I'm testing the Sigma's AF speed and accuracy (AF-C and AF-S modes) in very low light and it's failing miserably....It hunts a lot and when it locks, my subject is not critically sharp. The Sony does way better in comparison always locking on my subject. I'm trying to avoid horizon lines as Sony's PDAF does not like that.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm testing the Sigma's AF speed and accuracy (AF-C and AF-S modes) in very low light and it's failing miserably....It hunts a lot and when it locks, my subject is not critically sharp. The Sony does way better in comparison always locking on my subject. I'm trying to avoid horizon lines as Sony's PDAF does not like that.
So going back to what I think I read was the FE version is having more trouble than the Canon with the MC-11. Does that sound correct
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm testing the Sigma's AF speed and accuracy (AF-C and AF-S modes) in very low light and it's failing miserably....It hunts a lot and when it locks, my subject is not critically sharp. The Sony does way better in comparison always locking on my subject. I'm trying to avoid horizon lines as Sony's PDAF does not like that.
This was my experience on the Canon-adapted Sigma as well, AF-C with low light and/or moving subjects had issues.
I worked around it with different lenses, but was why I was kicking around picking up a Batis 135 now that prices are down...but once the size/weight of the 135GM was announced, I sold my Sigma 135 and await the GM.
GMPhotography wrote:
So going back to what I think I read was the FE version is having more trouble than the Canon with the MC-11. Does that sound correct
I never had the FE version, but I doubt you would have found the AF-C on my Canon version acceptable.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm testing the Sigma's AF speed and accuracy (AF-C and AF-S modes) in very low light and it's failing miserably....It hunts a lot and when it locks, my subject is not critically sharp. The Sony does way better in comparison always locking on my subject. I'm trying to avoid horizon lines as Sony's PDAF does not like that.
How do these lenses focus when you set Live preview to Off? Wide open or do they still close down at preset aperture when focusing?
I am playing with the “lowly” yet lovely FE 50/1.8 as we’re speaking and it does it wide open. Hunts in the dark, but when it says it’s locked, it’s actually in focus. I don’t mind the hunting but I’d hate taking the pics just to realize later that they weren’t properly focused.
Those are all great tests! Thanks for posting them. I’d love to buy the Sony 135mm, but it’s not in my budget at the moment. Plus I don’t like 135mm for portraits, too long for me. I hope the 100mm f1.4 rumors are true, I’d prefer that focal length for portraits. I guess the only difference between my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 art and the 135mm Sony or Sigma is the background compression. The bokeh looks very similar. However these Sony samples are impressive. If it get it, it will be one heck of an astrophotography lens on my star tracker.
GMPhotography wrote:
So going back to what I think I read was the FE version is having more trouble than the Canon with the MC-11. Does that sound correct
This was under very low light though. (Like a room with very dimmed light)
Under low light and good light the Sigma did well with accuracy but the Sony's AF is faster. The Sigma has more trouble going from a strongly defocused subject to focus in lower light and when that happens, it hunts a bit.
I'm actually impressed with the Sigma. It's not screaming sharp like the GM but it has slightly better rendering. (Although difficult to detect when both are side-by-side). AF is actually fast and EyeAF works. (Not sure how the Canon version adapted to Sony compares)
Under very low light, it just hunts and hunts so it really depends on the venue and if you need to shoot in very low light, the GM is the better choice.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This was under very low light though. (Like a room with very dimmed light)
Under low light and good light the Sigma did well with accuracy but the Sony's AF is faster. The Sigma has more trouble going from a strongly defocused subject to focus in lower light and when that happens, it hunts a bit.
I'm actually impressed with the Sigma. It's not screaming sharp like the GM but it has slightly better rendering. (Although difficult to detect when both are side-by-side). AF is actually fast and EyeAF works. (Not sure how the Canon version adapted to Sony compares)
Under very low light, it just hunts and hunts so it really depends on the venue and if you need to shoot in very low light, the GM is the better choice....Show more →
Similar to that YT guy found.... I wouldn't be surprised though. However, it's great that Sigma at least nailed it in good light, which people will shoot this lens at most of the time.
Kudos to Sony engineers to make a lens smaller and lighter with faster focusing speed, sharper IQ and slightly less smooth than the Sigma. To be realistic, no first party lens maker would ever sell an equivalent lens cheaper than the third party guys.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This was under very low light though. (Like a room with very dimmed light)
Under low light and good light the Sigma did well with accuracy but the Sony's AF is faster. The Sigma has more trouble going from a strongly defocused subject to focus in lower light and when that happens, it hunts a bit.
I'm actually impressed with the Sigma. It's not screaming sharp like the GM but it has slightly better rendering. (Although difficult to detect when both are side-by-side). AF is actually fast and EyeAF works. (Not sure how the Canon version adapted to Sony compares)
Under very low light, it just hunts and hunts so it really depends on the venue and if you need to shoot in very low light, the GM is the better choice....Show more →
Thanks Fred and unfortunately I do work on a lot of event stuff like corporate meetings with horrible low light on stage. Distance and AF speed is needed . So this should be perfect. Plus all the other stuff I do
GMPhotography wrote:
Thanks Fred and unfortunately I do work on a lot of event stuff like corporate meetings with horrible low light on stage. Distance and AF speed is needed . So this should be perfect. Plus all the other stuff I do
All my tests with EyeAF were done with still models though (pose and freeze). If the models start moving around I'm not sure how the Sigma will fare. I will test it tomorrow.
I know you shoot runaway shows in low light with models walking around. If I were you, I would take the GM for these types of events.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This was under very low light though. (Like a room with very dimmed light)
Under low light and good light the Sigma did well with accuracy but the Sony's AF is faster. The Sigma has more trouble going from a strongly defocused subject to focus in lower light and when that happens, it hunts a bit.
I'm actually impressed with the Sigma. It's not screaming sharp like the GM but it has slightly better rendering. (Although difficult to detect when both are side-by-side). AF is actually fast and EyeAF works. (Not sure how the Canon version adapted to Sony compares)
Under very low light, it just hunts and hunts so it really depends on the venue and if you need to shoot in very low light, the GM is the better choice....Show more →
No question I liked the Sigma when I had it and if not for being in the very beginning with A7rII and bad firmware . But I don’t count that because it has gotten way better. Just bad timing for me
I’d rather be sharp and soften things up on my end if need be. But we are all going to have diffrent priorities here. Either one of them is a nice choice. There is a Sigma FE on the board for 1050 dollars right now. Now that may tempt someone and save a lot of cash.
Fred Miranda wrote:
All my tests with EyeAF were done with still models though (pose and freeze). If the models start moving around I'm not sure how the Sigma will fare. I will test it tomorrow.
I know you shoot runaway shows in low light with models walking around. If I were you, I would take the GM for these types of events.
No question just wish it was a 200 F2. Lol
BTW I use Eye AF on those shows and tracks very well. This should nail it at a alarming keeper rate
vdo1 wrote:
How do these lenses focus when you set Live preview to Off? Wide open or do they still close down at preset aperture when focusing?
I am playing with the “lowly” yet lovely FE 50/1.8 as we’re speaking and it does it wide open. Hunts in the dark, but when it says it’s locked, it’s actually in focus. I don’t mind the hunting but I’d hate taking the pics just to realize later that they weren’t properly focused.
Todd wrote:
Those are all great tests! Thanks for posting them. I’d love to buy the Sony 135mm, but it’s not in my budget at the moment. Plus I don’t like 135mm for portraits, too long for me. I hope the 100mm f1.4 rumors are true, I’d prefer that focal length for portraits. I guess the only difference between my Sigma 105mm f/1.4 art and the 135mm Sony or Sigma is the background compression. The bokeh looks very similar. However these Sony samples are impressive. If it get it, it will be one heck of an astrophotography lens on my star tracker....Show more →
Yea this is a good chunk of change to put out. No doubt about it. I do think it will sell well though. It’s going to attract a very diverse set of photographers in a lot of areas
BTW great tests Fred, now I don’t have to do some of this.
I should add here that these kinds of tests are just brutal and more importantly your not comparing lenses out in the real world. So end of day this don’t matter but the one you got in your hands. I think that’s a perspective that we need to remember. Your not going to know how another lens is in the field. These are very close either way. Honestly I bought the Sony more for faster AF and the extra functions and of course size and weight. But the AF was the most important. I knew the IQ would be great. But I’m paying for that too
Fred Miranda wrote:
This was under very low light though. (Like a room with very dimmed light)
Under low light and good light the Sigma did well with accuracy but the Sony's AF is faster. The Sigma has more trouble going from a strongly defocused subject to focus in lower light and when that happens, it hunts a bit.
I'm actually impressed with the Sigma. It's not screaming sharp like the GM but it has slightly better rendering. (Although difficult to detect when both are side-by-side). AF is actually fast and EyeAF works. (Not sure how the Canon version adapted to Sony compares)
Under very low light, it just hunts and hunts so it really depends on the venue and if you need to shoot in very low light, the GM is the better choice....Show more →
For comparison when I did my low light test with the Canon version with MC-11 my subject was very under exposed. When I tried to expose correctly just for test, at 100K ISO it was still 1 stop under expose yet the camera never hunt, got focus every time between both subjects so to me, there is indeed an issue with the "native" firmware since that is now 3 native ones reporting issue and 2 with MC-11 not reporting issues. My 135mm is also running the latest firmware.
GabrielPhoto wrote:
For comparison when I did my low light test with the Canon version with MC-11 my subject was very under exposed. When I tried to expose correctly just for test, at 100K ISO it was still 1 stop under expose yet the camera never hunt, got focus every time between both subjects so to me, there is indeed an issue with the "native" firmware since that is now 3 native ones reporting issue and 2 with MC-11 not reporting issues. My 135mm is also running the latest firmware.
