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.
This is deeply misinformed. In a recent test on here, just last week, dozens of members were able to identify the Sigma 35i just from its excellent, smooth bokeh. On top of that, it is sharp, corner to corner wide open. One could hardly ask for more, add in an aperture ring and excellent build quality, and it distinguishes itself easily in IQ and general mechanical and haptic quality from the also good Sony, Tamron and Samyang 1.8s very clearly
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.
Decided to ditch my 35mm 1.7 ultron this week. I got enough Sigma 35mm f2 pics in to determine the difference wasn't worth it to me. I'd rather have AF and slim down my kit (I've sold all my M mount lenses in the past few months).
I'm now going to shoot the Sigma 35mm F2, 40mm f2.5, 45mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.5 until the summer since I have them all. Then will determine which line I build up.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
Decided to ditch my 35mm 1.7 ultron this week. I got enough Sigma 35mm f2 pics in to determine the difference wasn't worth it to me. I'd rather have AF and slim down my kit (I've sold all my M mount lenses in the past few months).
I'm now going to shoot the Sigma 35mm F2, 40mm f2.5, 45mm 2.8 and 50mm 2.5 until the summer since I have them all. Then will determine which line I build up.
Probably Sigma....
What are your current thoughts on the sigma 35mm vs the 40mm f2.5 then?
darrenhaken wrote:
What are your current thoughts on the sigma 35mm vs the 40mm f2.5 then?
The 40mm is sharper off center@2.5 and 2.8 but I expected that given it's a 40mm. I'm a fan of 40mm but will always prefer 35mm. After more outside portraits, I'm noticing though that the 35mm f2 has nicer bokeh on average in the center and mid frame. Noticeably so. I like the balance of the 35mm in terms of sharpness and OOF rendering. I tend to edit the backgrounds on most of my 40 images. Love the sharpness but def. not my favorite OOF rendering.
I'd go with the FL you prefer and if the best AF-C is a priority then 40mm 2.5. The size difference IMO is..eh. Neither is all that big and I haven't been using the hood on the 35mm f2.
I wanted to open a new thread about it.
I think 28mm is the best one lens solution for me.
I thought maybe to work with a 24mm lens in 4:3 crop in order to get somthing similar to a 28mm.
What are the chances for a new compact 28mm f2 with AF ?
This hole in the lineup is so strange... (sony /samyang/sigma).
wolfloid wrote:
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.
wolfloid wrote:
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.
A 50mm long 28/2 would be perfect!
I'm not sure I agree that the 28MM f2 FE is lackluster other than the lens build. I think it's prone to fringing but I find it sharp and really nice rendering. Frankly the output I find very similar to the Leica Q2 28MM without the obscene distortion fo the Leica 28MM (which is fixed by software, which results in cropping)
Garmadon wrote:
I wanted to open a new thread about it.
I think 28mm is the best one lens solution for me.
I thought maybe to work with a 24mm lens in 4:3 crop in order to get somthing similar to a 28mm.
What are the chances for a new compact 28mm f2 with AF ?
This hole in the lineup is so strange... (sony /samyang/sigma).
Indeed. There're two (!) 24mm lenses in Sigma's Contemporary range plus an Art series model, and not a single 28 - apart from an adapted DSLR lens that doesn't work particularly well on mirrorless.
More on topic, I've just bought a copy of the Sigma 35/2 and early indications are that it is absolutely stellar. I need to put it through its paces properly but from what I've seen so far it is remarkable. And a steal at the price!
It's restored my faith after the misery of returning two really quite duff copies of the new 24-70 DG DN II. I can't be bothered to buy another one.
Other than being a bit large and heavy, my Sigma 28/1.4 Art works well on my Sony mirrorless cameras. What exactly doesn't work well about it?
alexcarnes wrote:
Indeed. There're two (!) 24mm lenses in Sigma's Contemporary range plus an Art series model, and not a single 28 - apart from an adapted DSLR lens that doesn't work particularly well on mirrorless.
More on topic, I've just bought a copy of the Sigma 35/2 and early indications are that it is absolutely stellar. I need to put it through its paces properly but from what I've seen so far it is remarkable. And a steal at the price!
It's restored my faith after the misery of returning two really quite duff copies of the new 24-70 DG DN II. I can't be bothered to buy another one. ...Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
Other than being a bit large and heavy, my Sigma 28/1.4 Art works well on my Sony mirrorless cameras. What exactly doesn't work well about it?
No way to mitigate the focus shift. I'm an L mount shooter, it might be different on Sony.
It's ok, I don't want to moan about it too much, but it's big and heavy and isn't really meaningfully better than my 28-70/2.8. You really have to stop down to f/4 to get anything decent out of it.
If Sigma made a 28/2 DG DN that's as good as this 35mm lens I think I'd buy two! 😂
On Sony in AF-C it focuses at shooting aperture. And mine doesn’t sound as bad as you describe at wider apertures. But that’s subjective I guess. In any case, thanks for clarifying. Will help others understand as well.
tsdevine wrote:
On Sony in AF-C it focuses at shooting aperture. And mine doesn’t sound as bad as you describe at wider apertures. But that’s subjective I guess. In any case, thanks for clarifying. Will help others understand as well.
On the Panasonic cameras I use there's no way to focus stopped down even in full manual!
Yeah there's nothing disastrous about the 28/1.4 but the AF performance is obviously a lot better on lenses designed for mirrorless and there seem to be a number of optical advantages. In and of itself the lens is decent enough but there's not really any reason to prefer it over a zoom lens designed for the system. Sharpness is perhaps a bit more evenly distributed across the frame and the sun stars are nicer.
alexcarnes wrote:
Indeed. There're two (!) 24mm lenses in Sigma's Contemporary range plus an Art series model, and not a single 28 - apart from an adapted DSLR lens that doesn't work particularly well on mirrorless.
More on topic, I've just bought a copy of the Sigma 35/2 and early indications are that it is absolutely stellar. I need to put it through its paces properly but from what I've seen so far it is remarkable. And a steal at the price!
It's restored my faith after the misery of returning two really quite duff copies of the new 24-70 DG DN II. I can't be bothered to buy another one. ...Show more →
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.
I tend to agree. The bokeh is not bad, the colors are good and the lens becomes very sharp at f2.8 for close/mid distance subjects, it is close to the perfect lens between f4/f5.6. However I think it looks flat/boring. I don't see any sense of volume in the pictures. But depending of the shooting style (like when shooting landscape), this lens can be great.
Keunish wrote:
I tend to agree. The bokeh is not bad, the colors are good and the lens becomes very sharp at f2.8 for close/mid distance subjects, it is close to the perfect lens between f4/f5.6. However I think it looks flat/boring. I don't see any sense of volume in the pictures. But depending of the shooting style (like when shooting landscape), this lens can be great.
Could you explain what volume is...? I'm not sure I'm tracking.
alexcarnes wrote:
Indeed. There're two (!) 24mm lenses in Sigma's Contemporary range plus an Art series model, and not a single 28 - apart from an adapted DSLR lens that doesn't work particularly well on mirrorless.
More on topic, I've just bought a copy of the Sigma 35/2 and early indications are that it is absolutely stellar. I need to put it through its paces properly but from what I've seen so far it is remarkable. And a steal at the price!
It's restored my faith after the misery of returning two really quite duff copies of the new 24-70 DG DN II. I can't be bothered to buy another one. ...Show more →
What issues did you have with the 24-70 DG DN II copies?
guidostow wrote:
What issues did you have with the 24-70 DG DN II copies?
Sorry for the slow reply, but if the moment hasn't entirely passed!
Pretty wild sample variation and inconsistency through the zoom range, and neither copy could match the sharpness of my 28-70/2.8 DG DN Contemporary. I'll perhaps give it another try in a few months, Sigma usually get on top of manufacturing problems.
alexcarnes wrote:
Sorry for the slow reply, but if the moment hasn't entirely passed!
Pretty wild sample variation and inconsistency through the zoom range, and neither copy could match the sharpness of my 28-70/2.8 DG DN Contemporary. I'll perhaps give it another try in a few months, Sigma usually get on top of manufacturing problems.
My 24-70 2.8 DG DN Art II is brilliant except for the infinity issue so it is off on the recall to get a tune up.
More on topic, I've been quite impressed by the I series primes, the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2 are superb! I also had the 24mm f/3.5 which is also optically fine, but I find it a bit slow to focus manually in dim conditions so it is on it's way to MPB to go towards a 24mm f/2.
