Sigma 16/30/56 for APS-C sensors

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor einer Stunde schrieb ramarren:

These Sigma lenses look interesting, albeit a bit on the bulky/heavy side. 

A fast lens in the 16 to 24mm focal length range would be nice to have. Of course there's the Leica Summicron-T 23mm f/2 ASPH, a known quantity at $2000 and fully compatible with all CL features. The Voigtländer Ultron 21mm f/1.8 is another possibility ... a little bulkier and a little shorter, and $800 or so. I wonder how that compares with the Sigma 16mm f/1.4, at half the price...? 

I have fast lenses in 35 and 50 mm focal lengths already (Leica Summilux 35/1.4 (1972 M-mount), Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4) and they're much more compact than any of these Sigma lenses (although particularly the R lens needs adapters that make it much bulkier). That's why the 16mm is the only one of any interest to me, but its size/weight is a bit off-putting.

G

I agree with this, I have the 7 Artisan 55 f1.4 which is quick to focus on the CL, makes very nice images, my 23 Summicron, 35 Preasph Summilux, which is looking wonderful after a CLA, then I have a 40 Nokton and a 40 Makro Kilar. So 56 and 30 are taken care of. The 16 is intriguing though I have had problems with Sigma lenses in the distant past, my only worry is how heavy is it. Would it be better to get the 11-23 (admittedly not f1.4 or anywhere close) at 4X the price.

[ramarren]

4 hours ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

I agree with this, I have the 7 Artisan 55 f1.4 which is quick to focus on the CL, makes very nice images, my 23 Summicron, 35 Preasph Summilux, which is looking wonderful after a CLA, then I have a 40 Nokton and a 40 Makro Kilar. So 56 and 30 are taken care of. The 16 is intriguing though I have had problems with Sigma lenses in the distant past, my only worry is how heavy is it. Would it be better to get the 11-23 (admittedly not f1.4 or anywhere close) at 4X the price.

Well, if you're specifically looking for the wide end of that zoom range, I have to say the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6, while not fast, is a shockingly good performer and a remarkably versatile lens on the CL for being only f/5.6. It's smaller and lighter than the TL11-23 and half the price ... I use it a lot! But if you really want the versatility of the range of focal lengths, I'd just go with the TL11-23 and not worry about the price: It's a lens similar to my all-time-favorite FourThirds lens, the Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED, which was expensive in its day too but paid for itself with one shooting session.

It's that "24 to 30 mm equivalent FoV" and fast together that has me curious about the Sigma 16mm and the Ultron 21mm. The fast Leica 'Lux-M 21mm lens would be delightful but I'm never going to spend the money for that one... I have my limits. LOL! 

G

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 46 Minuten schrieb ramarren:

Well, if you're specifically looking for the wide end of that zoom range, I have to say the Voigtländer HyperWide 10mm f/5.6, while not fast, is a shockingly good performer and a remarkably versatile lens on the CL for being only f/5.6. It's smaller and lighter than the TL11-23 and half the price ... I use it a lot! But if you really want the versatility of the range of focal lengths, I'd just go with the TL11-23 and not worry about the price: It's a lens similar to my all-time-favorite FourThirds lens, the Olympus Zuiko Digital 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 ED, which was expensive in its day too but paid for itself with one shooting session.

It's that "24 to 30 mm equivalent FoV" and fast together that has me curious about the Sigma 16mm and the Ultron 21mm. The fast Leica 'Lux-M 21mm lens would be delightful but I'm never going to spend the money for that one... I have my limits. LOL! 

G

 

The reason I haven't gone for the 11-23 or the CV prime wides is I have an 11-16 f2.8 Tokina which is an excellent lens. Big on the CL so I don't use it as much as I should. I have seen your work with the CV10 and 15mm and was almost heading in that direction. Right now I am working out a Nikon 20mm, that my sister in law borrowed 10 years ago, she thought she had lost it but I got it back as a Christmas present this year. Early results are so-so.

[ramarren]

Which Nikon 20mm? My old favorite Nikon lens in this focal length was the tiny Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S (52mm filter thread). While not quite as even in illumination across the field and at close focus distances as the later 20mm they offered, it had exceptional contrast and resolution; it made many a favorite photograph for me back in the day (1980s-1990s). I had one again years later that I adapted to FourThirds SLR then Micro-FourThirds, but some of its charm was lost in the adaptation. 

[Archiver]

This thread is giving me a lot of food for thought about a setup I had in mind - if I got a CL with the Sigma 16, 30 and 56, as well as a Panasonic S1 or S5 with a 24-105, I'd have an extremely versatile two camera kit which could share lenses and work well in most situations. I wouldn't mind the resolution drop from shooting the S1 or S5 in aps-c mode, and having small, light lenses would make the kit more manageable, anyway. The S1 and S5 switch to aps-c to shoot 4k 50p, and the little Sigma primes ought to work really well with that. Just too bad there is no Sigma 23mm f1.4, it would be great to have a 35mm equivalent that doesn't cost as much as a camera body.

This lens setup could also apply to a Sony A6600 and A7R III, but I really like the way Panasonic and Leica cameras handle. Not so keen on Sony.

[Reggie]

On 5/27/2021 at 8:57 AM, Archiver said:

This thread is giving me a lot of food for thought about a setup I had in mind - if I got a CL with the Sigma 16, 30 and 56, as well as a Panasonic S1 or S5 with a 24-105, I'd have an extremely versatile two camera kit which could share lenses and work well in most situations. I wouldn't mind the resolution drop from shooting the S1 or S5 in aps-c mode, and having small, light lenses would make the kit more manageable, anyway. The S1 and S5 switch to aps-c to shoot 4k 50p, and the little Sigma primes ought to work really well with that. Just too bad there is no Sigma 23mm f1.4, it would be great to have a 35mm equivalent that doesn't cost as much as a camera body.

This lens setup could also apply to a Sony A6600 and A7R III, but I really like the way Panasonic and Leica cameras handle. Not so keen on Sony.

Bear in mind that the Sigma APS-C lenses pre-date the 24-35-45-65 C DG DN lenses which are full frame but a bit slower. The question you need to ask yourself is - do you feel the need - The need for speed?

[Archiver]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Reggie said:

Bear in mind that the Sigma APS-C lenses pre-date the 24-35-45-65 C DG DN lenses which are full frame but a bit slower. The question you need to ask yourself is - do you feel the need - The need for speed?

This is a good point. I'm still hovering over the trigger to get a S5, there's a really good deal on which ends this weekend for hundreds less than anywhere else. Choices, choices. The new DG DN primes would suit the S5 really well, but not necessarily the CL, as I would prefer a 24/50 combo on the CL at least. Having said that, I'm still on the fence about a CL! My more pressing matter is to upgrade my full frame kit to something which can adapt legacy lenses from Canon EF, Pentax K and Minolta MD, with high end video specs and the potential for good stills. The thought of a CL is for a secondary camera for stills use.

[NunoS]

HI, anyone tried the Sigma Contemporary 65mm 2.0 DG DN on the CL? I dont know witch one to choose between that and the 56mm F1.4. Any help?

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Am 27.12.2020 um 15:46 schrieb ramarren:

Which Nikon 20mm? My old favorite Nikon lens in this focal length was the tiny Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S (52mm filter thread). While not quite as even in illumination across the field and at close focus distances as the later 20mm they offered, it had exceptional contrast and resolution; it made many a favorite photograph for me back in the day (1980s-1990s). I had one again years later that I adapted to FourThirds SLR then Micro-FourThirds, but some of its charm was lost in the adaptation. 

This is a Nikkor 20mm f2.8, I like it on film but not so much digital. Maybe because I want a 20mm and an M8 and CL don't give me that. 

[rob_w]

On 7/8/2021 at 3:12 PM, NunoS said:

HI, anyone tried the Sigma Contemporary 65mm 2.0 DG DN on the CL? I dont know witch one to choose between that and the 56mm F1.4. Any help?

I'm mulling over the same question.  Would appreciate views from anyone who has actually used either or both lenses, please.

[stephengv]

How does the 56 compares with the 35 Summilux TL for reference?

[rob_w]

22 hours ago, stephengv said:

How does the 56 compares with the 35 Summilux TL for reference?

Some shots were very similar but overall I did not think it was the same class.  Pretty much what you would expect given the price difference.  The TL35 can produce results that compare well to be the best M and SL equivalents, in my testing.

Edited September 9, 2021 by rob_w

[ferfi]

11 minutes ago, rob_w said:

Some shots were very similar but overall I did not think it was the same class.  Pretty much what you would expect given the price difference.  The TL35 can produce results that compare well to be the best M and SL equivalents, in my testing.

I completely agree with you.

The question is, if someone is able to decide for a given picture by which lens it was made.

If you have  both pictures next to each other you may be able to see it (depending on the picture). But even then you need to decide for yourself which one you like more. 
So, that's where reason speaks. 

But let's be honest, it's about our beloved hobby. If you can afford it and it's worth it, why not take the best of the best?

By the way, as far as I know, only a few M lenses can keep up. 
In the MTF chart, the 60 LP/mm curve for this L lens is where the 40 LP/mm curve is for the good M lenses. 
There is a corresponding interview with Peter Karbe, the lens designer, on YouTube. 
 

BR Ralph

[stephengv]

14 hours ago, rob_w said:

Some shots were very similar but overall I did not think it was the same class.  Pretty much what you would expect given the price difference.  The TL35 can produce results that compare well to be the best M and SL equivalents, in my testing.

Thank you for the comment. I already have the 35, 23 and 18 TL. I was just wondering how the 56 1.4 will compare to my other lenses. 

[stephengv]

13 hours ago, ferfi said:

I completely agree with you.

The question is, if someone is able to decide for a given picture by which lens it was made.

If you have  both pictures next to each other you may be able to see it (depending on the picture). But even then you need to decide for yourself which one you like more. 
So, that's where reason speaks. 

But let's be honest, it's about our beloved hobby. If you can afford it and it's worth it, why not take the best of the best?

By the way, as far as I know, only a few M lenses can keep up. 
In the MTF chart, the 60 LP/mm curve for this L lens is where the 40 LP/mm curve is for the good M lenses. 
There is a corresponding interview with Peter Karbe, the lens designer, on YouTube. 
 

BR Ralph

Thank you for this. Yes, the 35 TL is outstanding, compare to my other M lenses. I was just surprised that based on the comments in this forum, the SIgma 56 1.4 came close to the 35 TL. 

[rob_w]

19 hours ago, ferfi said:

The question is, if someone is able to decide for a given picture by which lens it was made.

I'm quite convinced by the saying, attributed to Mandler I think, that "it takes a year to evaluate a lens".  I look at the collection of photos taken over time with one lens or another, and that's when I notice if a difference starts to emerge.  For individual photos I find it quite hard.  Under good conditions, many lenses do a great job, esp with some tweaking in post.

5 hours ago, stephengv said:

I already have the 35, 23 and 18 TL. I was just wondering how the 56 1.4 will compare to my other lenses. 

I am in a similar position.  My continuing lament is that Leica have not made a portrait lens worthy of the TL series.  The TL60 might work, at f2.8 but I would prefer an f2.0 or wider given the effect of the crop sensor on perceived depth of field.  No doubt there are some excellent manual focus lenses but I need AF.  In this case, I decided not to keep the Sigma 56/1.4 and returned it for a full refund.

Edited September 10, 2021 by rob_w

[stephengv]

10 minutes ago, rob_w said:

I'm quite convinced by the saying, attributed to Mandler I think, that "it takes a year to evaluate a lens".  I look at the collection of photos taken over time with one lens or another, and that's when I notice if a difference starts to emerge.  For individual photos I find it quite hard.  Under good conditions, many lenses do a great job, esp with some tweaking in post.

I am in a similar position.  My continuing lament is that Leica have not made a portrait lens worthy of the TL series.  The TL60 might work, at f2.8 but I would prefer an f2.0 or wider given the effect of the crop sensor on perceived depth of field.  No doubt there are some excellent manual focus lenses but I need AF.  In this case, I decided not to keep the Sigma 56/1.4 and returned it for a full refund.

Why did you return the Sigma?

[stephengv]

10 minutes ago, rob_w said:

I'm quite convinced by the saying, attributed to Mandler I think, that "it takes a year to evaluate a lens".  I look at the collection of photos taken over time with one lens or another, and that's when I notice if a difference starts to emerge.  For individual photos I find it quite hard.  Under good conditions, many lenses do a great job, esp with some tweaking in post.

I am in a similar position.  My continuing lament is that Leica have not made a portrait lens worthy of the TL series.  The TL60 might work, at f2.8 but I would prefer an f2.0 or wider given the effect of the crop sensor on perceived depth of field.  No doubt there are some excellent manual focus lenses but I need AF.  In this case, I decided not to keep the Sigma 56/1.4 and returned it for a full refund.

Why did you return the Sigma?

[rob_w]

39 minutes ago, stephengv said:

Why did you return the Sigma?

For me the photos, overall, where not what I was looking for and I knew I would not use it.  I guess I pay the extra for Leica equipment to get results which surprise and please me.  The results from the Sigma were good, but that did not happen.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[rob_w]

Just to add, I wrote a longer report on the Sigma 56 here:

It was posted in the wrong place, really, so you might not find it easily.  Hope it is helpful!