Sigma 65 f1.0
p.2 #1Sigma 65 f1.0
jojib wrote:
This might complete my portraiture grand slam of fast lenses albeit a mix of Sony-Canon systems (35/1.2, 50/1.2 and I also have an 85/1.2). I'm interested but it depends on the price. I expect it will be at least US $ 1800.
Actually, possibly the ideal complimentary focal to your 35/1.2?
This might complete my portraiture grand slam of fast lenses albeit a mix of Sony-Canon systems (35/1.2, 50/1.2 and I also have an 85/1.2). I'm interested but it depends on the price. I expect it will be at least US $ 1800.
Actually, possibly the ideal complimentary focal to your 35/1.2?
Aug 28, 2026 at 07:35 AM
p.2 #2Sigma 65 f1.0
Alpunto wrote:
At least it could be something different and interesting. I'm sick and tired of so many 85mm lenses.
But this f/1 aperture is gonna be very expensive. Much more than I would like to.
The price for "gloriousness"
BrianP wrote
65 is an odd length. I know it has been growing in popularity in recent years. I am not quite sure how/when I would use it. With this said, the f/1.0 may pull me into trying it.But this f/1 aperture is gonna be very expensive. Much more than I would like to.
The price for "gloriousness"
Aug 28, 2026 at 07:36 AM
p.2 #3Sigma 65 f1.0
Jack Flesher wrote:
Actually, possibly the ideal complimentary focal to your 35/1.2?
Hi Jack, yes it could. My only issue with this 65mm lens is it is more like a specialty lens to me. Sure it can take head shots but ideally I want to be at least at 85mm. Normally I use my 85mm, 28-105 on the long end and 135mm for head and shoulders shots. 65mm is a tad short thus I might as well get that 85/1.2 upcoming Viltrox for my Sony.
jojib wrote
This might complete my portraiture grand slam of fast lenses albeit a mix of Sony-Canon systems (35/1.2, 50/1.2 and I also have an 85/1.2). I'm interested but it depends on the price. I expect it will be at least US $ 1800.Hi Jack, yes it could. My only issue with this 65mm lens is it is more like a specialty lens to me. Sure it can take head shots but ideally I want to be at least at 85mm. Normally I use my 85mm, 28-105 on the long end and 135mm for head and shoulders shots. 65mm is a tad short thus I might as well get that 85/1.2 upcoming Viltrox for my Sony.
Aug 28, 2026 at 07:41 AM
p.2 #4Sigma 65 f1.0
Idk crap about lena design. What would a 28mm f1 look like? Would be fun lol how much lower than one can you go and still get sharp images?
Aug 28, 2026 at 09:20 AM
p.2 #5Sigma 65 f1.0
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
Idk crap about lena design. What would a 28mm f1 look like? Would be fun lol how much lower than one can you go and still get sharp images?
Hey Moses, 28mm is interesting! I simulated what it might look like wide open---hey if Sigma or Viltrox would make it I will be interested in a 28/1.0 :-)
Idk crap about lena design. What would a 28mm f1 look like? Would be fun lol how much lower than one can you go and still get sharp images?
Hey Moses, 28mm is interesting! I simulated what it might look like wide open---hey if Sigma or Viltrox would make it I will be interested in a 28/1.0 :-)
Aug 28, 2026 at 11:06 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #6Sigma 65 f1.0
Has anyone here who is lusting for this lens used an 85/1.2? Because that's the size you're gonna get if it's autofocus.
Aug 28, 2026 at 11:21 AM
p.2 #7Sigma 65 f1.0
a 65mm f1.0 would be hard to perfectly nail focus but kudos to Sigma for always trying to make something unique and interesting
Aug 28, 2026 at 12:59 PM
p.2 #8Sigma 65 f1.0
jojib wrote:
Hey Moses, 28mm is interesting! I simulated what it might look like wide open---hey if Sigma or Viltrox would make it I will be interested in a 28/1.0 :-)
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/30/64330/1/176526413.a5oXSAvR.7DSC08177_ExHiRes1acopy.jpg
Do you post a picture of a female with your Viltrox in every thread?
How they talk of a 65f/1 somehow gets you into that rabbit whole is a bit perplexing.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote
Idk crap about lena design. What would a 28mm f1 look like? Would be fun lol how much lower than one can you go and still get sharp images?https://a4.pbase.com/o12/30/64330/1/176526413.a5oXSAvR.7DSC08177_ExHiRes1acopy.jpg
Do you post a picture of a female with your Viltrox in every thread?
How they talk of a 65f/1 somehow gets you into that rabbit whole is a bit perplexing.
Aug 28, 2026 at 02:24 PM
p.2 #9Sigma 65 f1.0
65mm sounds like such an odd focal length to me- Almost like a 40-
I have never shot with one so I can't say for sure if I would not enjoy it but an F/1 lens with AF sounds like a bazooka of a lens-
Will be interesting so see what Sigma comes up with here-
I have never shot with one so I can't say for sure if I would not enjoy it but an F/1 lens with AF sounds like a bazooka of a lens-
Will be interesting so see what Sigma comes up with here-
Aug 28, 2026 at 02:33 PM
p.2 #10Sigma 65 f1.0
RustyRus wrote:
Hey Moses, 28mm is interesting! I simulated what it might look like wide open---hey if Sigma or Viltrox would make it I will be interested in a 28/1.0 :-)
https://a4.pbase.com/o12/30/64330/1/176526413.a5oXSAvR.7DSC08177_ExHiRes1acopy.jpgDo you post a picture of a female with your Viltrox in every thread?
How they talk of a 65f/1 somehow gets you into that rabbit whole is a bit perplexing.
That's not the Viltrox but the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN ART shot at 28mm. What's the problem? I was only responding to Moses' comment about the 28mm.
jojib wrote
BigBabyMoses06 wrote
Idk crap about lena design. What would a 28mm f1 look like? Would be fun lol how much lower than one can you go and still get sharp images?https://a4.pbase.com/o12/30/64330/1/176526413.a5oXSAvR.7DSC08177_ExHiRes1acopy.jpg
How they talk of a 65f/1 somehow gets you into that rabbit whole is a bit perplexing.
That's not the Viltrox but the Sigma 28-105/2.8 DG DN ART shot at 28mm. What's the problem? I was only responding to Moses' comment about the 28mm.
Aug 28, 2026 at 02:34 PM
|
p.2 #11Sigma 65 f1.0
Oh boy! This could be a full-frame alternative for my favorite Fuji GF 80mm. Fingers crossed Sigma gives it a similar optical signature.
Aug 28, 2026 at 02:41 PM
p.2 #13Sigma 65 f1.0
CV65/2 made me realize that I actually prefer this "odd" focal length to classic 50mm...
Let's see what Sigma will have to offer
.
Let's see what Sigma will have to offer
.Aug 28, 2026 at 02:55 PM
p.2 #14Sigma 65 f1.0
I'm curious only.
I already own a Voigtlander 65/2 which just happens to be the best lens (sharpness, color, IQ) I've owned in 55 years of capturing images!
I already own a Voigtlander 65/2 which just happens to be the best lens (sharpness, color, IQ) I've owned in 55 years of capturing images!
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:07 PM
p.2 #15Sigma 65 f1.0
Pardon my eccentricity, but this is art, after all ...
65mm is in the neighborhood of classic "Portrait" lenses from 100 years ago. The rule of thumb was to sum up the height and width of the film, which in those days was 4x5 inches or larger.
A classic portrait focal length for 4x5 inch film, back in those days, was 9 inches.
With regard to the "field of view" or "perspective" we get at 65mm, here's an image that was originally captured on an NEX-7 with the kit lens at 65mm equivalent. (Try to overlook the treatment: it's the sense of space that's important).
Whatever we might want to call the combined effect of distance and angle of view, in my eccentric and humble opinion, there is something rather elegantly restrained about it. Of course, portrait photography was different back then.
Edited on Aug 28, 2026 at 03:30 PM · View previous versions
...65mm is in the neighborhood of classic "Portrait" lenses from 100 years ago. The rule of thumb was to sum up the height and width of the film, which in those days was 4x5 inches or larger.
A classic portrait focal length for 4x5 inch film, back in those days, was 9 inches.
With regard to the "field of view" or "perspective" we get at 65mm, here's an image that was originally captured on an NEX-7 with the kit lens at 65mm equivalent. (Try to overlook the treatment: it's the sense of space that's important).
Whatever we might want to call the combined effect of distance and angle of view, in my eccentric and humble opinion, there is something rather elegantly restrained about it. Of course, portrait photography was different back then.
Edited on Aug 28, 2026 at 03:30 PM · View previous versions
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:24 PM
p.2 #16Sigma 65 f1.0
Comparing sizes here, pupils, and potential size of specular highlights.
65/1 = 65
85/1.4 = 60.7
85/1.2 = 70.8
100/1.4 = 71.4
135/1.8 = 75
135/2 = 67.5
I think that in reality one of the biggest difference in the resulting images (using the above lenses) will be perspective because this is governed by your distance from the subject. A 65mm brings you closer, I think I prefer that to longer lenses. I like my 50-58/1.2 and 80-85/1.4-1.8 for people, 100mm+ focal lengths start to feel awkward to me.
65/1 = 65
85/1.4 = 60.7
85/1.2 = 70.8
100/1.4 = 71.4
135/1.8 = 75
135/2 = 67.5
I think that in reality one of the biggest difference in the resulting images (using the above lenses) will be perspective because this is governed by your distance from the subject. A 65mm brings you closer, I think I prefer that to longer lenses. I like my 50-58/1.2 and 80-85/1.4-1.8 for people, 100mm+ focal lengths start to feel awkward to me.
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:29 PM
p.2 #17Sigma 65 f1.0
This lens would be interesting to me using it in crop mode which would make it a 100/1.4 (technically a 97.5 but close enough to 100). That's a great portrait lens with 26-28 megapixels (in crop mode) depending on which camera you are using.
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:33 PM
p.2 #18Sigma 65 f1.0
JohnJ wrote:
Comparing sizes here, pupils, and potential size of specular highlights.
65/1 = 65
85/1.4 = 60.7
85/1.2 = 70.8
100/1.4 = 71.4
135/1.8 = 75
135/2 = 67.5
I think that in reality one of the biggest difference in the resulting images (using the above lenses) will be perspective because this is governed by your distance from the subject. A 65mm brings you closer, I think I prefer that to longer lenses. I like my 50-58/1.2 and 80-85/1.4-1.8 for people, 100mm+ focal lengths start to feel awkward to me.
Interesting chart John. Do you think you will use your 50 much less if you own the 65/1?
Comparing sizes here, pupils, and potential size of specular highlights.
65/1 = 65
85/1.4 = 60.7
85/1.2 = 70.8
100/1.4 = 71.4
135/1.8 = 75
135/2 = 67.5
I think that in reality one of the biggest difference in the resulting images (using the above lenses) will be perspective because this is governed by your distance from the subject. A 65mm brings you closer, I think I prefer that to longer lenses. I like my 50-58/1.2 and 80-85/1.4-1.8 for people, 100mm+ focal lengths start to feel awkward to me.
Interesting chart John. Do you think you will use your 50 much less if you own the 65/1?
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:38 PM
p.2 #19Sigma 65 f1.0
There can be a fine line between encroachment, connection or detachment with your subject. Two of my favorite portrait lenses historically have been the Leica 75 Summilux and the Nikkor 58/1.4. In fact I eventually abandoned 85's in favor of the 24-70 zoom; and a lot of the time it ended up in that 60-70 zone, probably because that was a comfortable place to create from, at least for me...
It isn't even real yet and I've already sold myself on it.
It isn't even real yet and I've already sold myself on it.
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:43 PM
p.2 #20Sigma 65 f1.0
jojib wrote:
...
Interesting chart John. Do you think you will use your 50 much less if you own the 65/1?
I doubt I would ever buy one, but I don't see using a 50 and a 65. A 35/1.4 would go nicely with a 65/1 as a two lens setup (for people). Damn, now I'm starting to talk myself into buying one.
Aug 28, 2026 at 03:58 PM