Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of vdo1's message #16090440 « Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary Review »

  

vdo1
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
Re: Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary Review


Steve Spencer wrote:
vdo1 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
vdo1 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
vdo1 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
vdo1 wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
vdo1 wrote:
darrellc wrote:
Have owned both, I’d go for the Sigma for image quality but Sony for AF and for video (great AF, little focus breathing). Sony image quality was too contrasty, punchy, almost cartoon like.


If you're still into this:



there's a new kid in town called "Glimmerglass". Beats even the legendary Sigma 45/2.8.


Not a new kid in town at all. Diffusion filters have been around for decades. They can have very nice effects, but there is a learning curve and of course using them requires carrying them around. Each filter will also have a slightly different effect for the particular lens on which you use it. If you want to see some really nice work with such a diffusion filter look on the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 thread in the Leica/Alt forum for HelenaN's work. It is fantastic.

As far as beating the Sigma 45 f/2.8, well that depends on the filter and lens combination. Diffusion filters give you many different looks and the look will depend on the lens as well as the filter. Saying one look beats another is kind of silly, however, IMO. It is like saying one paint brush beats another. These are all tools for creating the art we want and there is little sense in saying one beats another, but lots of sense in saying I prefer one to the other. People will have different preferences, of course, so YMMV.

Oh, there is even a thread on diffusion filters on the Leica/Alt board.


That's a refreshing development. Some formerly staunch advocates of owning multiple lenses, each with it's own built in "rendering" filter, are now starting to warm up to the idea that you can be equally arteestec through using one (good) lens and multiple filters. In a decade or so they might even look into sunstar filters


The point is this is not a development (refreshing or not). Diffusion filters have been around for decades. They are a way to alter the rendering of a lens but they have their down sides too. Neither is it possible to get every type of rendering with filters. And certainly one lens with filters will not give you exactly the same capabilities of multiple lenses. Diffusion filters for one thing always affect light transmission and the amount of light hitting the sensor, so in low light will have their limits. They are typically best with a strong light source in the frame, but they can really fail in such situations sometimes too. Neither are they cheap, so sometimes having a second or third lens can be just as cheap as multiple diffusion filters. They are a useful tool, but not without their drawbacks. In general, I think they are more useful than star filters, which I suspect you know have also been around for decades, but I have never seen a star filter from which I like the sunstars, but YMMV.


You are quite right except:

- we were talking about a f/2.8 lens; maybe a filter on a f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens is actually passing more light?
- a round Glimmerglass is $60 directly from Tiffen store, doesn't seem more expensive than a lens?
- you ignored the lens changing inconvenience (possibly with some extra dust on the sensor too), also the weight and the bulk of the lenses vs filters?





First, "we" weren't talking about an f/2.8 lens. Last I looked the thread is about an f/2 lens. You have tried to hijack the thread to be about an f/2.8 lens, but I and most everyone else on this thread haven't followed your attempt to hijack the thread.

Second, Tiffen Glimmerglass is just one relatively inexpensive diffusion filter. Spoiler alert if you look at the diffusion filter thread on the alt forum, the Glimmerglass filters don't perform that well. If you want better performance you will have to pay more.

Third, personally I never worry about changing lenses and if my sensor gets dusty I just clean it. I also am pretty good about knowing what lenses I want in a given situation so I don't take extra lenses just the ones I want for what I am shooting. It really is not hard to do that if you know your lenses well.


How about you review this post here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1686080/26#16087033

where a certain Steve Spencer hijacked it to be about the 45mm and diffusion filters in general, instead of the Sigma 35 vs Sony 35 + Glimmerglass as my post was trying to compare....

And give me some examples of round difussion filters that cost more than a lens, let's say Sigma 35mm to "stay on topic".



Wrong again. I was responding to your post in which you mentioned the 45 not the 35. I did get sucked into your thread hijacking for that post, but quickly pulled away. I won't get sucked in again.

As to diffusion filters you do know they have different strengths and people who use them typically use more than one strength and if you get just two of the high quality Schneider ones you will be at the cost of a Sigma 35:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1458174-REG/schneider_68_095182_82mm_true_net_beige_1.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1458175-REG/schneider_68_095277_77mm_true_net_beige_2.html



That's because you either did't read carefully or you deliberately misinterpreted my post. It was a question to darrelic on whether a diffusion filter couldn't address what he stated to be excessive "punch". You just saw Sigma 45mm mentioned there (as a reference for softer looks) and charged like a bull on a red cloth. Should I also take your mention of the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5 as a thread highjack attempt?

You will need 3 of those filters in order to make a comparable price to the Sigma 35 on the same B&H site. Not to mention that they are quite oversized for the Sony 35 that has a 55mm filter size.

Such a pity Leca doesn't make diffusion filters, you could have won the thread.



The whole problem is you treat every interaction as about who wins the thread. That is not what threads at FM are supposed to be about. I didn't read your post wrong and you didn't ask darrelic a question. You argued (rather than questioned). You said and that is all you said, "there's a new kid in town called "Glimmerglass". Beats even the legendary Sigma 45/2.8" Now how is that a question? It isn't. It is an argument and a pretty poor one and that is why I responded to it even though it was off topic. My bad. The next time you make bad off topic arguments I will do my best to ignore them. It is hard to ignore such statements sometimes, however, when they are such bad arguments.


If you didn't feel it was a question, why did you answer it?

Not to mention the strawman type of response - I say "Glimmerglass is new", you argue that "Not a new kid in town at all. Diffusion filters have been around for decades.". Do you even know when Tiffen introduced Glimmerglass?



Nov 10, 2022 at 08:06 AM





  Previous versions of vdo1's message #16090440 « Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary Review »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.