Steve Spencer wrote: ikit wrote:
Actually I don't understand the popularity of sigma 35/2 over FE35/1.8:
- sigma has a bit better sharpness (mostly offcenter and more open) but bigger distortion so after correction the sharpness may be very similar
- on f8 the sharpness is very similar
- sigma has onion bokeh:/
- is 50g heavier
- 1/3EV darker
- in my country it's more expensive
- doesn't have a button
- has worse AF performance
- worse MFD
- worse focus breathing
So what makes it so special? I need some arguments for the sigma to justify buing it but with this whole list it's really difficult...
If it helps I also had loxia 35/2 and really liked to use it (but suddenly all the babies started to walk and my manual focusing skills occured to be not as good as I thought...).
The Sigma looks to have a lot better bokeh especially in the transition zone and has a lot less axial CA. Those two factors matter to me a lot more than anything else that you mention. On the alt board nehemiahphoto did a blind test of a number of different shots and the Sigma was consistently ranked near the top and the 35 f/1.8 was consistently ranked near the bottom. You might want to check out that test.
No comparison. The Sony 35 1.8 is a nice lens dont get me wrong but very sterile and very little rendering quality that many of us have. Its very sharp so if that is what you want there you go. Im more interested in how the rendering is as almost every time it makes my images look and feel better. Simple definition its about how it feels to the viewer
The one and only bad thing on the Sigma is the distortion the rest of that list is overblown IMHO
).