j4nu wrote:
I think the Viltrox is a bigger (and faster) GM rather than a smaller Sigma...
And I think you focused the lenses at different distances here...
I don't think I said anything bad about the Viltrox, I'm just noting what I see compared to my Sigma...
My Sigma is also definitely not well centered and I took the photos handholding the camera, so they are not identical, still at this distance I don't think it makes much difference for what I'm trying to show.
That's the same thing I saw when comparing to the GM, the GM's DoF progresses a lot more slowly than (at least my) Sigma's.
Well, if you try to show something maybe you should do a proper tripod based comparison and with a non moving object.
And check first how decentered the lenses are, as that may also have an influence on the results.
And turn off IBIS.
BastianK wrote:
Well, if you try to show something maybe you should do a proper tripod based comparison and with a non moving object.
And check first how decentered the lenses are, as that may also have an influence on the results.
And turn off IBIS.
And how does decentering affect bokeh in the center which I posted first?
j4nu wrote:
And how does decentering affect bokeh in the center which I posted first?
You have a better explanation why the top of the lamp is clearly in the focal plane in one picture but not in the other?
I don't, except for either something being wrong with one of the lenses or your testing methods.
I think the Viltrox is a bigger (and faster) GM rather than a smaller Sigma...
I’m a bit confused (not unusual ). It doesn’t look like anything is in-focus on the left hand image. Also, which lens was used for each of the images?
I am keenly interested as I have shot the Sigma f1.2 for years (since it was first released) and am now considering the Viltrox - partly for weight savings (hey, every gram helps).
I have been mostly convinced on acquiring the Viltrox due to Bastian’s review and excellent evaluation.
BastianK wrote:
You have a better explanation why the top of the lamp is clearly in the focal plane in one picture but not in the other?
I don't, except for either something being wrong with one of the lenses or your testing methods.
In the second comparison, which is a crop from the right side of the frame, Viltrox'es top of the lamp is in focus (more or less), while the Sigma's one is not. My only explanation is the difference in DoF between the lenses.
I'll redo the shot tomorrow with the camera upside down to check if it changes the focal plane with the lamp top in it:
*no off-axis comparison due to differences in my copies between the Sigma and the Viltrox.*
I see now it was a mistake on my part to post the off-axis comparison, as obviously I have not been diligent enough to measure my lenses' tilt and decentering beforehand and, subsequently, the transition zone of the Sigma does not fall in the same place as Viltrox'es one (which might be the case even if I had been diligent).
InFocus2014 wrote:
I’m a bit confused (not unusual ). It doesn’t look like anything is in-focus on the left hand image. Also, which lens was used for each of the images?
I am keenly interested as I have shot the Sigma f1.2 for years (since it was first released) and am now considering the Viltrox - partly for weight savings (hey, every gram helps).
I have been mostly convinced on acquiring the Viltrox due to Bastian’s review and excellent evaluation.
Yes, in the off-axis comparison nothing is in focus in the Sigma shot (left), as, for some mysterious reason, what is visible in the crop is too far from the focal plane.
I also bought the Viltrox to replace the Sigma, which size-wise is justifiable I think, but in my eyes Viltrox'es rendering is closer to the GM.
j4nu wrote:
Yes, in the off-axis comparison nothing is in focus in the Sigma shot (left), as, for some mysterious reason, what is visible in the crop is too far from the focal plane.
I also bought the Viltrox to replace the Sigma, which size-wise is justifiable I think, but in my eyes Viltrox'es rendering is closer to the GM.
Interesting.
One thing I have noticed when reviewers compare the bokeh between the Sigma 1.2 and GM 35mm lenses is that they often look more at the distant bokeh and miss the nice localized blurring effect in the immediate transition zone on the Sigma. "The Wedding Photographer" published two side-by-side photos from the Sigma and GM lenses claiming there was not much of a difference between them. To me, the differences were significant.
The Sigma also has some inherent center distortions (of which I actually like for portrait work) that accentuates this effect. I know that we are splitting hairs, here, but those small details can be important to a perfectionist such as myself.
InFocus2014 wrote:
The Sigma also has some inherent center distortions (of which I actually like for portrait work) that accentuates this effect. I know that we are splitting hairs, here, but those small details can be important to a perfectionist such as myself.
Agreed, regarding the distortion and falloff. I've tried to justify dumping the Sigma twice by trying first, the GM 35, and then the Canon RF 35. Both are so much nicer in the hand. However, both of them never cranked out images that made me feel okay about dumping the Sigma. I still have the RF 35 around for when I want to be smaller at 35, but it doesn't see much use since I still just prefer the Sigma on Sony.
With regard to distortion, it is definitely there on the Sigma. However, much like you said, this is actually one of the qualities I really love about it. Whatever is in the sauce for the Sigma, it consistently cranks out images I am very pleased with compared to any of the other modern fast 35mm options out there. As I've previously stated elsewhere, I leave the lens correction profiles off for all of my Sigma 35 images for this very reason.
In the second comparison, which is a crop from the right side of the frame, Viltrox'es top of the lamp is in focus (more or less), while the Sigma's one is not. My only explanation is the difference in DoF between the lenses.
I'll redo the shot tomorrow with the camera upside down to check if it changes the focal plane with the lamp top in it: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54475723720_55551a34be_o.jpg
I see now it was a mistake on my part to post the off-axis comparison, as obviously I have not been diligent enough to measure my lenses' tilt and decentering beforehand and, subsequently, the transition zone of the Sigma does not fall in the same place as Viltrox'es one (which might be the case even if I had been diligent).
My main point was though, that even in the center Sigma's bokeh is smoother.
q.e.d....Show more →
I suggest manual focusing for these comparisons. Too frequently (all the time on youtube) these type of comparisons result in autofocus causing small focal plane shifts that go unnoticed.
j4nu wrote:
Yes, in the off-axis comparison nothing is in focus in the Sigma shot (left), as, for some mysterious reason, what is visible in the crop is too far from the focal plane.
I also bought the Viltrox to replace the Sigma, which size-wise is justifiable I think, but in my eyes Viltrox'es rendering is closer to the GM.
thanks for the comparison. I am always looking for a better/lighter 35mm. The one that I really want is the nikon 35mm f1.2 but it is so expensive as it is newly launched. I took a few handheld A/B samples from the nikon shop vs. my sigma and I thought the nikon bokeh is really good.
Let us know when you used the viltrox more. The thing about Viltrox is all the reviews are cherry picked samples sent out by Viltrox. With such a low price, I suspect the sample to sample variation in the shops will be high.
Left is Sigma landscape orientation, middle is Vitrox landspace orientation, right is Sigma landscape orientation upsidedown (to check if ther's any tilt/decentering impact on bokeh in the center portion of the image) - M DaylightWB ISO100 1/5000s f/1.2.
I've removed previous comparisons, as this one is I hope less ambigous.
I won't comment on what I see so that everyone can make up their own mind .
I think Bastian and Goro were right that my copy of the Sigma might affect the results. Also, next time (if it ever happens) I'll try with a tripod (though I need to fix my head first as it developed sagging with longer and heavier lenses such as Sigma ) to get the framing to match closer.
Edi: To redeem myself I'll post a proper comparison with the GM one day, as it's one of a very few "perfectly" centered lenses I have.
wind30 wrote:
thanks for the comparison. I am always looking for a better/lighter 35mm. The one that I really want is the nikon 35mm f1.2 but it is so expensive as it is newly launched. I took a few handheld A/B samples from the nikon shop vs. my sigma and I thought the nikon bokeh is really good.
Let us know when you used the viltrox more. The thing about Viltrox is all the reviews are cherry picked samples sent out by Viltrox. With such a low price, I suspect the sample to sample variation in the shops will be high.
I took the Viltrox for a spin today, so I hope I have a few pictures that are worth posting.
My main impression after a nearly full day with it is that it really handles closer to 50/1.2GM than to 35/1.2 DN and that's a great thing (but that is of course also highly personal).
The other great thing is IQ, the sun was really bad today (cold winterish air again -> harsh midday sun) and the results are IMHO very good for such conditions.
I'll post something once I'm done with groceries ...
Also, 2 things I noticed on my copy of the lens and A1:
1) AF-S rarely works when zoomed in twice (8.5x) at large apertures (mostly wide open)
2) no CA and distortion correction embedded profiles (for jpegs/live view).
.
) to get the framing to match closer.
...