hahahahaa
I need to sit down and write my current impressions from Fred's test and what I will be doing..I am sure a LOT of people is eager to read my opinion hahahaha ok maybe not but still I want to express it eventually. Just waiting for Fred's Eye AF test.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
hahahahaa
I need to sit down and write my current impressions from Fred's test and what I will be doing..I am sure a LOT of people is eager to read my opinion hahahaha ok maybe not but still I want to express it eventually. Just waiting for Fred's Eye AF test.
I for one would love to hear you impression. As a Pro myself i think we help give our point of view even though it may not relate to a hobbyists needs it does show the logic we use to solve our problems and needs. I think that works both ways too and like you we respect very much our hobbyists friends here and as a community when someone is adding good data points its very important and let me add when these data points are added they are backed by facts which some of us do by testing the load out of this stuff and post it.
Specular highlights quality and shape (bokeh balls)
It's always surprising to see that a lens with a huge aspherical element towards the front produces such clean specular highlights. Sony extreme aspherical (XA) molding process really works well and I can't detect any sign of onion ring pattern on 135/1.8 GM's images.
The Sigma 135/1.8 Art on the other hand does not have aspherical in its optical design so I was expecting great quality in this regard.
How do they compare side by side? Here are samples taken at infinity and close focus. They have very similar outlining and clean inner structure, but Sigma's specular highlights are slightly more rounded than the Sony's especially at close distance.
Thanks Fred. Feels like splitting more hairs with this one. Although I agree the Sigma produces ever so slightly rounder (plumper?) balls in this test.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
hahahahaa
I need to sit down and write my current impressions from Fred's test and what I will be doing..I am sure a LOT of people is eager to read my opinion hahahaha ok maybe not but still I want to express it eventually. Just waiting for Fred's Eye AF test.
Yesterday I did an Eye AF test and was surprised the Sigma held its own.
Using Eye AF in AF-C, I took 20 shots in good light and 20 shots in low light. (both indoors). So 40 images for each lens.
How did they fare?
Sony 135 GM: (it's not infallible )
Good light: 18 critically sharp images, 1 sharp, 1 miss
I was surprised by this result because AF is much faster on the Sony but the Sigma did very well in comparison.
My model was holding still but moving her head after every click (So move and freeze for the shot). For these types of still portraits, both lenses will do very well, although the Sony performed better.
With faster action, I believe the Sigma would not perform as well, especially in low light.
The Sony 135/1.8 GM is equipped 11 rounded aperture blades. The Sigma has 9 blades in comparison.
Of course there is no advantage for the Sony when both lenses are wide open since the aperture blades would be recessed but as we stop the lens down, we can see some changes.
Here is a sequence from f/1.8 until f/5.6 comparing specular highlights' roundness at center: (Sony vs Sigma)
PS: Ignore the dark spots on the 135 GM crops. My review copy has some internal dust.
Resolution and Contrast at Minimum focus distance (MFD):
Here is where the Sony exceeded my expectations. We've already seen the FE 135/1.8 GM performed great at infinity distance being super sharp across the field from wide open and having f/2.8 as its optimal aperture. But how does it performs at minimal close distance? Surprisingly the same thanks for its floating element design.
For ultimate resolution at MFD, stopping down to f/2.8 improves resolution slightly but f/1.8 (wide open) is already outstanding as we can see below:
Incredible performance at MFD: LEFT: f/1.8 | RIGHT: F/2.8
Sony vs Sigma at f/1.8 (MFD): Much higher resolution and contrast for the Sony and it lets you get closer too!
Sony vs Sigma at f/2.8 (MFD): The Sigma improves at lot and gets very close to the Sony. I'd say f/2.8 is needed for the Sigma when shooting at close distance.
. Love it
)
