Test/ First Impression Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary

[Jonathan-Mac]

This was in the "Latest 'this system has it'" thread; but I've owned several of the Sigma mid-range primes for E-Mount and M4/3 (i.e. the 30/2.8 DN Art and 60/2.8 DN Art), as well as the L-Mount 45/2.8 Contemporary, and none of them have wowed me. They've all been bland to one degree or another, clinically neutral in rendering (when I prefer a lens with vivid color/contrast), and the M4/3 editions were seriously lacking in tonality (subtle things like gloss on smooth water, or tonal shifts on a rounded surface) compared to counterparts like the Panasonic 20/1.8.

The 45mm is known to be the poorest-performing of the I-series lenses and m4/3 lenses are entirely different. The other I-series lenses, at least the ones I've tried, are superb.

There is no Panasonic 20/1.8 - there are 18/1.8 and 24/1.8 for L-mount and there's a 20/1.7 for m4/3 but no 20/1.8 anywhere I think.

 

[Travis Butler]

The 45mm is known to be the poorest-performing of the I-series lenses and m4/3 lenses are entirely different. The other I-series lenses, at least the ones I've tried, are superb.

There is no Panasonic 20/1.8 - there are 18/1.8 and 24/1.8 for L-mount and there's a 20/1.7 for m4/3 but no 20/1.8 anywhere I think.

Sorry, yes, I meant the 20/1.7; been spending too much time talking about the L-mount f/1.8s lately. ^^;;

Note that it wasn’t just on M4/3, I was similarly unimpressed with them on APS-C E-mount.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Arooo?
The Sigma Art 135/1.8 is just amazing.
...But then, for what it costs and what it weighs, it bloody well should be.

Too bad it's been discontinued. I've been thinking of getting one used, but then I suspect (hope) that the discontinuation of the HSM version means there is a DG DN version coming.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Sorry, yes, I meant the 20/1.7; been spending too much time talking about the L-mount f/1.8s lately. ^^;;

Note that it wasn’t just on M4/3, I was similarly unimpressed with them on APS-C E-mount.

Of course, as soon as we start talking about subject aspects of a lens like rendering, etc., it becomes very personal.

However, every L-mount Sigma I own (105 macro, 65/2, 24-70/2.8 Art (first gen), 14-24/2.8 Art, even an older DSLR-era 12-24 Art) has wowed me. I am looking at the resultant images through a landscaper's eyes, so what you find clinical may be exactly what I want to see (i.e., lots of detail and contrast). I have also found Sigma lenses, on average, to be a bit warmer than my LUMIX lenses, which, to me, are a bit on the cool side. Nothing that a nudge to white balance can't fix, of course.

 

[Travis Butler]

Of course, as soon as we start talking about subject aspects of a lens like rendering, etc., it becomes very personal.

However, every L-mount Sigma I own (105 macro, 65/2, 24-70/2.8 Art (first gen), 14-24/2.8 Art, even an older DSLR-era 12-24 Art) has wowed me. I am looking at the resultant images through a landscaper's eyes, so what you find clinical may be exactly what I want to see (i.e., lots of detail and contrast). I have also found Sigma lenses, on average, to be a bit warmer than my LUMIX lenses, which, to me, are a bit on the cool side. Nothing that a nudge to white balance can't fix, of course.

Mmmm… not really; I normally like lots of detail, and love contrast.

What I mean by ‘clinical’ is… well, right there in the term - makes things look too much like a clinic or medical/lab setting. So things like being aggressively neutral - not just lack of a color cast, warm or cold, but weak and muted color. Sterile. Like so many other photo issues for me, tonality plays a huge role - I want to see a wide spectrum (dynamic range), capturing subtle differences (clouds, smoke), smooth rendering of tonal gradients (light falling on a curved surface, glossy surfaces, with no compression in the range of tones). A lens lacking that feels ‘clinical’. And razor-sharpness can contribute to the effect when combined with the others.

Or to put it in a more subjective way: clinical lenses feel lifeless to me. Just sort of ‘there’. Useful for documentary purposes, maybe, but not art or joy.

The Sigma lenses I named have what felt like muted color to me, and were distinctly lacking in tonality. The 45 Contemporary wasn’t as bad as the E-mount and M4/3 lenses, but was still lacking the ‘spark’ I want to see in a lens. The Panny 20/1.7 and PanLeica 15/1.7 did have that spark for me on M4/3, for a comparison, and were two of my favorites lenses on the system.

Some of the pics with the 35/2 in this thread do have that spark, so that’s hopeful. Unfortunately, doesn’t appear to be available to rent at the places I checked, and buying is out of the question until I get stable employment again. Maybe someday…

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Travis, thanks for the explanation. I've never heard somebody define what they mean by a "clinical" rendering. I always thought it meant that the lens was too sharp and too perfect, so I typically just wrote those statements off. However, I certainly agree with you that I would not want what you describe above in my images.

And, I've never felt that way about any of my L-mount Sigma glass, even when doing side-by-side equivalents with Panasonic glass. But, I have not owned the 45/2.8, and, as others have stated, Sigma intentionally engineered in some "character" to that lens, particularly when wide open, and - I think - for up close focus. This fact is documented somewhere in a blog post from a Sigma lens designer. But they abandoned that approach for the remainder of their Contemporary lenses, as I understand it.

Anyway, I do encourage you to experiment more with the L-mount Sigma glass, as you can. The 65/2, for example, is spectacular.

 

[Oíche]

Or to put it in a more subjective way: clinical lenses feel lifeless to me.

The thing about sigma, it's got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes.

 

[Travis Butler]

Travis, thanks for the explanation. I've never heard somebody define what they mean by a "clinical" rendering. I always thought it meant that the lens was too sharp and too perfect, so I typically just wrote those statements off. However, I certainly agree with you that I would not want what you describe above in my images.

I’ve heard “too sharp, too perfect” as well. I think at least some of them may be trying to get at what I described without having a good way to express it. A lack of tonal range can make something look overly smooth/low-detail; clouds, for example, can look like white blobs when you compress the tonal range, but start showing volume and filaments and complexity when you add tonality. Or loss of tonal detail can be like the overly homogeneous, plastic-y look you can get with some smoothing/denoise filters. It looks more like a plastic replica (or a piece of lab equipment) than a real object - “too perfect”. And that effect gets worse when you combine it with sharp edges and detailing - “too sharp”. Flowers can be particularly bad there.

You can see the same sort of discussion regarding SF spaceships in the 70s. They were often criticized as being too sleek, too perfect, before Star Wars popularized the “lived-in” look. (To be fair, movies like Silent Running did it first.)

And, I've never felt that way about any of my L-mount Sigma glass, even when doing side-by-side equivalents with Panasonic glass. But, I have not owned the 45/2.8, and, as others have stated, Sigma intentionally engineered in some "character" to that lens, particularly when wide open, and - I think - for up close focus. This fact is documented somewhere in a blog post from a Sigma lens designer. But they abandoned that approach for the remainder of their Contemporary lenses, as I understand it.

Yeah, it’s interesting, I’ve heard that about the 45 as well. (And seen “character” used disparagingly to mean “deliberately flawed”, which seems unfair to me.) I’m not really sure what they mean, because I haven’t seen it (then again, I haven’t really used it for close-ups, or deliberately wide-open for bokeh effects). What I have noticed is that pics from it often feel dull to me; I haven’t pinned down exactly why, but I think lack of color/contrast has a big part in it.

Anyway, I do encourage you to experiment more with the L-mount Sigma glass, as you can. The 65/2, for example, is spectacular.

I’d love to if I have the chance.