answers: 22

  1. Sergei
    07.12.2021

    On the NEX-6, like Natalya's, I was tormented with this Sigma when shooting portraits: as soon as there is a more or less contrasting background, then there is the focus. I still don’t know whose fault it is, Sonya, glass, or curvature of hands. Manual electronic focusing did not seem convenient, but this is a matter of skill, I guess. I also remember that the picture on the nex turned out in warm colors, but I did not rule, it was still a pleasant picture.
    After a couple of months, I sold it, and took Kamlan 28 / 1.4 for a hundred dollars with a staff, I'm happy with it like an elephant.

    Reply

  2. 11
    08.12.2021

    It's like that. On mft, because of the smaller area of ​​the matrix, it is cut across the entire field without reservation with an open one. No vignetting. Chromatics are certainly strong. I would say before 4.0 it can still be seen. The focusing speed is lower than that of the native Olympus glasses (not even the most top ones, like 25 1.8, but not really not to say that it is very annoying in work. The diaphragm is noisy. The picture as a whole is very good. I forgive even the chromatics for it.

    Reply

  3. Alexey
    08.12.2021

    Most enjoyable experience with this lightweight lens. Works great on crop and full frame. High-quality picture at all focal points, absolutely working open hole. Before him, I experimented with different old manual poltos, now they are all in reserve. The main wish for him is that the electronics do not fail.

    Reply

    • Rodion
      09.12.2021

      And what does he have in the full frame? What format does it really cover?

      Reply

      • Alexey
        09.12.2021

        On A7s in “Shoot. size APS-C - Auto ”itself determines the mode without vignette, it turns out something between 45 and 50 mm, closer to 45.

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.12.2021

        If the “Shooting. size Turn off APS-C ”and gradually increase the magnification, then at 1.3x the vignette becomes barely noticeable, and at 1.5x it disappears completely. Those. this lens can be used both as a wide lens (about 40mm) and as a portrait lens, the resolution margin is quite sufficient for a 12 megapixel camera.
        I am attaching a photo in the mode with a magnification of 1.188x.

        Reply

      • Rodion
        09.12.2021

        That is, it turns out that it covers APS-H. A full frame in a ratio of 4: 3 still does not cover?

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.12.2021

        The Sony A7s only has two photo formats - 3: 2 and 16: 9. This is what an image looks like without cropping and other tweaks in 3: 2 format, i.e. "Honest" 30mm in full frame.

        Reply

      • Specialist
        09.12.2021

        And Nikon 35 / 1,8DX covers a full frame approximately like your picture at 1,3. But I would be ashamed to say that it "works great on both crop and full frame."

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        09.12.2021

        Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1: 1.8G SWM Aspherical does not cover normally, here is a good proof from my practice:

        Reply

      • Specialist
        09.12.2021

        Arkady, well, you know, then - into the distance, and closer and to the middle like this:

        Reply

      • Arkady Shapoval
        09.12.2021

        Well, there is no such thing on averages without editing. In the mdf area, more or less, which, in fact, is shown here

        Reply

      • Specialist
        09.12.2021

        +

        Reply

      • Specialist
        09.12.2021

        And in the phrase “High-quality picture at all focal points” you seem to make a reservation. :)

        Reply

      • Alexey
        09.12.2021

        “High-quality picture at all focal lengths” - I mean the versatility of this lens, I liked the image from it both on crop and on FF, and when magnified on FF up to 2x. This is a purely personal impression.
        As for other things - I will not argue with you, I had nothing to do with the specified Nikon in the full frame known only to you.

        Reply

      • Rodion
        10.12.2021

        Nuuuu this is really a far cry from "great full frame work." Why did I ask about 4: 3 - a number of lenses that I had cut only the corners and it was possible to crop the photo to 4: 3 in a rav-converter and get rid of the vignette. An example of such optics: Vega-M1, which is reviewed here, and 16KP 65 / 1.4 which is not yet reviewed here, but it will be)))

        Reply

  4. Sergei
    24.02.2022

    Hello. I am very perplexed by the fact that you do many of your tests and reviews on lenses using old and very old cameras, which are not only not popular today, but are generally rare. So how can I, a person who has at his disposal such Sony cameras as the A6400 and A6600, understand how this lens will behave on them?
    Previously, I always loved your reviews, appreciated them and listened, but now, having recently bought much more modern devices, I understand that such reviews are of little use and you need to look for others.

    Reply

    • B. R. P.
      24.02.2022

      The latest cameras are mostly from paid reviewers.

      Reply

    • Ivan
      27.02.2023

      What should change in the camera so that the lens “behaves” in some other way? The objective lens system exists and works independently of everything else.

      All the improvements of "much more modern" cameras come down to ergonomics, autonomy, and software in the camera itself. None of this affects the picture that the lens forms.

      Conditionally, qualitative changes in matrices could affect, but in fact, all of them are concentrated in the area of ​​​​light sensitivity and noise reduction, while the picture at conditional ISO 100-200-400 will be +/- the same; or the level of stabilization, but for samples in reviews taken in good light and in static, frankly, stabilization is not needed at all.

      Everything else is technodrochevo.

      Reply

      • Viktre
        27.02.2023

        It seems that a person does not mean a picture, but rather the nature of the work of the lens itself (in particular, the quality of autofocus)

        Reply

  5. Yurys
    26.03.2023

    A very biased review. It seems that the person who prepared everything for one Sony camera. I don't have Sony, I have Nikon, Panasonic. I like the last Panasonic better in terms of picture and camera performance.

    Reply

    • Rodion
      26.03.2023

      And what was Arkady supposed to write about Nikon and Panasonic if his lens was for Sony cameras? What is the problem in general?

      Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer