I still think the Sigma 35/2 DG DN is one of the best 35mm lenses for the Sony. I also love the fact that's a bit wider than 35mm. Similar to the RX1R's angle of view.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I still think the Sigma 35/2 DG DN is one of the best 35mm lenses for the Sony. I also love the fact that's a bit wider than 35mm. Similar to the RX1R's angle of view.
Having owned every native Sony AF 35mm, it's the one I've kept. I prefer other lenses for certain aspects (GM AF speed, ZA colors/contrast + SA especially), but it's the closest thing I've found to the RX1.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I still think the Sigma 35/2 DG DN is one of the best 35mm lenses for the Sony. I also love the fact that's a bit wider than 35mm. Similar to the RX1R's angle of view.
I've been on the fence about keeping mine vs the 35mm GM, however I'm not sure the extra stop is going to make up for the wonderful size, handling, and image quality.
The lens does not work well with my SL2-S. it de-focuses most of the time compared to manual focusing. you can see the difference even in the viewfinder. I tried all AF modes but failed to get consistent good results. The lens somewhat back focuses, though not each time. The firmware of the camera and the lens are both updated.
I checked the sample lens in Sigma showroom and found similar problem. Later I visited the local repair center and was told the lens was Ok after running it through testing procedures. I tried the camera with Leica SL 35APO and each picture was perfectly focused.
I don't know what is gong wrong here. But if you want to use this lens on SL2-S, you'd better pay attention to this issue.
vdo1 wrote:
Guess it didn't fully live up to the adulatory reviews around here.
Thanks for posting. Both very close. I do like the Sony for as lightly sharper image and lighter weight (if not by much).
The Sigma has some really nice build quality.
vdo1 wrote:
Guess it didn't fully live up to the adulatory reviews around here.
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.
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.
The Sigma 45/2.8 has very little glow at portrait distance--maybe since it is only F2.8. It has under corrected SA, but it is pretty subtle. The 35/2 is even more subtle.
Nov 06, 2022 at 08:10 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
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.
QuietOC wrote:
The Sigma 45/2.8 has very little glow at portrait distance--maybe since it is only F2.8. It has under corrected SA, but it is pretty subtle. The 35/2 is even more subtle.
It's not that subtle, people clearly identify it as a "gauzy glow" as in this recent thread:
For others it was way too much and they have returned the lens.
The much more common reason that people return the lens seems to be the AF performance. I am sure some don't like the look, but some very much do--I am in this camp.
How about you check the first page of Fred's review, maybe you could "see" the glow in the flashlight pics? If not, then that lens is definitely for you.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I still think the Sigma 35/2 DG DN is one of the best 35mm lenses for the Sony. I also love the fact that's a bit wider than 35mm. Similar to the RX1R's angle of view.
This is why I'm constantly eying a Sigma FP & this lens—approaching the size of the RX1 series.
