The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

Some 35mm f2 sample pictures.

SIGMA Corporation

The official global site of camera & lenses manufacturing company SIGMA. Here you can find information about our company and our products, support, repairs and inspections, as well as news, updates, and branded content.
www.sigma-global.com www.sigma-global.com

Rendering looks quite nice IMO but need to see more.

DPR hands on...

www.dpreview.com

Hands-on with new Sigma 35mm and 65mm F2 DG DN lenses

Sigma's new primes promise very good performance and light weight, when paired with L-mount and Sony E-mount mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Take a closer look.
www.dpreview.com www.dpreview.com

From DPR...

"It might be small (only 70mm long, or about 2.7 inches) but the 35mm F2 packs in ten glass elements in nine groups, including one SLD (super low-dispersion) and three molded aspherical elements, all produced in Sigma's factory in Aizu, Japan. This fairly complex design is optimized for excellent control of chromatic aberrations and field curvature. Sigma also claims very good correction of coma, which is good news for fans of low light, wide-aperture shooting."

I may be wrong but that reads to me more like it's designed more for technical performance than smooth rendering as per the 45mm. This may mean that these lenses don't have the reported (by some) AF-C issues of the 45mm though.

DPR also say rounder aperture on the 35 and 65mm so no nice sunstars.
 
Last edited:
I've already got two quite visible spots at the bottom of my images. They're showing with both lenses so definitely on the a6600 sensor. I could remove with lightroom but maybe I should buy some swabs and fluid and risk cleaning the sensor?
 
Merlin5 said:
I've already got two quite visible spots at the bottom of my images. They're showing with both lenses so definitely on the a6600 sensor. I could remove with lightroom but maybe I should buy some swabs and fluid and risk cleaning the sensor?
Click to expand...

I don't know how many cleans I've done over the years but I've done a lot and never damaged anything so I'd say give it a go.

I use a pec pad wrapped around a slice cut from an old credit card, and a drop of eclipse fluid.
 
woof woof said:
I don't know how many cleans I've done over the years but I've done a lot and never damaged anything so I'd say give it a go.

I use a pec pad wrapped around a slice cut from an old credit card, and a drop of eclipse fluid.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah, I've heard of pec pads. I'll give it a go. Might just buy a set of pre-made aps-c swabs though and some eclipse fluid or whatever else is recommended. How much pressure did you put on your sensors, just lightly like say, using an electric shaver?
 
I've lost interest in those Sigmas now, was hoping for the vintage look to the rendering not another ultra sharp lens. Oh well.
 
sharpness and good rendering aren't or do not need to be mutually exclusive.
lenses can be very sharp and also render very nicely. in fact both the sigma 85mm ART lenses are a good example of this.
you can always soften the images you can't really recover details that's not rendered.

edit:
looking at the samples from the review below the 65mm seems to render nicely enough.
 
Last edited:
50668244541_d608878261_b.jpg

First time out with the Tamron 70-180, my grandson in Home Park, Hampton Court today.
 
looks like both both 35mm and 65mm f2 are rather sharp with fairly decent to good rendering.
If I am looking for a 35mm siggy seems to be the front runner with sharper optics and better rendering than other options.
 
Last edited:
Spotted this guy muscle flexing so I call this Orange Monsters :p


Orange Monsters by Merlin 5, on Flickr

And I think there's one or two here that are into bikes. I don't know much about them but I think this Yammy looks cool.


Motorbike by Merlin 5, on Flickr
 
I managed to drop my Zeiss 55 a couple of weeks ago, bending the mount. :( Any reason I shouldn't use Fixation to repair it?
 
Having not had the option on my previous camera is it best to shoot uncompressed RAW then convert to DNG at import?

On a negative, got to take my 3y old for a Covid test this morning, not allowed to the let the swap touch his teeth, gums or tongue when doing the back of his throat. These people didn't design this test for children did they.
 
Last edited:
i normally shoot compressed RAW and its not a problem or an issue to be honest. been doing so for ever.
I only shoot uncompressed RAW when i am in a high dynamic range situation and i feel i will pull/pushing the files like more than 4-5 stops which is rather rare.
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
looks like both both 35mm and 65mm f2 are rather sharp with fairly decent to good rendering.
If I am looking for a 35mm siggy seems to be the front runner with sharper optics and better rendering than other options.
Click to expand...

Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

Sony 35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

Untitled-1.jpg

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...
 
Last edited:
robj20 said:
Having not had the option on my previous camera is it best to shoot uncompressed RAW then convert to DNG at import?

On a negative, got to take my 3y old for a Covid test this morning, not allowed to the let the swap touch his teeth, gums or tongue when doing the back of his throat. These people didn't design this test for children did they.
Click to expand...
I tried compressed initially, but had problems with skies and brighter areas. After changing to uncompressed the problems went away. I convert to dng before processing in LR.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I tried compressed initially, but had problems with skies and brighter areas. After changing to uncompressed the problems went away. I convert to dng before processing in LR.
Click to expand...

Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
 
Merlin5 said:
Ah yeah, I've heard of pec pads. I'll give it a go. Might just buy a set of pre-made aps-c swabs though and some eclipse fluid or whatever else is recommended. How much pressure did you put on your sensors, just lightly like say, using an electric shaver?
Click to expand...

I've never used swabs, I've always just used the pec pad and credit card slice. I don't apply pressure and couldn't using the credit card slice as it'd just bend.

I'd suggest just using a feather light touch and if that doesn't clear everything run through the process again.

Another thing to consider is IS, one of my Panasonic cameras has that and if you apply too much pressure you'll move the sensor about. I don't know about Sony's with IS but maybe it's the same, light pressure is possibly the best approach.
 
nandbytes said:
Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
Click to expand...

The only times I've seen problems in skies is when going way too far with the processing and also when posting here sometimes there's banding in the sky which isn't visible in the original picture on my pc.
 
woof woof said:
Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

View attachment 300605

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...
Click to expand...

The onion rings never bothered is so much as busy bokeh. Though in most cases I don't actually find FE35/1.8 to be bad.
I like the aperture ring.
Regardless I am not really in market for a 35mm lens. Wish it was 40mm f2. Oh well...
 
woof woof said:
The only times I've seen problems in skies is when going way too far with the processing and also when posting here sometimes there's banding in the sky which isn't visible in the original picture on my pc.
Click to expand...
Yeah that happens because of conversion to jpg and compression between hosting sites and posting here.
You can get around it by dropping your jpg quality at export. A crap workaround I agree but JPGs are crap in general :p
 
woof woof said:
Downsides of the 35mm seem to be epic breathing and onion rings.

I don't know if I'll bother yet. I'll wait for more reviews and I'd also like to see size comparisons with the Sony f1.8. Just checked and the 35mm is on the size comparison site...

Sony 35mm f2.8, Sigma f2, Sony f1.8.

View attachment 300605

The Sigma looks to be just a touch shorter than the Sony f1.8. I have to say that's a major disappointment for me. I was hoping it'd be more compact. Damn. Oh well...
Click to expand...


its annoying this comparison site continues to show images with some lenses with the hood on and some without.
from what ive seen they are build really well and weather sealed. looks like a decent option and i think they will sell well as have been reasonably priced too.
 
nandbytes said:
Yeah that happens because of conversion to jpg and compression between hosting sites and posting here.
You can get around it by dropping your jpg quality at export. A crap workaround I agree but JPGs are crap in general :p
Click to expand...

I briefly thought about saving Tiffs but they're massive and JPEGs are good enough for me, unless I want to push things a lot in processing and see an issue and then a Tiff may well be better but I can't think of one picture I've taken which just has to be a Tiff.
 
addicknchips said:
its annoying this comparison site continues to show images with some lenses with the hood on and some without.
from what ive seen they are build really well and weather sealed. looks like a decent option and i think they will sell well as have been reasonably priced too.
Click to expand...

I'm still tempted, you know what I'm like with 35 and 50mm lenses :D

I'll keep following the reviews and maybe look more closely at focus performance. Another thing for me to think about is that it doesn't focus as closely as the Sony f1.8 but I suppose that's not too bad as I can use a close up filter.
 
woof woof said:
I'm still tempted, you know what I'm like with 35 and 50mm lenses :D

I'll keep following the reviews and maybe look more closely at focus performance. Another thing for me to think about is that it doesn't focus as closely as the Sony f1.8 but I suppose that's not too bad as I can use a close up filter.
Click to expand...


im not in the market for any glass but they do look nice.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k_ubbIZ41U
 
Good review that and the model ain't bad either :D

I think he makes a good comment about 85mm, IMO sometimes it's just too long for anything other than a tight shot.
 
nandbytes said:
Did you use it with lens corrections?
I have used is for a long time even before there was an option to use uncompressed and almost never had issues.
Click to expand...
Only lens corrections in LR. It's only been a problem in areas like skies that are normally difficult and show compression issues anyway. If you don't shoot high contrast sunrise shots it may not show up.
 
i am really tempted to get the 65mm f2 just because its odd lol
Though i can put my 45mm in apc-c crop mode for a similar field of view to try it i guess.

all in all sigma are doing really great lenses. can't wait to see what they will come out with next.
 
woof woof said:
I've never used swabs, I've always just used the pec pad and credit card slice. I don't apply pressure and couldn't using the credit card slice as it'd just bend.

I'd suggest just using a feather light touch and if that doesn't clear everything run through the process again.

Another thing to consider is IS, one of my Panasonic cameras has that and if you apply too much pressure you'll move the sensor about. I don't know about Sony's with IS but maybe it's the same, light pressure is possibly the best approach.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alan for your help.

Can you run one side of a pec pad or swab a couple of times over the sensor to make sure it picks up as much dust as possible before turning it over to the other clean side of the pad, or only once? And when the job is done is it a rush to get a lens or cap back onto the camera to prevent more dust getting back on it?

I tried my a6600 built in sensor clean a couple of times. It vibrates for a second and that's it. Totally useless, didn't remove the spots.

I don't know what you mean by IS, are you talking about the image stabilisation mechanism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top