Sigma native FE vs adapted

Started 2 months ago | Discussions
XeroJay
XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 1,780
Sigma native FE vs adapted
3

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +4 more
Sony Alpha a7
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,898
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

Before the Samyang 35 1.4 FE was available I briefly rented the 35 ART + MBIV + MC11 on my A7II. The 35 ART + MC11 was sluggish and unimpressive in native mode; the same lens on the MBIV was fast and accurate. I really enjoyed using it. Critically, it worked brilliantly while capturing one the most important moment of my life so far (my first child's birth).

I had the A7III briefly and that had Eye-AF.... cost aside, I would say the 35 ART + MBIV is a better combo for the MkIIIs/A9 than the Samyang, and from what you're saying the Sigma ART in FE mount too. Yes you lose fast burst, which is actually handy, but if you can live with single shot mode you still get AF-C + Eye-AF.

I've been warming up to my Samyang but I still miss the IQ of the Sigma. I may make a trade at my local camera store if they can cut me a decent deal.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

sportyaccordy wrote:

Before the Samyang 35 1.4 FE was available I briefly rented the 35 ART + MBIV + MC11 on my A7II. The 35 ART + MC11 was sluggish and unimpressive in native mode; the same lens on the MBIV was fast and accurate. I really enjoyed using it. Critically, it worked brilliantly while capturing one the most important moment of my life so far (my first child's birth).

I had the A7III briefly and that had Eye-AF.... cost aside, I would say the 35 ART + MBIV is a better combo for the MkIIIs/A9 than the Samyang, and from what you're saying the Sigma ART in FE mount too. Yes you lose fast burst, which is actually handy, but if you can live with single shot mode you still get AF-C + Eye-AF.

I've been warming up to my Samyang but I still miss the IQ of the Sigma. I may make a trade at my local camera store if they can cut me a decent deal.

Cannot win 35 Art seems a relative weak lens in Sigma Art line, the first Art lens. Also heard from other reports in 35 FE Art slow and somewhat not very reliable AF. Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA is nice but there is QC. Samyang is great in price but not at the same level. Hope Sony create a new one on its own design FE 35/1.4 GM that can rival or even exceed the current leader, Canon 35L II. Personally I still will not get any FE Art lenses, will pickup 85 GM over 85 Art despite more expensive, already own Batis 135, forget about FE 105 Art in such weight/size that not really better than 85 GM that I plan to acquire just not in priority. I will skip current FE Art lenses until Sigma redesign from scratch optimized for FE mount that will be several years later.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,898
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

In my experience, Sigma ART 35 EF + MB4 is a great combo. I highly recommend it.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

sportyaccordy wrote:

In my experience, Sigma ART 35 EF + MB4 is a great combo. I highly recommend it.

Sure, still the best price/performance. But if I don't mind adaption and price, Canon 35L/1.4 II sets a bar in this category (sharpness, bokeh, background rendering) that is basically the same price or a bit cheaper than Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and has no QC issue. You can find even better deal in Canon refurbished + 10~15% off deal if you can capture one as it's a very desired lens. Those quality premium lenses, you only buy once and use in many years. Such as EF 24-70L/2.8 II that you can get as low as $1241 refurbished + 15% off, the lens I still keep, sharp end to end and excellent sunstars.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,898
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

35L II is a bit heavier than I like. I agree that lenses are long term investments..  for me the Sigma has a technical excellence that is endearing. Can't go wrong either way though.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
XeroJay
OP XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 1,780
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

In my experience, Sigma ART 35 EF + MB4 is a great combo. I highly recommend it.

Sure, still the best price/performance. But if I don't mind adaption and price, Canon 35L/1.4 II sets a bar in this category (sharpness, bokeh, background rendering) that is basically the same price or a bit cheaper than Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and has no QC issue. You can find even better deal in Canon refurbished + 10~15% off deal if you can capture one as it's a very desired lens. Those quality premium lenses, you only buy once and use in many years. Such as EF 24-70L/2.8 II that you can get as low as $1241 refurbished + 15% off, the lens I still keep, sharp end to end and excellent sunstars.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I actually sold my Canon 35II in order to swap for the Sigma FE 35. The Sigma native is still much faster and more accurate than the Canon 35II adapted on the A7III. I've also tried the MBV with the Sigma EF 35 art, and I can tell you the MC-11 works much better than the MB with this lens. Maybe it's a different story on the A7II. In all honesty, the EF Sigma 35+MC-11 seems to be about the best 35mm for the A7III, period.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +4 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,898
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

Adapted AF always did seem faster than native AF on the A7II. On the A7III it switched. A7RII it feels about the same depending on the adapted lens and available light.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

XeroJay wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

In my experience, Sigma ART 35 EF + MB4 is a great combo. I highly recommend it.

Sure, still the best price/performance. But if I don't mind adaption and price, Canon 35L/1.4 II sets a bar in this category (sharpness, bokeh, background rendering) that is basically the same price or a bit cheaper than Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and has no QC issue. You can find even better deal in Canon refurbished + 10~15% off deal if you can capture one as it's a very desired lens. Those quality premium lenses, you only buy once and use in many years. Such as EF 24-70L/2.8 II that you can get as low as $1241 refurbished + 15% off, the lens I still keep, sharp end to end and excellent sunstars.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I actually sold my Canon 35II in order to swap for the Sigma FE 35. The Sigma native is still much faster and more accurate than the Canon 35II adapted on the A7III. I've also tried the MBV with the Sigma EF 35 art, and I can tell you the MC-11 works much better than the MB with this lens. Maybe it's a different story on the A7II. In all honesty, the EF Sigma 35+MC-11 seems to be about the best 35mm for the A7III, period.

Agreed.  I am just talking pure optical performance.  Native mount is still much better for eye-AF, low light and AF-C.  Sigma Art lenses via MC-11 basically is quasi native mount while Canon lenses are not via either MB4/5 or MC-11.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
XeroJay
OP XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 1,780
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

PWPhotography wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

In my experience, Sigma ART 35 EF + MB4 is a great combo. I highly recommend it.

Sure, still the best price/performance. But if I don't mind adaption and price, Canon 35L/1.4 II sets a bar in this category (sharpness, bokeh, background rendering) that is basically the same price or a bit cheaper than Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA and has no QC issue. You can find even better deal in Canon refurbished + 10~15% off deal if you can capture one as it's a very desired lens. Those quality premium lenses, you only buy once and use in many years. Such as EF 24-70L/2.8 II that you can get as low as $1241 refurbished + 15% off, the lens I still keep, sharp end to end and excellent sunstars.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I actually sold my Canon 35II in order to swap for the Sigma FE 35. The Sigma native is still much faster and more accurate than the Canon 35II adapted on the A7III. I've also tried the MBV with the Sigma EF 35 art, and I can tell you the MC-11 works much better than the MB with this lens. Maybe it's a different story on the A7II. In all honesty, the EF Sigma 35+MC-11 seems to be about the best 35mm for the A7III, period.

Agreed. I am just talking pure optical performance. Native mount is still much better for eye-AF, low light and AF-C. Sigma Art lenses via MC-11 basically is quasi native mount while Canon lenses are not via either MB4/5 or MC-11.

Yeah that Canon 35II was a pretty spectacular lens... probably the best lens I've had to date. I truly thought it would be with me for life, but after the switch to Sony it spent most of it's time on the sidelines. I decided that it's worth too much to not be used. I sold my Canon 35II and 85 1.4 IS and bought the Sigma native FE 35 and 85 art lenses. The 35 is not quite as good optically as the Canon, but the 85 is a hair better than the Canon I think. They do work better on the Sony, and I actually ended up with $950 CDN in my pocket from the trade...
... In fact, to date, from switching from my Canon system to the Sony I'm up almost $3,000 CDN. This was such a bonus, as I was prepared to take a hit. Must of this is due to the fact that Canon gear is overpriced, and I've switched from mostly Canon zoom lenses to Sigma primes.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +4 more
cpugourou Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

 cpugourou's gear list:cpugourou's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +6 more
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good). The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
XeroJay
OP XeroJay Senior Member • Posts: 1,780
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

If this post is useless to you, then please, just move along.

 XeroJay's gear list:XeroJay's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Sony a7 III Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +4 more
diness Senior Member • Posts: 2,852
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

PWPhotography wrote:

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good).

Relatively weak?  That might be a bit agressive..

The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

I feel like you are really underestimating the art lenses here.  I don't know as much about the Sony lenses, but as for the Canon world, the Sigma 50, 85 and 135 are ALL sharper than their Canon counterparts, not very close to them.   The 135mm is more expensive than the Canon too, but the other two are cheaper.

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
diness Senior Member • Posts: 2,852
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Why stupid?   The 35mm is not that much bigger than the Sony and it's an excellent lens.  Many people have had excellent results with the Sigma FE lenses.  Yes, they're big, but Sigma primes have been big these days and that just seems to be their way right now... Big lenses that are excellently sharp.  If that isn't for you, fine... but some people like it.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

What about Sony's 24-70 f2.8 which is the same size as everyone else's?   Or their 70-200 f2.8 as well?  Are they not taking advantage?  Are they just fouling thier customers?

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

I find your post far more useless.

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
PWPhotography Senior Member • Posts: 5,159
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good).

Relatively weak? That might be a bit agressive..

Relatively when compared to later Art lenses. Canon 35L II is the best in this category. Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA is also better in bokeh and background rendering.

The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

I feel like you are really underestimating the art lenses here. I don't know as much about the Sony lenses, but as for the Canon world, the Sigma 50, 85 and 135 are ALL sharper than their Canon counterparts, not very close to them. The 135mm is more expensive than the Canon too, but the other two are cheaper.

I use OEM as example from top three in general not necessarily in all cases such as we all know Canon 135L/2.0 is an old lens. Those prime lenses mainly used in portrait, so sharpness is not the only factor. From what I have seen, 85 GM is still better in bokeh and smoother in background rendering but smaller/lighter. Sigma has the best 135 Art that seems beat everyone else at this moment but wait to see once Sony releases its rumored 135/1.8 GM and Canon updates its 135L (not familiar with Nikon).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXY938gHDdc

Anther example is the brand new Sigma 105 Art bokeh-master vs Nikon 105 shown in above video from Matt. Despite it's newer and Sigma tried very hard on the price of size and weight, Nikon 105 is still better while still much smaller and lighter. Sigma really needs to study hard how to optimize lens design. It's already excellent but still not at Canon, Nikon and Sony level in general.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a9 Sony Alpha a7R III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L +12 more
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,898
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
2

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

This is off base. For the 35 1.4s we've seen various from scratch designs for FE mount (35 ZA, Samyang FE)... they are all just as big as the Sigma ART. Generally above ~30mm or so there's no size advantage to MILC lenses vs DSLR lenses. All that changes is the rear element can be moved closer. Plus all these lenses are fast and designed for optimum IQ.... new designs or not they are probably not getting much smaller.

I do think Sigma should make some "from scratch" MILC FF designs, but they shouldn't be ART... they should keep IQ as a focus, but definitely trade speed for size. A 24-xx F/4 zoom and some light F/2 primes are really where the FE system needs help. We have 3 35 1.4s, 3 50 1.4s, 2 85 1.4s etc... the high end is saturated.

In any case I would happily trade my Samyang for the Sigma, and I doubt you'd call me "stupid" for doing so in person.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
NEX-5T Sony Alpha a7R II Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II Samyang 14mm F2.8 IF ED MC Aspherical +3 more
diness Senior Member • Posts: 2,852
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

PWPhotography wrote:

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good).

Relatively weak? That might be a bit agressive..

Relatively when compared to later Art lenses. Canon 35L II is the best in this category. Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA is also better in bokeh and background rendering.

The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

I feel like you are really underestimating the art lenses here. I don't know as much about the Sony lenses, but as for the Canon world, the Sigma 50, 85 and 135 are ALL sharper than their Canon counterparts, not very close to them. The 135mm is more expensive than the Canon too, but the other two are cheaper.

I use OEM as example from top three in general not necessarily in all cases such as we all know Canon 135L/2.0 is an old lens. Those prime lenses mainly used in portrait, so sharpness is not the only factor. From what I have seen, 85 GM is still better in bokeh and smoother in background rendering but smaller/lighter. Sigma has the best 135 Art that seems beat everyone else at this moment but wait to see once Sony releases its rumored 135/1.8 GM and Canon updates its 135L (not familiar with Nikon).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXY938gHDdc

Anther example is the brand new Sigma 105 Art bokeh-master vs Nikon 105 shown in above video from Matt. Despite it's newer and Sigma tried very hard on the price of size and weight, Nikon 105 is still better while still much smaller and lighter. Sigma really needs to study hard how to optimize lens design. It's already excellent but still not at Canon, Nikon and Sony level in general.

What I think you’re seeing is them trying to keep the cost down.  It takes exotic and expensive glass to make smaller versions of lenses like this.  Every manufacturer has to figure out what they are going to sacrifice between optics, size and cost.   Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to often choose cost and have quite expensive lenses.   Sigma seems to have chosen size.   Their 105mm is excellent optically, but is also huge.   But it’s also $600 cheaper than the Nikon.   I’m pretty sure they know what they’re doing lens design wise but are just making a calculated decision.

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
cpugourou Regular Member • Posts: 248
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good).

Relatively weak? That might be a bit agressive..

Relatively when compared to later Art lenses. Canon 35L II is the best in this category. Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA is also better in bokeh and background rendering.

The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

I feel like you are really underestimating the art lenses here. I don't know as much about the Sony lenses, but as for the Canon world, the Sigma 50, 85 and 135 are ALL sharper than their Canon counterparts, not very close to them. The 135mm is more expensive than the Canon too, but the other two are cheaper.

I use OEM as example from top three in general not necessarily in all cases such as we all know Canon 135L/2.0 is an old lens. Those prime lenses mainly used in portrait, so sharpness is not the only factor. From what I have seen, 85 GM is still better in bokeh and smoother in background rendering but smaller/lighter. Sigma has the best 135 Art that seems beat everyone else at this moment but wait to see once Sony releases its rumored 135/1.8 GM and Canon updates its 135L (not familiar with Nikon).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXY938gHDdc

Anther example is the brand new Sigma 105 Art bokeh-master vs Nikon 105 shown in above video from Matt. Despite it's newer and Sigma tried very hard on the price of size and weight, Nikon 105 is still better while still much smaller and lighter. Sigma really needs to study hard how to optimize lens design. It's already excellent but still not at Canon, Nikon and Sony level in general.

What I think you’re seeing is them trying to keep the cost down. It takes exotic and expensive glass to make smaller versions of lenses like this. Every manufacturer has to figure out what they are going to sacrifice between optics, size and cost. Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to often choose cost and have quite expensive lenses. Sigma seems to have chosen size. Their 105mm is excellent optically, but is also huge. But it’s also $600 cheaper than the Nikon. I’m pretty sure they know what they’re doing lens design wise but are just making a calculated decision.

Could be but loik at tamron the 28-75 f2.8

It s a stunning affordable lens, small and decently made. So, it can be done.

 cpugourou's gear list:cpugourou's gear list
Nikon AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED Nikon AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 135mm f/2D DC Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +6 more
diness Senior Member • Posts: 2,852
Re: Sigma native FE vs adapted
1

cpugourou wrote:

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

diness wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

cpugourou wrote:

XeroJay wrote:

This might be a bit early to post, as we're still in the process of completing a comparison, but I wanted to see if anyone else here has experienced the same...

We have a couple of the same Sigma Art lenses now in both native FE and Canon EF mount and have had the chance to see how the adapted lenses on the MC-11 stack up to the new native mount. The 20mm 1.4 is a clear will for the native, as that one lens is somewhat problematic focusing far off-center with the MC-11. The 35mm Art though, is a completely different story. The adapted version, though a bit louder and clickier, actually feels faster and noticeably more responsive than the native lens on the A7III. This is completely counter to every expectation. It feels like the native lens is slower in two regards; first, the AF motor drive is less "punchy" and more "leisurely" (sorry for the lack of better terms!). It's certainly quieter and smoother than the adapted, but it feels like that's at the expense of speed. Second, there feels like an ever so slight hesitation somewhere else in the process... Where there's a sense of confident immediacy in the adapted lens, the native adds a hesitation that completely changes the feel of the system, and not in a good way... It's simply less responsive.
We're going to be doing a more complete test and will report back, but so far the only other comparisons we've found are considering video AF, and not photo.

I think sigma is not doing the job for FE lenses.

They are just adding an extender tube for old designs related to dslr. Even if they seems to be good it s plain stupid to buy those lenses.

Certainly disappointed that it took Sigma so long and still came out with such design.

Either they take advantage of mirrorless possible designs and go back to work for it like tamron did for the 28-75 or they just foul customers.

Now with forthcoming Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless, Sigma has to create a new design for mirrorless - wired AF, linear AF motor etc.

At this stage sigma native or not are the same stuff and this post is useless.

Same stuff probably yes. Optically they are still excellent but just not optimized for ML in size, weight and performance in general. As I said 35 Art is Sigma first Art lens and is relative weak one (still very good).

Relatively weak? That might be a bit agressive..

Relatively when compared to later Art lenses. Canon 35L II is the best in this category. Sony FE 35/1.4 ZA is also better in bokeh and background rendering.

The other Art lenses such as 50mm, 85mm, 135mm are very close to OEM ones from Canon, Nikon and Sony but much cheaper.

I feel like you are really underestimating the art lenses here. I don't know as much about the Sony lenses, but as for the Canon world, the Sigma 50, 85 and 135 are ALL sharper than their Canon counterparts, not very close to them. The 135mm is more expensive than the Canon too, but the other two are cheaper.

I use OEM as example from top three in general not necessarily in all cases such as we all know Canon 135L/2.0 is an old lens. Those prime lenses mainly used in portrait, so sharpness is not the only factor. From what I have seen, 85 GM is still better in bokeh and smoother in background rendering but smaller/lighter. Sigma has the best 135 Art that seems beat everyone else at this moment but wait to see once Sony releases its rumored 135/1.8 GM and Canon updates its 135L (not familiar with Nikon).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXY938gHDdc

Anther example is the brand new Sigma 105 Art bokeh-master vs Nikon 105 shown in above video from Matt. Despite it's newer and Sigma tried very hard on the price of size and weight, Nikon 105 is still better while still much smaller and lighter. Sigma really needs to study hard how to optimize lens design. It's already excellent but still not at Canon, Nikon and Sony level in general.

What I think you’re seeing is them trying to keep the cost down. It takes exotic and expensive glass to make smaller versions of lenses like this. Every manufacturer has to figure out what they are going to sacrifice between optics, size and cost. Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to often choose cost and have quite expensive lenses. Sigma seems to have chosen size. Their 105mm is excellent optically, but is also huge. But it’s also $600 cheaper than the Nikon. I’m pretty sure they know what they’re doing lens design wise but are just making a calculated decision.

Could be but loik at tamron the 28-75 f2.8

It s a stunning affordable lens, small and decently made. So, it can be done.

This is not a direct comparison to the Sigma Art primes as it's an f2.8 zoom, but I never said you can't make a reasonably sharp, smaller lens that's inexpensive.   I simply said every company decides which tradeoff they're going to make and Tamron absolutely did with this lens.  I personally feel, and so do you it seems, that they were smart to make the tradeoffs they did.

Compare the Tamron to the Sony 24-70 GM lens and you'll find that Tamron decided to sacrifice 4mm on the wide end of the focal range, some corner sharpness and some of the build quality to give you a small, sharp, f2.8 zoom.

Sony on the other hand sacrificed prize and size to give you the extra wide end and sharpness across the frame with excellent build quality.

People just need to decide which tradeoffs make more sense for them.

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 G2
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads