Hi, refugee from DPR here. I have the A7C and Sigma 35/2 and 65/2. I sold my Nikon Z6 and starting over with Sony and slowly building a kit.
I love the 65/2, a phenomenal lens.
My question is: Do you feel the 35/2 is slow when it comes to AF tracking? The last couple of days I've been trying to take photos of my kids running towards me and the camera or lens struggles. I used RTT for these shots. Is the lens slow to AF or am I using the wrong AF mode? Thanks
No other 35mm does it all (size, price, weight, IQ, and rendering) like the 35 GM.
Interesting how people can have such different perspectives - for me the size and weight of the 35 GM are far from ‘doing it all’. I find it much too large and cumbersome and well overweight. It is a great lens indeed, but too big. I tested one against my Sigma f2 and found the GM far, far better at f1.4, and perhaps a little better in the corners at f2. Worth the extra weight? Definitely, if you want f1.4, which is, of course, very desirable, but if you can settle for f2, then for me the Sigma is preferable.
Mzrk wrote:
Hi, refugee from DPR here. I have the A7C and Sigma 35/2 and 65/2. I sold my Nikon Z6 and starting over with Sony and slowly building a kit.
I love the 65/2, a phenomenal lens.
My question is: Do you feel the 35/2 is slow when it comes to AF tracking? The last couple of days I've been trying to take photos of my kids running towards me and the camera or lens struggles. I used RTT for these shots. Is the lens slow to AF or am I using the wrong AF mode? Thanks
I find all sigma’s in general a bit wanting in the focus department. The new linear motors in the new 50 and super tele may be exceptions to this. The linear motors in the Sony GM are snappier and I wonder if there is better focus integration since it is native Sony. Some of it could be the body as well. I have seen the 135gm miss focus on some rttt shots that a body with an stacked sensor would have gotten.
Don't post much here, but just want to say as a semi-pro wedding/portrait photographer, I have been lovin' the Sigma 35 f2 DG DN. I had the Sony 24 1.4 GM prior, and before that I used the Sony 28mm F2, Sigma 35 1.4 DG HSM EF lens, Sigma 40mm 1.4 DG HSM EF lens, Canon 35mm 1.4 Mark 1, Samyang 35mm 1.4 (MF), etc...
And as far as the technology has come, I love the full metal build - more inspiring to shoot, and the rendering, sharp but also pleasant with character, and small size. Sometimes I wish I had the 1.4 aperture, but then I would need to trade for size and weight...
Pictures from a recent wedding, 90% on the Sigma 35, the others on the Sigma 65:
It got the job done for sure! I've shot several weddings in the years I've owned the 35i. I do think doubt that the 35i is capable for the job but the bigma 35 1.2 is what I've tended to use.
Great work!
taikuodo wrote:
Hey all,
Don't post much here, but just want to say as a semi-pro wedding/portrait photographer, I have been lovin' the Sigma 35 f2 DG DN. I had the Sony 24 1.4 GM prior, and before that I used the Sony 28mm F2, Sigma 35 1.4 DG HSM EF lens, Sigma 40mm 1.4 DG HSM EF lens, Canon 35mm 1.4 Mark 1, Samyang 35mm 1.4 (MF), etc...
And as far as the technology has come, I love the full metal build - more inspiring to shoot, and the rendering, sharp but also pleasant with character, and small size. Sometimes I wish I had the 1.4 aperture, but then I would need to trade for size and weight...
Pictures from a recent wedding, 90% on the Sigma 35, the others on the Sigma 65:
I bought it because of the size and aperture ring. I own the Panasonic 50mm f/1.8, and I wanted something as light, but a bit wider too, as a quick lens when I don't want lug around heavy stuff. I considered Panasonic's 35mm f/1.8, but the plastic build and lack of aperture ring were big downsides.
A local camera shop sold the Sigma 35/f2 dg dn used for 379€, the price included a 58mm Sigma WR protector filter which is advertised to be dust and water repellant. Quite a decent price, I've never actually seen used copies of the Panasonic 35/1.8 for sale.
Here is a comparison shot with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN. Sorry about the dust and smudges. I never see any on the lenses, after cleaning them, but they end up being super dusty anyways..
QuietOC wrote:
The 2.8/35 ZA Sonnar is not as sharp outside the center as even the Samyang 35mm F2.8. The copy I tried also wasn't sharp anywhere, but the calculated MTFs are pretty clear about what to expect from better copies. It does have quick and quiet AF and some amount of sealing.
Unlike the Sonnar, my 2.5/40 G is sharp across the frame, but backgrounds are a little worse than the FE 35mm F1.8. The body seems like a cheap imitation of the Sigma 45i. Samang bodies look like they fit together better. The 40 G AF is very good like the Sonnar, but the FE 35mm F1.8 focuses better. It seems like there is some optical variation with the 40 G too, but maybe less than the Sonnar....Show more →
Hmmmmmm. . .
I recently bought the Zony 35/2.8 ZA here on B&S. I bought it mostly on a whim, to provide a smaller, lightweight AF addition to my Loxia 35 and CV 40/1.2E.
I was not expecting too much, but was very pleasantly surprised by its first outing: a walk around Seattle's Ballard district, prior to concert in a small venue ("The No Ones", featuring Scott McCoughy and Peter Buck, at the Tractor Tavern).
Shooting mostly wide open aperture, my results were the exact opposite of what you experienced with this lens -- I was impressed by its IQ and focus accuracy. Needless to say, I am very happy with the purchase, just over $200.
Granted, the lens is a f/2.8, not an f/1.4 or f/2.0, but most of my uses do not need wide apertures very often, and I have other lenses that can cover that. I'm just pointing out that this little ZA lens gets often overlooked, as do many of the earlier Sony/Zeiss AF offerings now that the GMs and other brands have upped their optical game.
Great shots, Gunzorro. I had the 35/2.8 for years and I always liked the photos it took way more than the reviews of the lens! Some of my fav shots were from that lens. Sometimes flipping through pics, I'd be surprised when I look at exif that it wasn't the rx1 or the 35/1.4 ZA.
I recently bought the Zony 35/2.8 ZA here on B&S. I bought it mostly on a whim, to provide a smaller, lightweight AF addition to my Loxia 35 and CV 40/1.2E.
I was not expecting too much, but was very pleasantly surprised by its first outing: a walk around Seattle's Ballard district, prior to concert in a small venue ("The No Ones", featuring Scott McCoughy and Peter Buck, at the Tractor Tavern).
Shooting mostly wide open aperture, my results were the exact opposite of what you experienced with this lens -- I was impressed by its IQ and focus accuracy. Needless to say, I am very happy with the purchase, just over $200.
Granted, the lens is a f/2.8, not an f/1.4 or f/2.0, but most of my uses do not need wide apertures very often, and I have other lenses that can cover that. I'm just pointing out that this little ZA lens gets often overlooked, as do many of the earlier Sony/Zeiss AF offerings now that the GMs and other brands have upped their optical game.
Great shots! I've had the Zony 35 three separate times and I've never found any corner softness. Vignetting? Oh my yes...but it's a very sharp little lens. The MFD is the limitation i always run up against.
Gunzorro wrote:
Shooting mostly wide open aperture, my results were the exact opposite of what you experienced with this lens
I am not seeing where you are comparing it with the Samyang or any other lens. You are not saying the AF is slow and noisy. The only difference seems to be better luck with a more aligned example. I didn't doubt those existed. Congrats.
QuietOC wrote:
I am not seeing where you are comparing it with the Samyang or any other lens. You are not saying the AF is slow and noisy. The only difference seems to be better luck with a more aligned example. I didn't doubt those existed. Congrats.
I wasn't aware that there were significant problems with this lens/model. Most of my subjects are relatively static, so I'm mainly concerned whether the camera/lens can take a clear shot if properly handheld. To that regard, I didn't find the lens particularly slow or noisy in operation. I mainly enjoy sharp lens at moderate apertures -- this one surprised me as a great one for sharpness and color/contrast, all of which are of primary importance to me. Focus accuracy seems right on the money wide open -- I can't expect much more than that!
Definitely has some of the "Zeiss Look" for color and contrast, maybe not in the Loxia or Batis range, but certainly provides more than satisfactory results.
IIRC, this lens and the Zony 55/1.8 were "stars" at the introduction of the Sony a7-series. Certainly they are no match for the more recent GM series, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have poor focus accuracy or excessive noise while focusing.
corposant wrote:
I was hoping the A7cii would have been a bit cheaper so I could put my 35i on it and pretend I was using my old Rx1r.
If trying to emulating the RX1R, maybe consider a pre-owned A7C since they both have the same number of megapixels? I've seen one selling for $950 here.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If trying to emulating the RX1R, maybe consider a pre-owned A7C since they both have the same number of megapixels? I've seen one selling for $950 here.
True - still waiting to see if there's a killer feature (aside from the increase in resolution) that would necessitate the need for the Mark 2. I suppose since the RX1r didn't really have many features to speak of, I probably shouldn't be picky. My GRiii is 24mp, but would really like to use my 35i since the 35GM booted it off my A7rV
wolfloid wrote:
Interesting how people can have such different perspectives - for me the size and weight of the 35 GM are far from ‘doing it all’. I find it much too large and cumbersome and well overweight. It is a great lens indeed, but too big. I tested one against my Sigma f2 and found the GM far, far better at f1.4, and perhaps a little better in the corners at f2. Worth the extra weight? Definitely, if you want f1.4, which is, of course, very desirable, but if you can settle for f2, then for me the Sigma is preferable.
The sigma’s maximum magnification is on the poor side (0.18x) In comparison the Sony 35/1.8 that does 0.24x.
However the big problem with the sigma, is that at this already poor 0.18x magnification the lens is simply way too soft.
The optical design sigma chose is one that needs close focus correction optics to function properly, but sigma omitted it because it’s a budget lens.
It’s a fine lens if you
1) don’t ever shoot close to maximum magnification
2) don’t require the best possible sharpness
3) simultaneously don’t require f/1.4 and yet require faster than f/2.8
4) if f/2.8 is fine a zoom would serve most people better
aCuria wrote:
The sigma’s maximum magnification is on the poor side (0.18x) In comparison the Sony 35/1.8 that does 0.24x.
However the big problem with the sigma, is that at this already poor 0.18x magnification the lens is simply way too soft.
The optical design sigma chose is one that needs close focus correction optics to function properly, but sigma omitted it because it’s a budget lens.
It’s a fine lens if you
1) don’t ever shoot close to maximum magnification
2) don’t require the best possible sharpness
3) simultaneously don’t require f/1.4 and yet require faster than f/2.8
4) if f/2.8 is fine a zoom would serve most people better ...Show more →
There's more to a lens than sharpness and max magnification. I would add far above the criteria above for why to shoot with the Sigma:
1) you like the way it draws and renders a scene
2) you enjoy the physical experience of the lens, including the size, density and haptics.
I own the 35GM, FE35, and recently picked up the 35i. While the 35GM is still my favorite, the FE35 has been pretty lonely recently since I got the 35i.
I had some great fun shooting it at a work event recently, and liked being able to do some story telling with it. It was the only lens I brought with me on my trip, and I got along quite nicely with it and didn't regret not grabbing either of my two Sony 35s instead.
aCuria wrote:
The sigma’s maximum magnification is on the poor side (0.18x) In comparison the Sony 35/1.8 that does 0.24x.
However the big problem with the sigma, is that at this already poor 0.18x magnification the lens is simply way too soft.
The optical design sigma chose is one that needs close focus correction optics to function properly, but sigma omitted it because it’s a budget lens.
It’s a fine lens if you
1) don’t ever shoot close to maximum magnification
2) don’t require the best possible sharpness
3) simultaneously don’t require f/1.4 and yet require faster than f/2.8
4) if f/2.8 is fine a zoom would serve most people better ...Show more →
A lens with a floating system is quite uncommon, not something you see often. When you're really close to your subject (MFD), most lenses work best when you slightly close down the aperture, usually by 1 or 2 stops. If you do this with the Sigma 35/2 lens, you'll get really good outcomes because it corrects spherical aberration well. But it's also cool to be able to keep the uncorrected spherical aberration for close-up shots at wide-open apertures, especially if you want to capture a particular mood.
