vdo1 wrote:
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?
As I said above I responded to your argument because it was such a bad argument it was annoying. I should have let it pass. It wasn't a question, obviously. You also need to learn what a strawman argument is. You clearly don't understand that concept. I took your statement about the Glimmerglass being the new kid on the block at face value. If you meant that to be sarcastic it certainly was not clear you meant it that way. Basically, you tried to make a snarky, sarcastic comment and failed. I should have ignored your annoying comment. I will try to do so in the future, but as I said it is hard to do so when the arguments are so bad.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I said above I responded to your argument because it was such a bad argument it was annoying. I should have let it pass. It wasn't a question, obviously. You also need to learn what a strawman argument is. You clearly don't understand that concept. I took your statement about the Glimmerglass being the new kid on the block at face value. If you meant that to be sarcastic it certainly was not clear you meant it that way. Basically, you tried to make a snarky, sarcastic comment and failed. I should have ignored your annoying comment. I will try to do so in the future, but as I said it is hard to do so when the arguments are so bad....Show more →
Wikipedia: "A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one".
Like in substituting "Glimmerglass" with "diffusion filters".
vdo1 wrote:
I'm not surprised. It takes a certain level of confusion to claim that Fred is posting reviews of defective lens. Cary on, similarly minded people "like" it.
I wasn't claiming anything of the sort. If you'd bothered to read/parse the posts at the position of the link you posted, it was about a clearly faulty lens and nothing to do with Fred's review. You sound like a 10 year old rage posting from his parent's basement. Grow up.
To actually contribute something vaguely relevant to the rest of the thread, I had a bit of an obsession with 35mm(ish) E-mount lenses and have had several copies of the Sigma 35i and the Sony 35/1.8 (as well as 35/1.4 DG DN, 35GM, Samyang 35/1.8, Sony 40G). My personal favourites are the two Sigmas for their rendering/contrast/colours (which is a purely personal/subjective quality of course). They are just beautifully built, with really lovely optics. They're not quite as well CA corrected as the 65i and 85/1.4DGDN, but still very good. The 35GM is really nice too but for an amateur/hobbyist it's not worth the money for me. I've also found Sigma to be the most consistent in terms of QA/centering - followed by Sony and then Samyang a bit back from both.
Nov 10, 2022 at 09:33 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
vdo1 wrote:
Wikipedia: "A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one".
Like in substituting "Glimmerglass" with "diffusion filters".
But of course you knew that.
No, my argument was not a strawman because Glimmerglass is a specific type of diffusion filter and what I said about diffusion filters also applies to Glimmerglass. But if you understood what the definition you quote actually meant you would know that my argument was not a strawman, but this is just another specific example of how you make bad arguments and don't understand the terms you use,
Steve Spencer wrote:
No, my argument was not a strawman because Glimmerglass is a specific type of diffusion filter and what I said about diffusion filters also applies to Glimmerglass. But if you understood what the definition you quote actually meant you would know that my argument was not a strawman, but this is just another specific example of how you make bad arguments and don't understand the terms you use,
"There's this new kid in town Nissan Ariya" - "Not a new kid in town at all. Cars have been around for decades".
Can't see nor hear any fallacy here, would you, Mr. Spencer?
At this point it's pretty clear that what you're really into is "winning the thread", if not through valid arguments, then through exhaustion of the other participants. How predictable.... Go ahead, win it!!!!
vdo1 wrote:
"There's this new kid in town Nissan Ariya" - "Not a new kid in town at all. Cars have been around for decades".
Can't see nor hear any fallacy here, would you, Mr. Spencer?
At this point it's pretty clear that what you're really into is "winning the thread", if not through valid arguments, then through exhaustion of the other participants. How predictable.... Go ahead, win it!!!!
Lets continue to exchange your experiences about the Sigma 35 f2 DG DN. Did somebody compare the bokeh with the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG DN Art at f2.0? (Would be interested)
dieterson wrote:
Lets continue to exchange your experiences about the Sigma 35 f2 DG DN. Did somebody compare the bokeh with the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG DN Art at f2.0? (Would be interested)
Same. I'm caught waffling between whether or not the smaller form factor is worth the tradeoff in bokeh...
One thing I've noticed about all the Sigma i series (This includes the 65 despite prioritizing sharpness more so than the others)...is the smooth bokeh up close.
I don't think this comes out enough in all the reviews I've read. Yes, the 45 certainly takes the cake but they all have essentially this same strength. For subjects under 3 meters, the backgrounds are just really really nice.
Stopped down, mid aperture bokeh. Non of my Tamron or Sony g series achieve this. Which is fine, they prioritize other attributes. However, Sigma's just go that extra mile.
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.
Fred - would your vote go to the Sigma i35 or the Sony 35mm 1.8 for an everyday, family compact lens? Which do you think is the better of the two?
Hopefully you see this and have the time to reply.
Here's some pictures from our sailing trip with friends last summer. Sailed to Tallinn, Estonia, from Finland, over the Gulf of Finland. Had an amazing trip and weather was great, except for the high winds when crossing over the Gulf (had one hairy situation when we had a bit too much sail and a 16m/s gust surprised us in 2,5m waves). I'm lucky to have such friends, owning a sailboat.
Had my 35i and 85Art with me that trip. Awesome combo. I still think this 35i is the best overall autofocusing 35mm for Sony. Smooth rendering, supersharp, handles flare like a champ, autofocus just works and handling couldn't be better. My other favourite is the Nokton 40mm and these two compete as my two most used lenses.
I don't think the choice matters that much. There is not a clearly best all-around option. I just sold the Sony FE 35mm F1.8. I've had the Sigma listed for sale too. I think I will sell the Samyang 35mm F1.8 now.
I've owned the Samyang, but because of the physical feel and lack of aperture ring I sold it. Sony I've never even considered, based on purely on it's rendering that I've seen so far. It's just that the Sigma I-series seem to tick all my boxes I want from a lens.
To me the biggest difference in this size/price range is the mechanic feel of the Sigma. They're just a pure joy to use. Also their QC is above average, compared to Samyang which is the opposite. And I love Sigma's rendering. Maybe not perfect, but it fits my photography. The Samyang had a nice rendering too, but more plasticky feel (but not as bad as some of the cheapest samyangs) and it's missing the aperture ring which is also a must for me. I think the Samyang's "multifunction ring" was horrible to use. The Sony also doesn't have an aperture ring and rendering is way more harsh, if you're a bokeholic.
QuietOC wrote:
I don't think the choice matters that much. There is not a clearly best all-around option. I just sold the Sony FE 35mm F1.8. I've had the Sigma listed for sale too. I think I will sell the Samyang 35mm F1.8 now.
Tonzah78 wrote:
I've owned the Samyang, but because of the physical feel and lack of aperture ring I sold it. Sony I've never even considered, based on purely on it's rendering that I've seen so far. It's just that the Sigma I-series seem to tick all my boxes I want from a lens.
To me the biggest difference in this size/price range is the mechanic feel of the Sigma. They're just a pure joy to use. Also their QC is above average, compared to Samyang which is the opposite. And I love Sigma's rendering. Maybe not perfect, but it fits my photography. The Samyang had a nice rendering too, but more plasticky feel (but not as bad as some of the cheapest samyangs) and it's missing the aperture ring which is also a must for me. I think the Samyang's "multifunction ring" was horrible to use. The Sony also doesn't have an aperture ring and rendering is way more harsh, if you're a bokeholic....Show more →
darrenhaken wrote:
Have you tried the Sony before then?
No I haven't. And now that I just looked at the photos people have taken recently with the Sony 35mm in flickr, it's really not that bad rendering that I remembered from early samples that were around. Guess I was scared by the early worst-case samples I had seen.
It all depends what you need the lens for. For me it's mainly still photography, as I really don't do videos. And AF tracking in these new Sigmas are good enough for me. And their manual focus experience is almost as good as in real manual focus lenses like Voigtländers. Native Sony's have of course superior autofocus. If autofocus or video performance are high on your list, I think Sony is a good bet. But for myself, who uses mostly Voigtländer manual focus lenses and love the manual aperture rings and good handling, Sigma's are just joy to use with overall really nicely balanced image quality.
