Poll: Field lens test comparison (on APS-C)
35mm
50mm
85mm
Not interested
[Show Results]
 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Interested in head-to-head field comparison?
#13
(12-18-2019, 07:54 AM)faint Wrote:
(12-18-2019, 05:54 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: The Fuji is not in the same league, the Sigma also is an exception, and the Fuji is comparable to 52mm f2.1 in FF terms. Is that what you gotta tell us?

That's your interpretation, not mine. I can see that the Milvus 35/1.4 gives me the same field of view and compression as Fojinon XF 35/1.4. While the FF lenses have a larger image circle, can the difference in weight be also explained by their more complex optical formulas:
  • Fujinon XF 35/1.4 has 8 elements,  covers APS-C, weights 187 grams
  • Milvus Distagon 1.4/35 has 14 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 1171 grams (ZF.2)
  • Sigma Art 40/1.4 has 16 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 120 grams
  • Sigma Art 35/1.4 HSM has 13 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 667 grams
  • Tamron SP 35/1.4 USD has 14 elements, covers Full Frame, weights 805 grams
I would speculate that the amount of corrections applied, and the extariour housing contributes to the weight just as much, if not more...

The Sigma 40/1.4 is 10× heavier Wink and all FF lenses are an overkill on APS-C and perform bloody good on FF. And if weight is an issue, there are a couple of f/1.8 which are not too shabby.
  


Messages In This Thread
RE: Interested in head-to-head field comparison? - by JJ_SO - 12-18-2019, 08:39 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)