JohnK007 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Yairt wrote:
I want to express my tests finding of the Sigma 135 ART vs the Milvus 135 On Nikon D810
First i own Zeiss and Sigma Art lenses , so i am not biased at all.
I rented both and bought the Sigma since i found it is the better lens , not because anything else.
First facts
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/04/sigma-135mm-f1-8-art-mtf-charts-and-a-look-behind-the-curtain/
Facts? You are providing a written opinion, not visual documentation or any kind of a test.
Your reasons for "buying the Sigma" were, no doubt, due to COST and AF, not because of supreme detail or image quality. Me? If I can afford the more expensive Zeiss, it's pretty clear I could certainly afford the cheaper Sigma. What I want, however, is the best lens possible for my purposes.
Moving on, what you call 'facts" is actually just an MTF chart, not the whole story. Even LensRentals prefaces every MTF chart it does by saying, "this is just an MTF test, nothing more."
The entire point of Dustin Abbot's video presentation was to show the difference between 'sharpness' and micro-contrast ... where the Zeiss is noticeably-superior at every aperture, esp. up close.
Yairt wrote:
The sigma is a little better than the Zeiss wide open according to the only valid test , which takes into account large amount of samples and it is Not depended on the camera sensor.
So please stop being religious about zeiss it is a tool noting more.
"The only valid test?" Who are you, the determiner of all things? Speaking of religion, you are saying, "Thou shalt not believe any other test but this one
Moving on, I won't confuse you by getting into the actual definition of "valid," versus "sound," as defined philosophically, but for you to try to claim that MTF graph results are the 'only' authority is pretty clueless.
BTW, I am an atheist and not religious in the slightest. What I am is an admirer of quality optics. The camera sensor in the video had nothing to do with the outcome; it was the same for both lenses. To say otherwise is simply emotional-denial of the results, not factual rebuttal.
Yairt wrote:
The 135A is the first ART lens that its auto focus is consistent and accurate.
My results are on Nikon D810 and Not on Canon 5DMk4 which is 30MP and has an anti aliasing filter which masks details by default.
If AF is important to you, buy the Sigma. Easy choice.
However, again, trying to blame the results on Dustin's tests on the Canon sensor is simply living in denial. Let me help you understand something ... it's the same sensor for both lenses
If the Zeiss shows more micro-detail on a smaller, filtered sensor ... rocket science ought to tell you that it will show more detail on a larger, unfiltered sensor too ... or do you think the Canon 5D IV sensor filter only affects Sigma-branded lenses and not Zeiss'
Yairt wrote:
IMHO , The Sigma has an inconsistent behavior near MFD and that is where most of the criticism comes from.
Near MFD the Zeiss is simply light years a head in all aspect , it is not even close.
Well, since I am a close-up and macro photographer, we at least find a point we can fully agree on: the Zeiss completely trounces the Sigma up close, and (we agree again) it isn't even close. If a person is interested in photographing flowers, or foliage, or any type of intimate nature shot (where subtle colors and micro-detail are everything), forget the Sigma and go with the Zeiss.
Yairt wrote:
On normal shooting distances from 8 to 25 feet my findings change.
The Sigma is clearly sharper (on the D810) and with less CA and better and smoother out of focus rendering.
The zeiss has different color balance but you can not say it is better since it doesn't have larger color range just different balance. ( not the case with the ART 85 and the Milvus 85 where the Milvus is much more transparent and with a richer color range )
with careful matching i couldn't tell the difference.
once the color and exposure are matched global and local contrast are super close to me....Show more →
Isn't that pretty much what the video demonstrated? That the two lenses were equivalent mid-range?
To me, the Sigma looked better on the edges, but still lacked the micro-contrast in the center (wide-open).
It was a qualitative wash at mid-range, so if a person is shooting weddings, etc. ... where they're constantly on the move, taking this shot and that, they will benefit far more from the Sigma's AF than from any qualitative advantage of the Zeiss.
Yairt wrote:
Infinity
I am sorry but unless some has an eye sight of a superman ( or wonder woman) i dont see a difference when both lenses are match and focused tightly.
(One mistake i saw on many reviews is the focusing on infinity. It is hard to only look at one point since your DOF should be match.
i carefully make sure the DOF start around the same place and goes to infinity.)
Again, that is pretty much what the video concluded, isn't it? However, we agree for different reasons.
IMO, the Zeiss was still better at micro-contrast; however the Sigma appeared better in the corners (at least wide-open) Trouble is, most people don't shoot landscapes wide-open; they're stopped down to at least f/8, where vignetting isn't a problem and corner-sharpness is typically at its best. So, to me, the Zeiss' micro-contrast was still superior for pulling all of the subtle detail out of the tree leaves, etc.
The real reason to shoot wide-open is up-close, under 8', to blur the background and define the subject, so Zeiss' superiority up close should be noted. As should its lack of AF, however, if this is important to you.
Yairt wrote:
The best professional article on line is not free and is on :
https://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/Sigma135f1_8A/Sigma135f1_8A.html
If someone is interested in facts and doesn't have emotions in it i advice reading this site prior to making a purchase.
All The best
Happy Shooting.
Yair
'The best?" Really? And who are you to make this determination?
I actually believe Dustin's video was far more helpful than any of the written reviews, because it allowed the viewer to see the differences ... up close, mid-range, and long-range ... where each lens looked good ... and where each lens did not ... and to apply the findings to their own style.
The video also demonstrated the difference between 'global sharpness' and overall micro-detail. People act like MTF charts are everything, but they're not.
At the end of the day, every review seems to be unanimous that they're both good lenses with few weaknesses ... but there are weaknesses in both.
For some, lack of AF is a weakness in the Zeiss ... while lack of micro-contrast + limited (150°) focus-throw in the Sigma will be considered a severe weakness (compared to the Zeiss' 270° focus throw). If you're doing stack-shooting of flowers, fall-color leaves, or anything in nature where you're fairly-close and wanting the most micro-detail, the difference is pretty clear.
Also, for close-up work, the Zeiss has a 1:4 reproduction ratio; where the Sigma has a 1:5 ratio.
Both are sub-optimal in the min. focus distance department: the Zeiss 2.62' (80 cm); the Sigma 2.87' (87.5 cm).
For me, as a close-up/macro shooter, if the Zeiss went 1:1, and if and had a 9-12" min focus distance, it would be a perfect lens. But it's still great at what it does.
For weddings and such, the Sigma looks to be the better overall tool for the job, for the AF alone, with comparable image quality elsewhere (esp. since 'micro-detail' isn't as important in this kind of shooting).
|