at a christmas market soon.
Would you be able to take some pictures of buildings or something similar in the distance with the diagonal corners parallel to the horizon wide open? As I’m curious how the resolution of this lens looks.
j4nu wrote:
Interesting, so the GM seems to be sharper at larger apertures, while the Sigma at smaller I guess...
Sort of, the GM only beats the Sigma at 45mm (not at 28mm) and only in the periphery and at wide apertures. The Sony is of course at an advantage in that at 45mm it is in the middle of its zoom range, whereas the Sigma is at the end of it s zoom range. Overall, it looks like the Sigma has a bit better sharpness, although both are excellent in that regard, and of course the Sigma has a bit wider aperture, whereas the Sony has the larger range of apertures.
I had both 35 1.2 and 35GM, I hesitated 2 mounths what to do. I love Sigma's rendering, however on blind test I could distinguish them 30% of time. I could only see 35GM sharpness advantage if I pixel peeped the images, and the Sigma's CA at wide open easily removeable in LR. So the deciding factor was the size, 35 1.2DN is just too big I want handle 80% of time. I had to get a small 35/40mm lens for travel and walk arounds in case of Sigma, 35GM can work as an all around prime.
As the 35 1.2DN I adore both 28-45 f1.8 and 28-70f2 for the rendering and optical performance. I'd pick 28-45 because the price, and for the resolution on 28-40 range. But again, size is the deal breaker for me. The 20 1.8G size is perfect, 35GM is good, 1.2GM is the edge of acceptable limit.
Of course it's just me, professionals spend a day with large tele zooms on camera and second body, without whining about size, 'oh it's over 700g, it's just too heavy to bear...'
...
