Nice video Laszio,. I think with the quality of today's camera sensors the 500 rule is too old and 400 is a better gauge. I have the 24mm GM and it's simply unreal. And I have the older Sigma 35mm 1.4 and I love this lens. The sigma ART range is top quality.
Thank you Trevor, appreciate your comment. Agreed that the 500 rule is "outdated" it only gives a good indication where to start. Agreed with all what you said, 24gm is simply out of this world, but loved all of my sigma lenses ;)
Thanks for making this comparison. Two lenses that I find very interesting for astrophotography, though not two I have thought to directly compare before. Pity about the star trailing on the 35mm, would've been good to take a more in depth look at coma, astigmatism and chromatic aberrations which tend to impact the performance up in the frame corners of these super wide aperture lenses. As I think has already been pointed out, the 500 rule really is not suitable for the high MP cameras we have today. The NPF rule here (assuming you were shooting with an a7 III) shows the maximum exposure time of 6 seconds for this 35mm lense wide open. Of course now the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM has been released, would be very interesting to see these two 35mm primes go head to head.
Thanks fort your comment. Indeed the 35gm is a game changer. I'll do my best to compare these two soon. Fully agree on the 500 rule, it's really only a rough guide, but every lens has its specific max recommended shutter speed.
Hi Karn, I'm really into gimbals. In terms of max weight-load it could handle it, however the sigma makes the whole setup quite front heavy. I would definitely recommend to visit a shop and try it yourself if you could balance it.
@@laszlobella-lighthunters ..Thank you so much for ur prompt response. Do take care of urself n ur loved ones from this pandemic. Luv from India❤❤. Namaste🙏🙏
Tight indeed, however it gives you much more detail than a uwa lens, especially if you make panoramas. The foreground - MW ratio changes a lot. You also have much faster lenses in the 24-35 focal range.
What is the point of testing images stitched together, we need to see single images on a tracking mount to assess the coma vignette and magnitude star limit achievable, the 35mm with its larger diameter front lens should see a lot deeper than the 24mm.
Thanks for your comment, appreciate it. There was a part where I compared the performance on a single image. This comparison meant to be a support factor in all aspects before buying any of them
Thanks for your comment. The milky way editing process is really subjective, believe it or not I'm not really using the clarity slider ;) mostly the curves
![АЛАУДИНОВ у Скабеевой: эти их ВСУ нас НЕ ДОГОНЯТ 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/an0anqU4WGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
the only video i can find comparing these 2!
This was one of the reasons I decided to make it. Hope you found it useful 😉
Great video. I was looking for this exact comparison
Thanks for your comment appreciate it.
It's time to forget the 500 rule with sensors going above 40 MPx, realistic to calculate with 300, maybe 350, but it's already edging.
Might be true, never rely only on that. It gives a good starting reference and the rest is practice
Nice video Laszio,. I think with the quality of today's camera sensors the 500 rule is too old and 400 is a better gauge. I have the 24mm GM and it's simply unreal. And I have the older Sigma 35mm 1.4 and I love this lens. The sigma ART range is top quality.
Thank you Trevor, appreciate your comment. Agreed that the 500 rule is "outdated" it only gives a good indication where to start. Agreed with all what you said, 24gm is simply out of this world, but loved all of my sigma lenses ;)
great comparison and nice done video...subscribed
Thanks a lot Jan, appreciate. Will work on the next ones :)
Thanks for making this comparison. Two lenses that I find very interesting for astrophotography, though not two I have thought to directly compare before. Pity about the star trailing on the 35mm, would've been good to take a more in depth look at coma, astigmatism and chromatic aberrations which tend to impact the performance up in the frame corners of these super wide aperture lenses. As I think has already been pointed out, the 500 rule really is not suitable for the high MP cameras we have today. The NPF rule here (assuming you were shooting with an a7 III) shows the maximum exposure time of 6 seconds for this 35mm lense wide open. Of course now the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM has been released, would be very interesting to see these two 35mm primes go head to head.
Thanks fort your comment. Indeed the 35gm is a game changer. I'll do my best to compare these two soon.
Fully agree on the 500 rule, it's really only a rough guide, but every lens has its specific max recommended shutter speed.
Thank you
Thank you, appreciate you've gone through it ☺️
Thank you for making this video! I think I will go with the Sigma, to me it looks more natural with the 35 mm focal length.
Thanks a lot, appreciate it. You will love it I bet, incredible lens
Thanks for sharing your opinion for both lenses!
Glad you like it and I hope it will support the decision :)
I wonder if the GM has coating beneficial. Seems sigma was alway less dynamic rage and washed out.
I have sigma 35. Really quality image, only you must go little far. Before Sony I use olympus omd for astrophotograpy with 12mm f/2
True story, you need a little distance but the quality speaks for itself. The 12mm is a different story, especially on M4/3 😉
@@laszlobella-lighthunters I know. 12mm on M4/3 is 24 on Sony. I think to buy 20mm Sigma
Hello, Is it possible to put this(Sigma 35mm 1.2) on Moza aircross 2 with Sony Full frame cameras. Thanks
Hi Karn, I'm really into gimbals. In terms of max weight-load it could handle it, however the sigma makes the whole setup quite front heavy. I would definitely recommend to visit a shop and try it yourself if you could balance it.
@@laszlobella-lighthunters ..Thank you so much for ur prompt response. Do take care of urself n ur loved ones from this pandemic. Luv from India❤❤. Namaste🙏🙏
@@karan111987 Appreciate, I wish you the same :)
Tetszik :) Magyarul is lesz?
Egyelőre csak felirattal csináltam meg, a jövőben igyekszem mindkét nyelven ;)
Using a 35mm focal length for Astro is just a foreign concept to me…too tight?!? That being said, maybe I should give it a try!
Tight indeed, however it gives you much more detail than a uwa lens, especially if you make panoramas. The foreground - MW ratio changes a lot. You also have much faster lenses in the 24-35 focal range.
What is the point of testing images stitched together, we need to see single images on a tracking mount to assess the coma vignette and magnitude star limit achievable, the 35mm with its larger diameter front lens should see a lot deeper than the 24mm.
Thanks for your comment, appreciate it. There was a part where I compared the performance on a single image. This comparison meant to be a support factor in all aspects before buying any of them
Your edits are awful, stop with the clarity slider, but thanks for the unedited samples, very useful.
Thanks for your comment. The milky way editing process is really subjective, believe it or not I'm not really using the clarity slider ;) mostly the curves