I saw several reviews online, and I thought the bokeh had become worse on the second version.
After that I found a direct comparison, which confirmed my suspicions. They seemingly reduced spherical aberrations, and the II has way less of that watercolor/Gaussian blur effect, which was one of the defining features of the original.
Outstanding wrote:
Absolutely no flaring and distortion.
But unfortunately, there's a ton of LoCA in the Christopher Frost review.
Even with an ugly color shift, it only really improves at f/4.
No matter how good the lens is, that would be much too much for my taste.
I don't expect a 35mm f/1.2 to be as flawless in terms of LoCA as is possible with longer focal lengths of similar speed level, but that would be far too pronounced for me.
The great thing is, if you can use such a lens at full aperture in any situation without any hesitation.
I don't see that here; in terms of LoCA, it doesn't look much better than my now over 40 years old Canon FD 85/1.2 L, if better at all, and that simply makes it no fun to deal with such strong LoCA in certain situations.
With an f/1.2 lens, this point would be much more important to me than the last bit of resolution.
Vento wrote:
But unfortunately, there's a ton of LoCA in the Christopher Frost review.
Even with an ugly color shift, it only really improves at f/4.
No matter how good the lens is, that would be much too much for my taste.
I don't expect a 35mm f/1.2 to be as flawless in terms of LoCA as is possible with longer focal lengths of similar speed level, but that would be far too pronounced for me.
The great thing is, if you can use such a lens at full aperture in any situation without any hesitation.
I don't see that here; in terms of LoCA, it doesn't look much better than my now over 40 years old Canon FD 85/1.2 L, if better at all, and that simply makes it no fun to deal with such strong LoCA in certain situations.
With an f/1.2 lens, this point would be much more important to me than the last bit of resolution.
I saw several reviews online, and I thought the bokeh had become worse on the second version.
After that I found a direct comparison, which confirmed my suspicions. They seemingly reduced spherical aberrations, and the II has way less of that watercolor/Gaussian blur effect, which was one of the defining features of the original.
Not sure if it's really worth losing that smooth bokeh for slightly better sharpness.
The weight and size, however, are excellent.
The new one is on the left, the original is on the right.
https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/36/rVrBma1b_o.jpg
That’s too bad. I will say I’ve never had an image from the original not be sharp enough even on the RV. I’d appreciate the size and weight reduction but I am sad they improved the sharpness at even the slightest expense of the rendering.
Dave Sanders wrote:
...
Frost's LoCA test of a book page a MFD is silly.
Have a look at the samples from other reviews.
Exactly, it's pointless and misleading. Even the Sony 50/1.2 shows LoCA at mfd, or very close range, but I've never seen any in mages at portrait distances or longer, and I almost always shoot wide open.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I've not seen much LoCA in any real-world samples - including where you'd expect. Frost's LoCA test of a book page a MFD is silly.
Have a look at the samples from other reviews.
This may not always be relevant in practice, but he performs the stress test in relation to LoCA on each of the lenses he tests, and the new Sigma 35/1.2 performs significantly worse than the Viltrox 35/1.2 LAB in his reviews regarding LoCA, for example.
To achieve the LoCA level of the Viltrox 35/1.2 at f/1.2, the Sigma needs to be stopped down to f/2.8.
We'll have to wait for real, hard reviews, but for me this is one of the most important criteria, especially since I like to get very close as well with such a combination of focal length and maximum aperture.
I own the 35mm GM, a very sharp copy but I was interested by the Sigma DG DN II (mainly for the rendering at f.1.2), especially to use it with my Lumix cameras in both photo and video (open gate).
I also use Nikon and I sold my 50mm GM f1.2 to buy the 50mm Z f1.2, the GM was sharper wide open and better corrected but I like the 50mm f1.2 Z rendering more. It is why I thought about buying the 35mm f1.2 Z but the price is just all over the place and I don't speak about the size of the lens. So I'm wondering if the Sigma could be a good alternative.
Keunish wrote:
Interesting, care to elaborate a bit ?
I own the 35mm GM, a very sharp copy but I was interested by the Sigma DG DN II (mainly for the rendering at f.1.2), especially to use it with my Lumix cameras in both photo and video (open gate).
I also use Nikon and I sold my 50mm GM f1.2 to buy the 50mm Z f1.2, the GM was sharper wide open and better corrected but I like the 50mm f1.2 Z rendering more. It is why I thought about buying the 35mm f1.2 Z but the price is just all over the place and I don't speak about the size of the lens. So I'm wondering if the Sigma could be a good alternative.
I'm curious as well. I think I can understand not trading the GM for the Sigma if the rendering is close. But if like me, one owns neither, the Sigma seems more attractive given the F/1.2.
Keunish wrote:
Interesting, care to elaborate a bit ?
I own the 35mm GM, a very sharp copy but I was interested by the Sigma DG DN II (mainly for the rendering at f.1.2), especially to use it with my Lumix cameras in both photo and video (open gate).
I also use Nikon and I sold my 50mm GM f1.2 to buy the 50mm Z f1.2, the GM was sharper wide open and better corrected but I like the 50mm f1.2 Z rendering more. It is why I thought about buying the 35mm f1.2 Z but the price is just all over the place and I don't speak about the size of the lens. So I'm wondering if the Sigma could be a good alternative.
Lt.Deadeye wrote:
I'm curious as well. I think I can understand not trading the GM for the Sigma if the rendering is close. But if like me, one owns neither, the Sigma seems more attractive given the F/1.2.
From my brief time with the lens, I didn’t find the Sigma’s rendering to be any better than the GM. The bokeh felt too busy for my taste, similar to the GM. I’ve attached two shots I took specifically to study the bokeh.
