I'm currently preparing the Sony 85mm GM review and did the usual size comparison (using camerasize.com) - see attachment.
Ok, of course, the Sigma looks ginormous with the attached hood but even without it, it's a magnitude bigger than the native GM lens (to the left). I'm really wondering how desperate you have to be to buy such a lens. Simply lengthening the lens barrel is conceptually just silly.
07-21-2019, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 07-21-2019, 08:24 AM by davidmanze.)
(07-21-2019, 02:05 AM)Klaus Wrote: I'm currently preparing the Sony 85mm GM review and did the usual size comparison (using camerasize.com) - see attachment.
Ok, of course, the Sigma looks ginormous with the attached hood, but even without it, it's a magnitude bigger than the native GM lens (to the left). I'm really wondering how desperate you have to be to buy such a lens. Simply lengthening the lens barrel is conceptually just silly.
I clicked on the attached image expecting to see an effective size difference ..... but I burst out laughing when I saw it, indeed ridiculous !!
07-21-2019, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 07-21-2019, 08:18 AM by JJ_SO.)
Since I own the Sigma in Nikon version and didn't felt desperate when I bought it, you probably might to enlighten yourself by looking at their pricetags. ⅓ less expensive can be a reason to go humungous. But then, since your personal preferences are leaning towards µ 4/3 anyway, I don't expect too much comprehension. And using a picture with hood attached to "compare" it to the others without - well, in this forum you'll get away with it. I'm sure it was far too much work. So lemme help you:
It's also nice to see a picture in a post, you know? Without the need to waste space on my harddrive to view it.
Anyway, the size difference remains with or without hood.
Plus, in the Nikon version the genuine lens suffers of a lot of CA, Samyang didn't have an AF lens at the time (and even if it was, I don't want to buy a lens with a bad service), I had tried a Tamron and found it worse. It's not that there's as much 85s around like 50s...
So I have a much better 85 than before. Which I really use less than before, the 135 Art is as good (or better), shorter, lighter, more reliable to focus. I think the new 85/1.8 S might be worth to buy but that's only for a Z body. Sony currently has the best eye-AF while the FW-update of the Z made it to a great eye- or eye-lash AF. So. the GM wins? Quality-wise I expect the Sigma and the GM more or less on par, but in terms of weight and size the winner is clear.
It's simply the quickest way to make a DSLR lens work for mirrorless, and in terms of size it's also simple: cheaper lens, but great IQ = bigger size, more weight. Do I really need to repeat that in every post about Sigma lenses? Apparently, because YOU also keep on turning your "OMG how big, how ginormous, how disappointing to just add the length of an adapter" prayer-wheel.
820g to 1130g is roughly the same category as the price diff. Pay more to carry less. Why not? The price I'm paying once and after that I will have to carry it all the time. I'd have loved to stick with the (much lighter) Nikkor, but as I already paid an extra for f/1.4 I occasionally would like to use that aperture, too. With the Sigma, I can.
07-21-2019, 12:22 PM (This post was last modified: 07-21-2019, 12:41 PM by Klaus.)
JJ, prior of uploading the image, it has no URL - thus I can't embed it (unless I go the extra mile).
As mentioned I'm using camerasize.com to create the comparison - they may or may not offer lens images with/without hood.
You seem to have more time to waste than me it seems.
I don't question the quality of the Sigma on DSLRs. I do question sloppy implementations - and (most of) these Sigma E mount lenses are just that - sloppy - resulting in unnecessary size.
Once Sigma will release native lenses the resale value of those workarounds will tank (see the resale value of Sony A-mount lenses). But then again, if money is no issue you don't need to bother.
For the rest of us, I will not recommend those lenses.
(07-21-2019, 11:28 AM)Rover Wrote: I think the third lens in this comparison should be the Samyang AF 85mm... they just released one for E mount.
(07-21-2019, 12:22 PM)Klaus Wrote: ...
You seem to have more time to waste than me it seems.
Yeah, it did cost me 5 minutes of life. But then I thought, if Klaus is already wasting time over and over again to complain about big size/heavy weight Sigmas (oh, and I forgot "sloppy", stupid me), I also could invest a bit and show, the lens hood doesn't change much of the general appearance.
As for the "native vs sloppy lens" implementation: How long you expect to be waiting for a new native 85 Art? And will it be "only" f/1.4 or will they go the extra half stop like they did in their 35/1.2? Maybe just to compete with Canon's 85/1.2? Imagine such a Sigma, it will make the 105/1.4 look rather small... The Canon f/1.2 already is as heavy as the Sigma f/1.4.
I don't wait for lenses on roadmaps in general. If I need one today and can afford it, I don't wait until another one comes out in 2, 3, 4 years. And prices going tank - now that's such a new information, tell us all about it! Apparently a new phenomenon.... Jokes aside, Sigma said they will introduce first the "sloppy" Art lenses adapted to E- and L-mount. Now they came out with two dedicated mirrorless lenses. About the 14-24/2.8 I'm not sure if that's not the adapted DSLR version? But then, the MTF curves do look different:
So, apparently the new one is not of the sloppy type and still bigger than the Sony. I also hope, it will turn out that the work to implement a longer adaptor would be nearly the same as making the whole thing new at the body end. But for longer FLs like an 85 I don't expect more compact designs from Sigma as long as they stick to the current strategy to offer heavy high performance glass.
07-22-2019, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 07-22-2019, 10:42 PM by JJ_SO.)
You can think about what I think or not as much as you like. If you really want to know what I think, ask, else I see no reason to correct assumptions. Especially not of someone who left my questions to him unreplied
I see a 35/1.2 Art which goes the same road like all Art lenses - the heavy and big one. I also see a new designed 14-24, not a bit smaller or lighter than the DSLR version. Edit: Whoopsy - should have checked before: 795 grams vs. 1150 grams! That's quite something!
And no matter if they fill the gap you whine about with glass or air, I simply have no reason to believe Sigma lenses will become significantly lighter by just redesigning them. Now I do!
I would love to see you in the shoes of Sigmas's CEO, deciding between the cheap and quick solution (air in the rear end) or the more expensive and slower one of completely new design. It's always easy to complain but how many Sigmas you bought so far?
Mind you, after they brought out the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 they came up with a 24-35/2 which appears to be pretty sharp and would save one lens to buy. If I had known that before - would I have had the patience to wait two years? I don't know, but it would have been good to know about.
So, why wait until new lenses are designed if the old ones are still able to keep up? Do you expect them to become much better AND lighter as a redesign? That's a real question. Because if there's no weight or size reduction, but just a bit sharper edges or a fraction less CA, I really don't know what to prefer. It also depends on the body: A Panasonic S or SR suits to the weight of Art lenses. My Nikon Z less so. I could imagine to have some Nikon Arts mount-changed to L-mount, but with the new Sony α7 RIV?
There are, of course, physical limits. There's no doubt that if you relax constraints - which is what Sigma did with the classic ARTs - you can increase performance.
However, I do believe that - with modern design techniques - you can increase the performance and reduce dimensions at the same time.
There is probably also no magic in this if you compare a new design with the predecessor which may be 5-8 years old. Time doesn't stand still in lens design as well.
07-23-2019, 07:03 AM (This post was last modified: 07-23-2019, 07:04 AM by JJ_SO.)
The first Arts were the 35/1.4 and I'm not sure wether the 24/1.4 or 50/1.4 came next. Until the 50/1.4 the Art lenses were in terms size and weight equal to their Nikon counterparts, minus the rubber gasket which is often confused with weather sealing
From the 50/1.4 on they grew in size and weight. They never were the lightest of the pack but these days it's not easy to find heavier lenses. Except the manual focus with blue dot on it. If they now reduce weight - and the 14-24 lost 33% by becoming a DG DN type - both Sony and Panasonic appear to be more attractive to me. Canon is out of the game - great lenses, weak sensors. Sony published specs of their new sensor designs: https://www.dpreview.com/news/4477765388...yer-sensor
Nikon has light lenses but relies on software correction in a way that makes the cost of their "made in China" lenses look less attractive. I still haven't bought more than two native lenses. The 14-30 is attractive but apparently has some sample variation and relies even more on SW correction. Knowing Sigma's 14-24, which costs about the same as the Nikkor, one stop faster, 300 grams heavier, I wished to have that choice. If Sigma is smart, they disobey Z-mount and put their efforts into E- and L-mount: More existing bodies and making DN lenses for Sony always will work for their own L-mount, too.
I hope it's a good sign their DN glass gets lighter (and also a tad thinner, although not shorter). Interesting times, and meanwhile I still can have fun with the Nikon bodies - no haste to change.