[bimjo]

This is the daffodil version of an April Fool joke. I'm blooming! Just Kidding!!



This was the second bud that came up & it'll be the second-to-last one to bloom. The first bud that came up still hasn't opened yet.

[kenafein]

It's a joke

As in an April Fool's joke, or as in they don't work very well? I believe, the kenko at least, to be a legitimate (quality) product. It's way too expensive though. I will be buying an adapted Macro lens, but I'm not sure which one yet. I do miss my DA 100 WR, but there was no reason to keep that when I switched to NEX.

[bimjo]

Friday night lights

Back to the river, between the bridges again. Different bridges though. More from this set my blog.

[kenafein]

some good ones Bimjo.

[bimjo]

some good ones Bimjo.

Thanks. The weather and water have been cooperative lately.

[kenafein]

The Contax-Yashika speedbooster is out. You should get it and tell us how it is, Bimjo.

Speed Booster?

[bimjo]

The Contax-Yashika speedbooster is out. You should get it and tell us how it is, Bimjo.

Speed Booster?

Tell ya what- you buy it and send it to me and I'll test the heck out of it for ya. Deal?

[Michelek]

To fulfill the promise, here is the Sony E 35 mm f/1.8 vs Sigma E 30 mm f/2.8 (first version) comparison.

Due to the fact that for some time w in possession of both lenses I decided to compare them, as the focal length entitles them to be frequently used by Nex owners.
First of all I would like to emphasise that in no way this is a professional test - at the most "consumer test" or the experience form using, enriched with some technical elements.
Please forgive me my poor English and feel free to correct me where I went wrong :-)

Initial Observations
The comments that you will find below are mine and totally agree with them ;-) However, I put quite a lot of pictures too, so you can draw your own conclusions.
All photos were taken with the Nex 6 as it is the only Nex which currently have.
The tested Sigma is the first version, which, however, is said to be optically identical to the version A (second).
I tried to produce samples as similar as possible, but due to different focal lengths, and my lack of experience, I didn't quite succeed . I just hope that the differences are irrelevant for the purposes of such a comparison ...
The sample photos, except from the ones in "Sharpness", "Chromatic aberration" and "Flare control" sections have been more or less processed (in-camera or in LR/PSP). You have to live with it
Most of the images have the EXIF information preserved.
You can find full-sized files here:
: http://bez-lustra.pl/sample/sigma30f28e/
: http://bez-lustra.pl/sample/sel35f18/


1. Build quality
Both lenses are relatively small and fit my Nex 6 very well.
Sony seems more solid, it's also a bit heavier. In general, when you keep it in your hand, you get a feeling of a good old analog "fifty" of age of "metal + glass".
Sigma is a bit more "plastic fantastic", but its build quality is also decent. Some flaws: it's possible to block the focusing ring just by holding the lens too firmly; in some copies (and indeed in the one I had) you can actually hear the diaphragm working; a special feature of these lenses is "tapping" inside that stops when the lens is mounted on the body and ready to work.
Sony is a tad longer than the Sigma, but the difference is less than 2 mm. It's also ca. 6 mm wider. Weight: Sony - 155 g, Sigma - 135 g

Pictures of Nex 6 with Sony E 35 mm f/1.8:




Pictures of Nex 6 with Sigma E 30 mm f/2.8:




2. Sharpness

Center of the frame

The set-up:


And the comparison:



Bottom right corner

Full frame (from Sigma):


Sigma


Sony



My comments:
At first glance, Sigma seems to be a bit sharper at the same aperture values ​​- but in my opinion this is due to a slightly higher contrast and a bit warmer image it gives. After a gentle contrast correction in post-process, this impression disappears. I recognize that both lenses are equally sharp. A few more words on Sony and photos with apertures <2.8: wide open, this lens is a little bit soft, but for me absolutely usable. For safety reasons, however, I mainly set the aperture to f/2.0.


3 Chromatic aberration
Pictures:

Comparison of Sony and Sigma


Sony @ F/2.0:



My comments:
Sigma wins hands down here. Unfortunately, CA is a weakness of Sony, we can be sure to find it on the contrasty edges at least up to f/ 4.0. It's not being corrected by the camera in JPG and sometimes it can be extremely difficult (or even impossible) to remove it in post-process.


4. Flare control
Pictures only from Sony 35 mm f/1.8






My comments:
Both lenses generally control the flare decently, preserving good contrast and colors. However, I was able to force the Sony to produce flares without any problems. Unfortunately I was in possesion of Sigma too shortly to check it properly and I don't have any samples :-(


5. Autofocus
In this case it's a tie - both lenses have a similar focusing speed and accuracy, taking into account a wider aperture of Sony, of course. In good light the lenses do not have any problems with proper focusing; in low light conditions, though, it's no longer the case and the percentage of misses increases.


6. Bokeh
For obvious reasons, Sony has an advantage here (in my opinion, of course) – it openes wider and has a slightly longer focal length, which allows a bit nicer background blur.

Sigma


Sony









7. The WOW! factor
In this case, the assessment is subjective of course and for me Sony was a much better choice.
The focal length suits me better and I take a lot of pictures of my daughters mainly in my apartments, in low light conditions. The reproduction ratio is also a bit better (1:6.6 vs 1:8.1). The question is: is it worth paying ca. 3-4 times more for Sony just for the reasons above? Well, for me it was, but you have to make your own decisions :-)


8. Sample Photos

Sigma








Sony













Please feel free to comment and ask any questions.

[kenafein]

You sure put in a lot of effort to answer his question . Thanks for the write up. For me, the Simga was only $99. I hope to see some new FF NEX lenses next year, so I had to skip on the 35/1.8, while I was initially quite excited. I'm going to wait and see what Sony develops in the future.

[bimjo]

Thanks for the great comparison Michele, your efforts will be useful for those folks trying to decide between these two lenses.

[Clarkey]

Thanks for the useful write up. Speaking of reviews, has anyone gotten the 20mm 2.8 Sony and played with it yet?

Been looking for a review. I have some hopes that it will be remotely as good as the DA 21mm limited.

[kenafein]

Thanks for the useful write up. Speaking of reviews, has anyone gotten the 20mm 2.8 Sony and played with it yet?

Been looking for a review. I have some hopes that it will be remotely as good as the DA 21mm limited.

It's not on sale just yet(they are taking preorders). If you can still get the Sigma 19mm/2.8, for $99, you might consider that. I was able to part with my DA21 soon after purchasing one(though it's not quite as good in many respects).

[Michelek]

Thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you liked the comparison.

Both Sigmas offer a very good value for the money. In my opinion the 30 mm f/2.8 is better but this may be because I didn't like the focal lenght very much. But the Sony 20 mm f/2.8 is a real pancake and may be worth considering. It's also believed to work fine with the wide angle and fisheye converters from Sony.

[Nesster]

Thank you Michele, you presented matters very well indeed. And I LOVE the group of cameras in the center sharpness test! That's what I like to see... lots of old cameras.

I'm wondering though, relative to CA in that particular set, when I look at the Kiev engraving the Sigma seems to have more fringing than the Sony. Most telling in the downward curve of the Cyrillic K. Or am I just imagining it

[kenafein]

It's also believed to work fine with the wide angle and fisheye converters from Sony.

I hadn't heard that. That would add tremendous value.