Just traded my Sigma 16-28 for a Sigma 35/2

[Jayneboo]

Interestingly, I took three shots at 35mm and f8 with the three lenses I have that can do this focal length - 20-60, 24-105, and the Sigma 35. It was hard to tell them apart to be honest. If I had to pick a sharpness winner though it would be …. the 20-60. Strange world.

But I do think there’s a slightly different look to the Sigma lens - there’s just that little bit more pop and a “feeling” of extra definition. Pixel peeking reveals that it’s not any sharper though. Maybe this is the famed “micro contrast”?

The 20-60 performs well above it's weight if you ask me.. constantly surprises me and I have found myself leaving the 24-105 at home in it's favour.

Of the four Sigma contemporary primes I have, the 65 f/2 from wide open and on, is the sharpest, but I'm a fan of all of them , generally I'm more interested in the colour and rendering of lenses than the sharpness. I would really like Sigma to add a 135mm to the contemporary range, tried the 1.8 but it's just too hefty for me, I have a couple of 135's I can adapt but would be nice to complete the set!

 

[pdk42]

The 20-60 performs well above it's weight if you ask me.. constantly surprises me and I have found myself leaving the 24-105 at home in it's favour.

Of the four Sigma contemporary primes I have, the 65 f/2 from wide open and on, is the sharpest, but I'm a fan of all of them , generally I'm more interested in the colour and rendering of lenses than the sharpness. I would really like Sigma to add a 135mm to the contemporary range, tried the 1.8 but it's just too hefty for me, I have a couple of 135's I can adapt but would be nice to complete the set!

I have this sort of love/hate relationship with prime lenses. Of course I love their IQ, compact size, fast aperture, and I guess that sort of smug feeling that "I'm shooting with a prime" (preferably said in a Jeremy Clarkson accent). But I just really prefer the flexibility of framing that a zoom delivers. I wouldn't even consider landscape with a prime. But I do think for city walkabout and street photography that a prime can work, esp a 35mm. For portraits, I always reach for a 50mm lens - I prefer a shorter FL for people shots.

 

[huwm]

I did a similar check during a lens swap around comparing the Sigma 35 Art, 35 contemporary and the SL 24-70 at 2.8 and 5.6 I think and preferred the 'rendering' of the SL zoom to the primes
A sprinkle of Leica 'fairy dust' on what is a Sigma based zoom seems to make a difference, the cynic in me calls it confirmation bias of course
I've subsequently acquired the SL 35 asph which has had a 'dusting' too, but on a Pana base and is currently my most used lens

 

[pdk42]

I did a similar check during a lens swap around comparing the Sigma 35 Art, 35 contemporary and the SL 24-70 at 2.8 and 5.6 I think and preferred the 'rendering' of the SL zoom to the primes
A sprinkle of Leica 'fairy dust' on what is a Sigma based zoom seems to make a difference, the cynic in me calls it confirmation bias of course
I've subsequently acquired the SL 35 asph which has had a 'dusting' too, but on a Pana base and is currently my most used lens

I am a bit of a sceptic on most things (I try to avoid outright cynicism!). My observation is that the eye and skill of the photographer is 99.9% of the final result. The remaining 0.1% is probably 50/50 split between sensor and lens. But the photographer‘s interest and motivation is dependent to some degree on the gear, so maybe the gear contributes a bit more than the headline might suggest - even if it is only confirmation bias. I’m very sceptical of claims that expensive lenses make that much difference. I’ve seen a lot of very ordinary snapshots taken with $10,000 Leica lenses, and some extraordinary images taken with an iPhone.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

If you stop just about any modern lens down to f/8 then you'd be hard pressed to get a technically bad photo from it. Barring flare resistance the quality difference shows wide open or close to it but some lenses just have pixie dust in them and I think the Sigma 35/2 is one of them.

I prefer primes to zooms in general as even a constant f/2.8 zoom makes me feel restricted more than a fast 50 or 35 does, though part of that is the sheer size of zooms.

I agree that Sigma's next I-series lens should be a 135mm, preferrably f/2.8 to keep the size down. 135/2.8s are very common in legacy lenses and some of them perform extremely well even now, but I'd love to have an AF one that wasn't too big or heavy. The 90/2.8 is about the size and weight of a legacy 90/2.8 so I see no reason why a 135/2.8 couldn't be the same.

 

[kbouk]

Interestingly, I took three shots at 35mm and f8 with the three lenses I have that can do this focal length - 20-60, 24-105, and the Sigma 35. It was hard to tell them apart to be honest. If I had to pick a sharpness winner though it would be …. the 20-60. Strange world.

But I do think there’s a slightly different look to the Sigma lens - there’s just that little bit more pop and a “feeling” of extra definition. Pixel peeking reveals that it’s not any sharper though. Maybe this is the famed “micro contrast”?

What body you use Paul , S1R or S5 ?

 

[pdk42]

What body you use Paul , S1R or S5 ?

The S5. I sold the S1R - its size and weight eventually defeated me!

 

[jomppak]

I decided to trade my 16-28 (now replaced by the 14-28) for a Sigma 35 f2. I like the 35mm FOV and a nice wide prime is always a pleasure of a lens to use. The Sigma 35/2 seems to get good reviews so I thought “why not”.

I'm just contemplating between those lenses. After returning TTArtisan, I don't have UWA right now. But on the other hand, I would like to have a small prime... Difficult decisions in life...

To be honest, my GX800+20/1.7 serves very well, so maybe I just go for 14-28.

 

[Pete_W]

Just get it. Life’s too short?

GAS won!

I've just ordered the Sigma 35mm f2. I found a good deal on eBay for only AUD $677, which equates to approx GBP £360 or USD $440. It also ships with a Sandisk 64GB SD card.

 

[pdk42]

GAS won!

I've just ordered the Sigma 35mm f2. I found a good deal on eBay for only AUD $677, which equates to approx GBP £360 or USD $440. It also ships with a Sandisk 64GB SD card.

That’s a fantastic deal. I’m sure you’ll love it when it arrives.

 

[AlanC]

So after waiting to see if there were any Black Friday deals on the 35/2 - there weren't - I decided to get one anyway and it arrived today.

Unfortunately I could tell within the first five or six photos that something was wrong: the lens simply wasn't sharp on the right hand edge. So, some tests with the Sigma fp L since 60MP is brutally revealing of any defects: manual focus on the alarm box on the back of my neighbour's house about 75 feet away, manual exposure, then pan to put the alarm at the left edge and the right edge. These are 100% crops from the full images.

Center:

• SIGMA - SIGMA fp L
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

The text on the alarm is clearly readable.

Left:

• SIGMA - SIGMA fp L
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

Rather soft, but the text is still legible. Maybe some field curvature?

Right:

• SIGMA - SIGMA fp L
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/125 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

Oh dear... And I've replicated this with a range of subjects at different distances.

So now I get to find out whether WEX will give me a replacement or a refund.

But I have to say that this is a really stark contrast to my other three i-series primes, the 17mm f4, 24mm f3.5 and 65mm f2, all of which perform flawlessly on the fp L.

 

[pdk42]

So after waiting to see if there were any Black Friday deals on the 35/2 - there weren't - I decided to get one anyway and it arrived today.

Unfortunately I could tell within the first five or six photos that something was wrong: the lens simply wasn't sharp on the right hand edge. So, some tests with the Sigma fp L since 60MP is brutally revealing of any defects: manual focus on the alarm box on the back of my neighbour's house about 75 feet away, manual exposure, then pan to put the alarm at the left edge and the right edge. These are 100% crops from the full images.

Center:
View attachment 1570
The text on the alarm is clearly readable.

Left:
View attachment 1571
Rather soft, but the text is still legible. Maybe some field curvature?

Right:
View attachment 1572
Oh dear... And I've replicated this with a range of subjects at different distances.

So now I get to find out whether WEX will give me a replacement or a refund.

But I have to say that this is a really stark contrast to my other three i-series primes, the 17mm f4, 24mm f3.5 and 65mm f2, all of which perform flawlessly on the fp L.

Ah, that’s unfortunate. It’s the first time I’ve heard of QA problems with the I series. Sigma marketing says they check each one! I’m sure Wex will sort out a replacement.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

Yes, that's a shame. I've had five I-series lenses and they were all fantastic.

 

[huwm]

Having traded my 16-28 for the 14-28 I’ve now traded that for the 16-35
Just didn’t really need the 14 and was finding 28 a little too wide for a single lens carry despite being happy with a Q2, crop-ability I suppose given the 47 rather than 24mp

 

[AlanC]

So I emailed WEX about the problem lens and included the example photos I posted here... and got back a repair request form. Not what I had in mind: they state that if I receive a faulty product I'm entitled to a replacement or a refund. After speaking to them it turns out they're out of stock so it looks like I'm going to be getting a refund.

The question now is whether I buy another 35mm F2 direct from Sigma UK or go for the other lens that's been tempting me: the 45mm f2.8 DG DN I. The 45 is interesting because it puts the emphasis on rendering rather than absolute sharpness:

Ohsone's Anecdotes: The SIGMA 45mm F2.8 DG DN | Contemporary

This reminds me rather of the 24mm f3.5: it's not the absolute sharpest of my current three i-series lenses (that title goes to the 65mm f2), but the images it produces have a really nice quality to them which has made it my favourite.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

So I emailed WEX about the problem lens and included the example photos I posted here... and got back a repair request form. Not what I had in mind: they state that if I receive a faulty product I'm entitled to a replacement or a refund. After speaking to them it turns out they're out of stock so it looks like I'm going to be getting a refund.

The question now is whether I buy another 35mm F2 direct from Sigma UK or go for the other lens that's been tempting me: the 45mm f2.8 DG DN I. The 45 is interesting because it puts the emphasis on rendering rather than absolute sharpness:

Ohsone's Anecdotes: The SIGMA 45mm F2.8 DG DN | Contemporary

This reminds me rather of the 24mm f3.5: it's not the absolute sharpest of my current three i-series lenses (that title goes to the 65mm f2), but the images it produces have a really nice quality to them which has made it my favourite.

I don't know about the UK but the 45/2.8 is on sale for €299 here in Spain currently, direct from Sigma. It's not a lens I'd be interested in given mediocre reviews and that I have the 50/2, but if you're going to get it then now could be a good time.

I'd still heartily recommend the 35/2 though and if you can wait a little, Sigma seem to have rounds of discounts on groups of products - when one ends another begins. Last year I got the 35/2 and 90/2.8 at around €70 off and this year the same for the 24/2 and 50/2, in both cases in the Spring/early Summer.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I have the Panasonic 35/1.8. I like the fact that the rendering and color is consistent with my other Panasonic lenses. Have only some test shots with it, but looks like it is very sharp and nice colors. And it’s only 290 gram or so.

That said, I was eying the Sigma 45/2.8 for the bokeh as well, but think it is too close to the 35mm, and want to use what I have first. Loved the 20-60 and 85 so far

 

[Pete_W]

Having traded my 16-28 for the 14-28 I’ve now traded that for the 16-35
Just didn’t really need the 14 and was finding 28 a little too wide for a single lens carry despite being happy with a Q2, crop-ability I suppose given the 47 rather than 24mp

I've considered doing the same, although the 16-35 is heavier and larger.

How are you finding the difference between the two lenses?

 

[AlanC]

I don't know about the UK but the 45/2.8 is on sale for €299 here in Spain currently, direct from Sigma. It's not a lens I'd be interested in given mediocre reviews and that I have the 50/2, but if you're going to get it then now could be a good time.

I'd still heartily recommend the 35/2 though and if you can wait a little, Sigma seem to have rounds of discounts on groups of products - when one ends another begins. Last year I got the 35/2 and 90/2.8 at around €70 off and this year the same for the 24/2 and 50/2, in both cases in the Spring/early Summer.

The 45/2.8 is currently full price in the UK, but one of my favourite dealers has it for £329 at the moment.

After thinking it over some more I reckon you're right about the choice between the 35/2 and 45/2.8: I'm happier with wider angle lenses and have never been fond of the "standard" 50mm as a focal length, so I may as well wait and see if the i-series get a discount in the spring.

 

[AlanC]

Before sending the 35/2 back I decided to test it on my S5... and got a set of just about perfect images with none of the problems I'd seen on the fp L.

So I've been testing with the fp L again and am getting inconsistent results.

I'm pretty sure the bad example I posted above is down to motion blur despite the fact I had the shutter speed at 1/125: increasing the speed to 1/250 or 1/500 gives more consistent results. It made me remember this article on Jim Kasson's blog: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/rules-of-thumb-for-handheld-shutter-speed/

Another factor seems to be that the fp L's autofocus isn't as consistent or accurate as the S5 in pinpoint mode: I was using autofocus to get the distance right and then switching to manual focus while taking the photos so they were all consistent. If I manually focus to the correct distance, measured using Google Maps, then the results improve further.

Center:

• SIGMA - SIGMA fp L
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/250 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

Edge (no lens corrections applied):

• SIGMA - SIGMA fp L
• 35mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/4
• 1/250 sec
• Pattern
• Manual exposure
• ISO 100

There's some loss of contrast and slightly less sharpness at the edge but given the 35/2, if uncorrected, does have moderate barrel distortion and a considerable vignette, I don't think that's bad: it takes some pixel-peeping to see the difference.

I do wonder if the lens has some field curvature in the midrange and the inconsistencies in the fp L's autofocus may put it right on the borderline so panning to put the subject at the edge results in it being out of focus?

I'd be interested to know if other owners of this lens have seen any focus consistency issues?