Sigma 35mm f1.4, f1.2, 50mm f1.2, f1.4 as walk about lenses

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am looking to one of these lenses (well maybe 35 and a 50mm for separate occasions) for walk about with an SL3.

At the moment I use f2 primes but am looking for something brighter, particularly for walk about in low light, which there is a lot of in winter.

The sharpness and built quality is not in question for any of them, although the 50mms and the 35mm 1.2 are slightly newer and have the new focus motor.

It starts from 645g with the 35mm f1.4 which seems reasonable, just at the bottom of heavy. The 50mm f1.4 is 670g. Both the 1.2s are around 745g, which is remarkably light for a 1.2 lens.

I know it is only 100g difference but I carry my camera in my right hand, and don’t want to make a costly mistake. It is also of course 320g more for a 35mm f1.4 over the excellent 35mm f2 which I use now.

just wondered what you guys think who use any of these as a walk about. Whether this is the critical 100 or 30gs difference, or uncomfortable 300g more over the f2 series.

I presume the balance is good for all against the SL3 body.

 

 

 

Edited November 5 by colonel

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[PhotoCruiser]

My walk around lens is the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART and weights 960 grams.
I have the SL2 (with a hand strap) either in my hand or she is in a sling or messenger bag and i find the weight acceptable/doable.
The Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART weights 1170gms but is considerable bigger and the difference is clearly to feel.
300 grams difference is a lot and you will feel it, particularly if you carry the camera on a neck/shoulder strap, the question is how much it will bother you.
The only way to figure it out would be to test it, borrow/rent one would be the best.

Not really sure if it's worth to pay considerable amount for two new lenses having two f stops less and are considerable bulkier and heavier.

Chris

 

 

[Hendrikus]

I have the Sigma 20mm 1.4 art dgdn art and also the Sigma 50mm 1.2 dgdn art , very happy with them and no problem what so ever by walking around 

[Chris W]

I wouldn't walk around with a bigger, bulkier lens. Also, the image is going to change, not just the light. Do you want images with very little in sharp focus?

[jankap]

Walk around? Why not a f2.8 lens? Selective focus is with 35mm difficult. Digital cameras have possibilities in the dark.

[colonel]

13 minutes ago, Chris W said:

I wouldn't walk around with a bigger, bulkier lens. Also, the image is going to change, not just the light. Do you want images with very little in sharp focus?

sometimes, not always. it is a good point. Even in very low light, I often use f2. Often there is a source of light which is illuminating my target, which is often f2 or f2.8. But to increase speed and focus on people, or people in a linear state not close up, I often use f1.4/1.5 on my M when I have it.

 

[Chris Nebard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You will know what you need better than anyone else but, as great as those f1.2/1.4 Sigmas are, I wouldn’t trade the compactness of a 35mm f2 (Sigma I-Contemporary in my case) for the extra stops. I use mine in dark, crowded places on the SL2-S and honestly don’t feel the need to go faster. The sensor is so good in low light that f2 is enough for me. And I guess that your SL3’s more modern sensor might be just as (or more) effective in low light? Of course, if you are specifically looking for that greater subject separation and increased blur, for a bigger percentage of shots, then the bigger, faster primes might be your choice. 
Good luck and enjoy whatever you choose! 👍

[Babylonia]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb colonel:

I am looking to one of these lenses (well maybe 35 and a 50mm for separate occasions) for walk about with an SL3

As you have a 60 MP sensor. Consider to use a Sigma 35mm/1.2 (II) - only
You have some spare to use the lens in cropping mode - comparable field of view as for 50mm lens in FF.

[Chris Nebard]

1 hour ago, Babylonia said:

As you have a 60 MP sensor. Consider to use a Sigma 35mm/1.2 (II) - only
You have some spare to use the lens in cropping mode - comparable field of view as for 50mm lens in FF.

I must admit, that lens does look superb. I feel a severe attack of GAS coming on 🤤 🤤 🤣👍

[colonel]

I have just been into the shop and looked at the lenses again.

Firstly, I use a Sigma 35mm f2 and 50mm f2 DG DN. They are both wonderfully made, have a lovely aperture ring and are very sharp.

The 35mm f1.4 is weighty but compact. It seems a great option for sometimes

The 35mm f1.2 ii is more costly and more weighty, and in the balance I might prefer the 1.4 in this comparison.

Interestingly the 50mm f1.4 is so close in size and weight to the new 50mm f1.2 that, costs aside, it seems better to go for the 50mm f1.2.

So I might be tempted for the 50mm f1.2 at first, as it has a dual role as thin DOF for people and a low light "opposite side of the street" monster.

 

[Babylonia]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb colonel:

I have just been into the shop and looked at the lenses again.

Firstly, I use a Sigma 35mm f2 and 50mm f2 DG DN. They are both wonderfully made, have a lovely aperture ring and are very sharp.

The 35mm f1.4 is weighty but compact. It seems a great option for sometimes

I also do use the Sigma 35mm f2  DG DN  as a general  "light weight"  alternative to more bulky and heavy lenses.
It always comes to compromises in choosing lenses, by weight, sizes etc.....    Nothing new.
 

vor 4 Stunden schrieb colonel:

Interestingly the 50mm f1.4 is so close in size and weight to the new 50mm f1.2 that, costs aside, it seems better to go for the 50mm f1.2.

In  "that time"  I choose for the  50mm f1.4  - as the 50mm f1.2 was not produced "than".
But when I had chosen far more "later" (one year later), by two choices, I definitely had chosen to the more new 50mm f1.2  model.
As it has about the same weight, but better corrected in general for other lens characteristics.
In spite of far more high price.

But exchange "now", the loss of investment is to heavy, to do for the "one third" aperture difference.
For the relative "few" circumstances I do use the lens itself.
(I am retired, my general health is not that good at all, - relative less taking pictures).

-

Edited November 5 by Babylonia

[Chris W]

Stick with a compact f2 lens.

[colonel]

Thanks for all the input

so examining my goals, I bought the 35mm f1.4.

There are a number of reasons. 

It is over 100g lighter then the 1.2. This might not seem a lot, but for my wrist it is just ok to walk around for a few hours. It is also slimmer and smaller, which is a nice bonus for a more compact looking wall about.

In terms of sharpness, I wanted something not just for the 1.4 but also sharper then my f2. It is indeed noticeably sharper then the f2 lens at f2. The Sigma 35mm f2 is an amazing lens but not as sharp wide open as the 50mm f2. To be honest the 50mm f2 is one of those unusually special lenses with an optical formula well over its price.

In terms of performance, at f1.4 I would class it as very good, at f2 excellent and f2.8 outstanding. How does this compare to the new f1.2 ii ? The new 1.2 is simply outstanding at f1.2. By f2 and above pixel peepers may notice a difference until f4. So you are basically paying for an ethereal f1.2-1.4.

I think if this is your objective then the f1.2 ii is totally worth it, but for me at half the price having a very good f1.4 was fine. 

Lastly the build quality and ring operation is top notch.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[colonel]

Leica SL3. Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG DN

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10 by colonel

[colonel]

Please see the following sample of photos all taken at f1.4 with the Sigma 35mm:

 

[Photon42]

I just bought the new 35 1.2 DG II. It is 2mm longer than the 1.4 and approximately 100g heavier. I think the weight doesn't bother me at all - had it a couple of times out but not for a full day. The predecessor would have been too much for me with around 1Kg and quite a longer size, too.

[helged]

15 minutes ago, Photon42 said:

I just bought the new 35 1.2 DG II. It is 2mm longer than the 1.4 and approximately 100g heavier. I think the weight doesn't bother me at all - had it a couple of times out but not for a full day. The predecessor would have been too much for me with around 1Kg and quite a longer size, too.

Waiting for images...