Funny this thread got bumped. I was just thinking of getting the Sigma F2 again now that I have an A7CR. I read the Sony 40 f2.5 G is nice and even smaller but I like the 35 FL.
Mzrk wrote:
I still love my 35/2 DG DN, but sometimes I'm ready to pull the trigger on the 1.4 DG DN, but then I think about the weight, and whether it's worth it
Had a chance to go hiking today along with a few portraits with my new Siggy. The bokeh is exactly what I was hoping for. It appears to trade blows with my 35mm 1.7 ultron. I would call it a draw. High praise indeed. FAR FAR better than my 40mm 2.5 G.
Out of about 60 images hiking I took there were zero I would have thrown away due to the OOF rendering. I"m pretty picky as well with busy backgrounds. Beside the last 5% or so of the frame, I don't see much difference over the 45mm 2.8.
For the few family portraits I took, I can see the residual SA in the eyes if at F2 but the overall image...it's excellent. These were half body shots.
I give the user experience a 10 out of 10. I think I like it more than the 45mm 2.8 because it's a tad bigger.
I can tell it won't replace my Voig. 35mm 1.7. For one, the actual FOV is narrower and coupled with the 1.7...after a few tests, the sig doesn't quite give me the amount of SDOF for larger subjects. Like, it's noticeable. Voig. has a look at 1.7 I'm kind of addicted to as well.
I really needed a 35mm with AF though for certain situations and I seriously didn't want bad bokeh. So far this is proving to be exactly that. Should get a chance to take it to NYC in a few weeks as well.
I really REALLY wish there was a 28/2 DG DN.... I would buy it at MSRP instantly.
The 35 makes me very happy but that's mostly because it's the closest thing to what I'm looking for. I like the look, but prefer 28. 24mm is too wide as a walk-around prime, but not wide enough when I want an actual wide.
I built up a mess up overlapping lenses while trying to flesh out a small FP travel kit. I also have the Kipon 35/2.4, which I really enjoy the handling and look of, but hate the longer MFD and that it's not even f2 wide open. Debating which one to keep... The AF in the DG DN is basically useless on the FP so that won't really sway my decision.
ISO1600 wrote:
I really REALLY wish there was a 28/2 DG DN.... I would buy it at MSRP instantly.
The 35 makes me very happy but that's mostly because it's the closest thing to what I'm looking for. I like the look, but prefer 28. 24mm is too wide as a walk-around prime, but not wide enough when I want an actual wide.
I built up a mess up overlapping lenses while trying to flesh out a small FP travel kit. I also have the Kipon 35/2.4, which I really enjoy the handling and look of, but hate the longer MFD and that it's not even f2 wide open. Debating which one to keep... The AF in the DG DN is basically useless on the FP so that won't really sway my decision. ...Show more →
There's obviously gaping holes in 28mm segment for Sony. I don't frankly understand why.
Sony has the oft-maligned 28/2 which while not great, does the job if you are a Sony shooter.
Fuji has the 18/2 and 1.4, both of which are great but very different lenses.
Canon has made a few 28 primes in the past but never anything exceptional.
Nikon has some really nice 28 in their catalog, as does Leica and Zeiss, and more recently Cosina...
I just want a 28/2 (or tiny 2.8) from sigma.
I do also have a Tamron adaptall 28/2.5 that for being such a tiny and cheap lens is quite nice, but I hate that adapting it to my Sigma FP doubles the size of the lens....
chez wrote:
Usually if a given focal length is neglected by manufactures…there typically is not as much demand as other focal ranges.
I find it hard to believe that there is a lack of demand, when you look at the popularity of the Leica Q series. To me, with the high megapixel cameras, 28 is the new 35 due to the crop ability (I realize the fov is still different). A 28 f/1.4 or 1.8 in a similar package to the 24mm GM on one of the rangefinder styled FF Sonys would be compelling
ISO1600 wrote:
I really REALLY wish there was a 28/2 DG DN.... I would buy it at MSRP instantly.
The 35 makes me very happy but that's mostly because it's the closest thing to what I'm looking for. I like the look, but prefer 28. 24mm is too wide as a walk-around prime, but not wide enough when I want an actual wide.
I built up a mess up overlapping lenses while trying to flesh out a small FP travel kit. I also have the Kipon 35/2.4, which I really enjoy the handling and look of, but hate the longer MFD and that it's not even f2 wide open. Debating which one to keep... The AF in the DG DN is basically useless on the FP so that won't really sway my decision. ...Show more →
Yeah and it's really odd there isn't a 28mm, given that Sigma did:
The Sony challengers are good lenses with zero personality or character. The i35/35i/35DGDN whatever you wanna call it is a good lens with a blend of modern and classic rendering.
darrenhaken wrote:
An impossibly large thread to read every post. I was wondering, how you all find the i35 vs the Sony 40mm G and Sony 35mm 1.8?
ISO1600 wrote:
The Sony challengers are good lenses with zero personality or character. The i35/35i/35DGDN whatever you wanna call it is a good lens with a blend of modern and classic rendering.
By Sony challengers do you mean Sony branded lenses?
Yeah and it's really odd there isn't a 28mm, given that Sigma did: 17mm 20mm 24mm [...huge jump...] 35mm 45mm 50mm 65mm 90mm. The spacing is so tight except for 28mm.
It is even more strange when we all know that the Sony 28/2 offering is nothing to write home about - too long, no aperture ring, and lacklustre performance. It is low-hanging fruit for Sigma.
darrenhaken wrote:
An impossibly large thread to read every post. I was wondering, how you all find the i35 vs the Sony 40mm G and Sony 35mm 1.8?
None of these are like older 35mm or 40mm lenses I've tried. The Sony FE 1.8/35 is the one most easily identified from images. It has a very specific character especially stopped down.
The Sigma is boring competent in about every way. It is almost impossible to tell Sigma images from those made by the Tamron or the Samyang 35mm F1.8.
The 2.5/40G is a bit less identifiable than the FE 1.8/35, but more so than the three mentioned above.
chez wrote:
Usually if a given focal length is neglected by manufactures…there typically is not as much demand as other focal ranges.
I would tend to agree except for a couple of facts. They released a 40MM, which is certainly less used that 28MM in this day and age. And I would argue given the iPhone focal length and Leica Q series, more photos are being made in 28mm than ever.
QuietOC wrote:
None of these are like older 35mm or 40mm lenses I've tried. The Sony FE 1.8/35 is the one most easily identified from images. It has a very specific character especially stopped down.
The Sigma is boring competent in about every way. It is almost impossible to tell Sigma images from those made by the Tamron or the Samyang 35mm F1.8.
The 2.5/40G is a bit less identifiable than the FE 1.8/35, but more so than the three mentioned above.
