I own the little Sigma myself for a few days now. It renders quite beautifully, especially the out of focus rendering is quite gorgeous for a 2.8. One thing I noticed though, is the AF accuracy near the minimum focus distance. As Fred already mentioned, the lens shows quite some improvement in image quality when stopping down in this distance range. However, partly this seems a bit due to a small backfocus behavior with AF-C at these distances, at least with my sample. It would be great if you could quickly test this with your sample. Just compare manual/AF-S/AF-C shots at near minimum focus distances. Cheers
The lens renders very nicely. Reminds me of classic lens rendering. This is a steal for L mount. I've been looking for a street lens with autofocus for my Leica SL.
jhinkey wrote:
Ugh, my search for a 35-45mm small, light FE mount lens for backpacking/hiking/etc. continues on . . . . poor sunstars has doomed this lens for me - might as well stay with the Sony 35/2.8.
It is interesting that a lens is rejected for a lack of aberrations.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't think the 35/2.8 ZA can render great sunstars either. I agree though, sunstar rendering is not a strength but in exchange we have very rounded bokeh balls at f/4.
Yes, if you really stop it down and don't directly point it into the sun. The flare that is has ruins any well defined sun stars unless you use it in specific situations like in that photo.
Jochenb wrote:
Agreed, I only miss one thing and that's the AF performance (speed, accuracy, noise).
This needs more testing but AF seems fast, quiet (not silent) under good light.
In low light it hunts a bit but nothing out of the ordinary for a f/2.8 lens.
Accuracy needs more testing. In AF-C (PDAF), my copy seems to back-focus quite a lot. All my close-up tests were done in MF for this reason. No problems with AF-S (contrast-detect).
Thanks for the testing and sharing. Looks like an interesting lens. I'm sitting on the fence for this one. I'd like it but would have to trade it off against other gear....
davidmathar wrote:
I own the little Sigma myself for a few days now. It renders quite beautifully, especially the out of focus rendering is quite gorgeous for a 2.8. One thing I noticed though, is the AF accuracy near the minimum focus distance. As Fred already mentioned, the lens shows quite some improvement in image quality when stopping down in this distance range. However, partly this seems a bit due to a small backfocus behavior with AF-C at these distances, at least with my sample. It would be great if you could quickly test this with your sample. Just compare manual/AF-S/AF-C shots at near minimum focus distances. Cheers ...Show more →
Thanks David. I am experiencing the same issues with AF-C and back-focus. No issues with AF-S.
I'm sure this is something that can be resolved via firmware update. I will send my tests to Sigma and let them know right now.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I agree, it's a great walk around lens. I wish it performed better at close distance though.
That's my struggle with it.. It has something similar to the Mandler Leica glow at close distances but without the Leica magic I can't quite put my finger on it but it seems to just lack something that makes me not wanna own it... BUT as I mentioned on the other forum, I'm sure it's charm will shine through when the Sigma FP comes as right now I'm using it on a S1 and the body is much too big for the benefits of a small lens like the 45mm. I won't sell my copy until I've played with it on the Sigma FP as it might be a great alternative to the Q/Q2.
I'm also having focusing issues with it on the S1 FYI.
?