ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built-in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues. And rendering, contrast, flare control etc. seems very similar to Voigtländer alternatives like 21mm Color-Skopar.
itai195 wrote:
I think the 24mm looks like it has similar appeal to the CV 21/3.5. Just a small, light, well-built wide angle gem that's easy to bring along on a hike. I still prefer the CV personally, though, since I prefer 21mm over 24mm in my kit.
Earlier I had the CV 21/3.5, but I found it hard to focus manually, especially as a general use wideangle. I had hoped for a similar autofocus wide angle and this little Sigma seems to have nailed it perfectly. A bit less wide, but otherwise very similar. Seems a bit sharper too, but doesn't manage to create sunstars as well, as expected.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built-in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues. And rendering, contrast, flare control etc. seems very similar to Voigtländer alternatives like 21mm Color-Skopar.
itai195 wrote:
I think the 24mm looks like it has similar appeal to the CV 21/3.5. Just a small, light, well-built wide angle gem that's easy to bring along on a hike. I still prefer the CV personally, though, since I prefer 21mm over 24mm in my kit.
Earlier I had the CV 21/3.5, but I found it hard to focus manually, especially as a general use wideangle. I had hoped for a similar autofocus wide angle and this little Sigma seems to have nailed it perfectly. A bit less wide, but otherwise very similar. Seems a bit sharper too, but doesn't manage to create sunstars as well, as expected.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built-in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues. And rendering, contrast, flare control etc. seems very similar to Voigtländer alternatives like 21mm Color-Skopar.
itai195 wrote:
I think the 24mm looks like it has similar appeal to the CV 21/3.5. Just a small, light, well-built wide angle gem that's easy to bring along on a hike. I still prefer the CV personally, though, since I prefer 21mm over 24mm in my kit.
Earlier I had the CV 21/3.5, but I found it hard to focus manually, especially as a general use wideangle. I had hoped for a similar autofocus wide angle and this little Sigma seems to have nailed it perfectly. A bit less wide, but otherwise very similar. Seems a bit sharper though, but doesn't manage to create sunstars as well, as expected.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built-in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues.
itai195 wrote:
I think the 24mm looks like it has similar appeal to the CV 21/3.5. Just a small, light, well-built wide angle gem that's easy to bring along on a hike. I still prefer the CV personally, though, since I prefer 21mm over 24mm in my kit.
Earlier I had the CV 21/3.5, but I found it hard to focus manually, especially as a general use wideangle. I had hoped for a similar autofocus wide angle and this little Sigma seems to have nailed it perfectly. A bit less wide, but otherwise very similar. Seems a bit sharper though, but doesn't manage to create sunstars as well, as expected.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues.
itai195 wrote:
I think the 24mm looks like it has similar appeal to the CV 21/3.5. Just a small, light, well-built wide angle gem that's easy to bring along on a hike. I still prefer the CV personally, though, since I prefer 21mm over 24mm in my kit.
Earlier I had the CV 21/3.5, but I found it hard to focus manually, especially as a general use wideangle. I had hoped for a similar autofocus wide angle and this little Sigma seems to have nailed it perfectly. A bit less wide, but otherwise very similar. Seems a bit sharper though, but doesn't manage to create sunstars as well, as expected.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar. Mine also seems sharp from corner to corner without any decentering issues.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue. But that's just me. Sure, LR says it has applied "built in profile" which I have no control of. But at my standards, I have little to complain about the overall IQ, which is pretty stellar.
ggweci wrote:
In your edits, did you touch the vignetting at all? If so, how much correction was required?
Only in the f/3.5 pictures I added about 20 to 45 amount of correction in LR (midpoint to about zero). Otherwise none at all. So I wouldn't personally call it an issue.
Feb 05, 2021 at 01:13 PM
Previous versions of Tonzah78's message #15491585 « Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses »
