Fred Miranda wrote: nehemiahphoto wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: engel001 wrote:
For me the open question is infinity performance as a hiking/outdoor lens and am therefore anxiously waiting for Fred‘s tests. I have the cheap Tamron, currently one third the price and 2/3 the weight of the new Sigma. It is a little fatter but also shorter (particularly with the dome hood attached), and appears to be better at CA and perhaps resolution at f2.8-4 (at chart distances). I have both the Sony 35mm GM and the A1 on preorder, so don‘t yet see how the Sigma would fit in my kit.
At 65mm the choices are also difficult, as I do like the 70mm Art Macro and 65mm Voigtlander for my purposes. It is a great focal length though, reminds me a bit of medium format.
I have the crops but I'm hesitant to post without testing another copy on Monday. However, I can already say it's a great landscape lens because it's flat field and at f/4 it's optimal and very sharp across the field. (61MP)
Do you want crops of mine at 42MP FF? Not sure if it's helpful for you
Hi Nehemiah,
No need for infinity crops. I've got my second copy and it performs exactly like first one (even at 200% mag.).
To my surprise, the second copy is also 100% centered which is 2 out of 2!! (If someone wants a centered copy, let me know by PM)
The performance from my infinity test is very similar to the ephotozine's chart and different than what lenstip posted. I know the former uses IMATEST at closer distance which suggests that the 35/2 DG DN performs similarly at close and long distance.
So does the latter. I think (but am not sure) that EPZ might refocus at different chart locations like photo zone does, if only because they often show less difference one stop down than other people, suggesting that closer in FC is taken out of the equation. That would also explain the difference, since Lenstip's sample would have been centred too - they don't test uncenterd ones.
I was going to say I'll do a quick close range FC test, but actually, not now: for surely it doesn't matter. A flat field is important for infinity shooters, and we know it's flat there (mine certainly is, and perfectly centred). A bit of FC at closer distances (if there is any), where your subject is very unlikely to be planar, doesn't matter at all. But it will make a difference to chart tests that don't refocus.
Fred Miranda wrote: nehemiahphoto wrote: Fred Miranda wrote: engel001 wrote:
For me the open question is infinity performance as a hiking/outdoor lens and am therefore anxiously waiting for Fred‘s tests. I have the cheap Tamron, currently one third the price and 2/3 the weight of the new Sigma. It is a little fatter but also shorter (particularly with the dome hood attached), and appears to be better at CA and perhaps resolution at f2.8-4 (at chart distances). I have both the Sony 35mm GM and the A1 on preorder, so don‘t yet see how the Sigma would fit in my kit.
At 65mm the choices are also difficult, as I do like the 70mm Art Macro and 65mm Voigtlander for my purposes. It is a great focal length though, reminds me a bit of medium format.
I have the crops but I'm hesitant to post without testing another copy on Monday. However, I can already say it's a great landscape lens because it's flat field and at f/4 it's optimal and very sharp across the field. (61MP)
Do you want crops of mine at 42MP FF? Not sure if it's helpful for you
Hi Nehemiah,
No need for infinity crops. I've got my second copy and it performs exactly like first one (even at 200% mag.).
To my surprise, the second copy is also 100% centered which is 2 out of 2!! (If someone wants a centered copy, let me know by PM)
The performance from my infinity test is very similar to the ephotozine's chart and different than what lenstip posted. I know the former uses IMATEST at closer distance which suggests that the 35/2 DG DN performs similarly at close and long distance.
So does the latter. I think (but am not sure) that EPZ might refocus at different chart locations like photo zone does, if only because they often show less difference one stop down than other people, suggesting that closer in FC is taken out of the equation. That would also explain the difference, since Lenstip's sample would have been centred too - they don't test uncenterd ones. I'll do a quick close range FC test...
Feb 05, 2021 at 07:55 PM
Previous versions of DavidBM's message #15492024 « Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses »
