From my perspective, 65mm is an ideal fast aperture focal length. But I want bokeh to be amazing, even if it means sacrificing some edge and corner resolution. I also would sacrifice performance for keeping the size manageable.
65mm is not a focal length I ever considered. Sigma is unlikely to sacrifice performance in such a halo lens. So expect it to be big. Math says it could theoretically be ~2/3 the size of the 135 f/1.4. Perhaps one kilo (without the hood).
jeffbuzz wrote:
65mm is not a focal length I ever considered. Sigma is unlikely to sacrifice performance in such a halo lens. So expect it to be big. Math says it could theoretically be ~2/3 the size of the 135 f/1.4. Perhaps one kilo (without the hood).
Theoretically, it could be about ½ the length and same width as a 135/2. To me, that would be reasonable for an f1 lens. One of my favorite street focals back in the day, was the 50/1.4 Lux on the Leica M8, whose sensor had a 1.3x crop…
I'd buy it, as long as it was as sharp as their 50 1.2 and 85 1.4. I shot 85mm last year for senior portraits and 50mm this year. Never thought I'd like 50mm so much, so a middle ground might be fantastic for me.
Sigmas, especially the ART's are known to run heavy. My hope is they re-think this for the upcoming fast glass. Sony has made big strides in size and weight while maintaining/improving performance as has Tamron, which may be sister philosophies now that the companies are becoming coupled.
The Sigma 135/1.8 weighs 1200gm and is 141mm long, 91mm wide. HUGE. I expect width to be close to this, perhaps a few mm narrower, and length roughly half, hopefully a little less. But I'd hope weight could be trimmed to 450gm or less and not half at 600... If it's 600gm, that's a lot for a prime and I might pass. If it's closer to 450, I'll probably be in. Well, I'd be in assuming I can afford it! We will see.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Sigmas, especially the ART's are known to run heavy. My hope is they re-think this for the upcoming fast glass. Sony has made big strides in size and weight while maintaining/improving performance as has Tamron, which may be sister philosophies now that the companies are becoming coupled.
The Sigma 135/1.8 weighs 1200gm and is 141mm long, 91mm wide. HUGE. I expect width to be close to this, perhaps a few mm narrower, and length roughly half, hopefully a little less. But I'd hope weight could be trimmed to 450gm or less and not half at 600... If it's 600gm, that's a lot for a prime and I might pass. If it's closer to 450, I'll probably be in. Well, I'd be in assuming I can afford it! We will see. ...Show more →
The 135mm f1.8 is an old DSLR design, the native mirrorless version is a 135mm f1.4 and it’s huge & heavy because of the f1.4 aperture.
If this lens turns out to be real Sigma will likely reuse some of the optical design elements of the 85mm f1.2. Similar approach to what they did with the 200mm f2 and 135mm f1.4. There are images of prototypes of the 85mm f1.2 to give you an idea of the size. Maybe the 65mm f1 (or f0.95?) would be a little shorter, but similar width.
65/1 would be rather pointless for me. The classic 85mm is more to my taste and f/1.2 is fast enough at that focal length.
What is the rationale for the oddball focal length, just the longest they can do at f/1?
