Choderboy wrote:
Sigma:
300-800 was released 2003.
150 Macro 2004
Just those two show they have been making 'top tier' lenses for over 20 years.
While Canon made some great lenses before then and after, they also made some ordinary stuff too.
One or two good lenses maybe. What I said was "most of Sigma's lenses were not great."
I don't even think the 150 Macro was that good, Auto-focus was considerably worse than the Canon 100 Macro. Image quality certainly cant compete with 2026 optics, the 100GM is sharp edge to edge wide open with 1.4x magnification. The 150 macro needs to be stopped down to f/8 to improve sharpness edge to edge.
Sigma's 40 art and 105 art are the ones that still hold their own. Not the 150 macro.
Butterfingers wrote:
The Sigma 35mm f/1.2 V1, or as affectionately known as the Bigma. When I look at the photo comparisons between V1 and V2 I still prefer V1.
I've gone ahead and ordered the 35mm F/1.4 dg II, my local camera store says that I should expect it April or earlier.
Just curious, why do you prefer the Sigma 35/1.2 V1 over the V2? BTW, out of the two which has a smoother bokeh?
aCuria wrote:
I disagree, "over 10 years ago" (aka <=2015) most of Sigma's lenses were not great. In fact, Sony's lens options were not great either.
In fact I was still using 100% adapted lenses in 2018 / 2019 because to me there were zero lenses good enough to beat my L glass.
Sigma's "good" lenses were the 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM and 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, both announced 2018. They are optically good but also way too heavy.
This feels about right - until the release of the first Art lens, the 35/1.4 in late 2012, I generally thought Sigma was a maker of good, low-cost consumer zooms and very solid bang for the buck Macros. But I wouldn't have considered their primes as alternatives to first party glass, especially something like Canon L.
It was the 35A that changed my opinion, and I bought it for my Nikon system. After that Sigma went on a run that continues to this day, and we're all the richer for it...or, in my case, poorer...
Yeah my first foray with Sigma wasn't a good one. If I remember correctly 70-200/2.8 on a KM Maxxum mount. In any case the AF was poor. Fast forward to the 35/1.4 ART (2019 version I think) that I used with the A6600 and now A6700. AF is super fast on that one and now I use it with my A7V. I gave Sigma more money with the 17-40/1.8 Art and more recently with the 28-105/2.8 Art. I'm looking at a new Sigma 40/1.4 Art---the price is very reasonable! Not worried about the heft as I even shoot with a vertical grip with my A7V. I'm tempted but the 40mm is pretty close to 35 so I might just stay the course.
jojib wrote:
Yeah my first foray with Sigma wasn't a good one. If I remember correctly 70-200/2.8 on a KM Maxxum mount. In any case the AF was poor. Fast forward to the 35/1.4 ART (2019 version I think) that I used with the A6600 and now A6700. AF is super fast on that one and now I use it with my A7V. I gave Sigma more money with the 17-40/1.8 Art and more recently with the 28-105/2.8 Art. I'm looking at a new Sigma 40/1.4 Art---the price is very reasonable! Not worried about the heft as I even shoot with a vertical grip with my A7V. I'm tempted but the 40mm is pretty close to 35 so I might just stay the course. ...Show more →
Sounds like the 35mm you used was the first 35mm Sigma released for Sony, which was basically the DSLR lens with an E mount adapter added. Sigma did the same thing with the 40mm f1.4 art too. I have both lenses in Nikon F mount. As good as the 35mm lens is, the 40mm lens is better in every way except for size and weight. The 35mm was one of the first art lenses for DSLRs and the 40mm was one of the last art lenses for DSLRs.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Sounds like the 35mm you used was the first 35mm Sigma released for Sony, which was basically the DSLR lens with an E mount adapter added. Sigma did the same thing with the 40mm f1.4 art too. I have both lenses in Nikon F mount. As good as the 35mm lens is, the 40mm lens is better in every way except for size and weight. The 35mm was one of the first art lenses for DSLRs and the 40mm was one of the last art lenses for DSLRs.
Thanks for your comments. Yes indeed my 35 is basically a DSLR lens as it is long and bulky. And about the Sigma 40/1.4, that is what I heard too from a guy on dpreview---he's a big fan of it. Do you think Sigma will upgrade it? In any case it won't be as cheap as the current 40.
jojib wrote:
Thanks for your comments. Yes indeed my 35 is basically a DSLR lens as it is long and bulky. And about the Sigma 40/1.4, that is what I heard too from a guy on dpreview---he's a big fan of it. Do you think Sigma will upgrade it? In any case it won't be as cheap as the current 40.
I really hope Sigma makes updated versions of the 28mm f1.4 and 40mm f1.4 lenses. There are both excellent lenses and two of my favorite focal lengths. I am a bit concerned that Sigma has started putting out version 2 of some of their mirrorless lenses and has yet to make a version 1 of the 28mm or 40mm primes for mirrorless. Makes me think we will have a long wait, even if they're in the long term pipeline.
If you don't need f1.4, the 28-45mm f1.8 zoom does have close to prime levels of IQ. So that may be a viable option in the meantime for some people.
jojib wrote:
Thanks for your comments. Yes indeed my 35 is basically a DSLR lens as it is long and bulky. And about the Sigma 40/1.4, that is what I heard too from a guy on dpreview---he's a big fan of it. Do you think Sigma will upgrade it? In any case it won't be as cheap as the current 40.
Just so people know Sigma never made a 35 f/1.2 for DSLRs. Even the first version of the 35 f/1.2 was made for mirrorless cameras and was only in Sony E mount and L mount (Sigma is part of the L mount alliance). It is a big lens (as big as some of the biggest 35mm DSLR lenses) but it is a mirrorless only lens. In contrast, the 40 f/1.4 was made for both Canon EF mount and Nikon F mount DSLRs (as well as Sigma's DSLR mount) and then was offered for mirrorless cameras in Sony E mount and L mount versions by basically building in an adapter.
jojib wrote:
I can wait. Sigma might do a 40/1.2 ART so I’m looking forward to that.
I hope they make more f1.2 lenses, too. According to PetaPixle though:
"Sigma notes that with the addition of the 85mm f/1.2 DG Art to its lineup of f/1.2 primes, the series “is now complete,” suggesting the company doesn’t plan to release more f/1.2 full-frame primes."
Available for sale April 16. I wish Sigma had a bit less of a gap between announcement and shipment. Perhaps not a fair comp, but Sony usually ships 2-4 weeks after annoucement, Sigma seems to be 7-8 weeks, at least.
patotts wrote:
Available for sale April 16. I wish Sigma had a bit less of a gap between announcement and shipment. Perhaps not a fair comp, but Sony usually ships 2-4 weeks after annoucement, Sigma seems to be 7-8 weeks, at least.
I'd rather know sooner than later what is definitely coming. If Sony and Sigma are coming out with new lenses on April 16, do you really want to find out on March 31 for Sony vs. February 24 for Sigma?
aCuria wrote:
I disagree, "over 10 years ago" (aka <=2015) most of Sigma's lenses were not great. In fact, Sony's lens options were not great either.
In fact I was still using 100% adapted lenses in 2018 / 2019 because to me there were zero lenses good enough to beat my L glass.
Sigma's "good" lenses were the 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM and 105mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art, both announced 2018. They are optically good but also way too heavy.
The 40 has been my favourite lens alongside with my 135mm which was absolutely fabulous.
The 50mm art was the first really good lens I had, when I was still using canon dslr.
But clearly sigma before their art lenses was not known to be famous! I remember when the 50mm art was released, I think it was considered in some way as the first third party lens that could compete with professionnal lenses such as L lenses.
In the end it's quite incredible how optical design improved these last 10 years.
Anyway, I did not like the v1 35mm, too heavy, and not incredible look. I might give this one a try! If they did the same thing with an 50 mm v2 1.4, I'd buy it right now!
Art line not famous before the 50 1.4? Of course not, it followed the very first Art lens, the 35 1.4 released 2012.
I mentioned the 300-800 zoom earlier in this thread. Released 2002. 10 years before the Art line. It most definitely competed with first party L lenses and top lenses from other manufacturers.
I understand that plenty of photographers have little interest in long focal lengths. I think many of those would still ask what that bazooka was if they saw one. More so the Sigma 200-500 2.8, but rare to see one of those.
I'd say one photographer made the 300-800 famous by himself, Romy Ocon, AKA Liquidstone.
hesb wrote:
The 40 has been my favourite lens alongside with my 135mm which was absolutely fabulous.
The 50mm art was the first really good lens I had, when I was still using canon dslr.
But clearly sigma before their art lenses was not known to be famous! I remember when the 50mm art was released, I think it was considered in some way as the first third party lens that could compete with professionnal lenses such as L lenses.
In the end it's quite incredible how optical design improved these last 10 years.
Anyway, I did not like the v1 35mm, too heavy, and not incredible look. I might give this one a try! If they did the same thing with an 50 mm v2 1.4, I'd buy it right now! ...Show more →
I did not remember which was the first art, the 50 or the 35, and as a mostly 50mil shooter, I remember my excitement when it was released. I said that sigma lenses were not famous Before the art line, but you're right: I don't know much about long focal lenses. But I remember the same niche in other manufacturers like tokina or tamron whose lenses were not considered better than the sigma lenses except for the macro lenses.
