Yep. Reserved one from Lensrentals. Was just going to buy it, but it's like going on a blind date and I'm not swimming in extra cash right now, so I want to be sure. I'll know after a few days with it - already know I'll love the IQ, just want to see how it handles and does in my oddly-specific use cases. Will post some after next weekend. Excited!
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Yep. Reserved one from Lensrentals. Was just going to buy it, but it's like going on a blind date and I'm not swimming in extra cash right now, so I want to be sure. I'll know after a few days with it - already know I'll love the IQ, just want to see how it handles and does in my oddly-specific use cases. Will post some after next weekend. Excited!
I was going to be smart like you. I was going to sit on it, wait it out for a while. But um... the store next to my office got 1 unit in and then on my lunch break something happened.
I'm sure I'll love it, not yet sure I need it. Might sell off the 55/1.8 but that is my main event lens in any available light situation.
I’m in the same boat.
I own the 55 1.8 which I do not use very much.
Looking to sell it but I’m non sure the sharpness of this Sigma is on par.
The examples from Fred are not helpful as they are not full resolution jpegs o better RAWs.
Beautiful pictures, but not enough to know the resolution power of this lens.
Exactly, the 55 is hard to get warm and fuzzy about, but does make a lot of sense and might be hard to replace. The 45 might be kinda the opposite. I don't think it's optimised for sharpness and resolution, although both look fine for my needs. But man, that rendering.
I’m under the impression this lens is nothing special apart bokeh.
A 45 2.8 so expensive must carry a high resolution from wide open in my opinion.
Then bokeh is an added value.
Unless it is considered a special lens like 60’s or 70’s legacy lenses like Helios or similar but which cost is 10 times lower.
Also the missing coating....!
Strange approach.
Nevertheless Fred’s picture are beautiful, but he is a great shooter!
I hope to be wrong in my reading.
scalanc2 wrote:
I’m under the impression this lens is nothing special apart bokeh.
A 45 2.8 so expensive must carry a high resolution from wide open in my opinion.
Then bokeh is an added value.
Unless it is considered a special lens like 60’s or 70’s legacy lenses like Helios or similar but which cost is 10 times lower.
Also the missing coating....!
Strange approach.
Nevertheless Fred’s picture are beautiful, but he is a great shooter!
I hope to be wrong in my reading.
You're pretty right, we all expected a "special rendering" lens like the vintage ones, but with Sony e-mount and AF. The premium price would be for these 2 features. Unfortunately the AF feature is reported as not quite fully working.
Aug 20, 2019 at 03:27 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's actually priced in the lower end of native FE auto focus lenses if you look at MSRP at release time. Not counting budget lenses like Samyang, which has a current 45/1.8 for $150 or so less.
Not knocking Samyang (or Helios, which I also love) but this is a metal lens of modern design. Sigma is a pretty established name in high-end glass. The build quality alone would appear to be a justification for the price difference. I'm also seeing quite a bit of sharpness wide open, but anyway I'm at the point in my photography life, where sharpness is one of the criteria that I look at, but it's far from the most important one. Almost all non-defective modern lenses are probably sharper than anyone needs, especially when printing or viewing at large sizes is rare. For my application, a lens needs to be small, light, well-built with good handling and nice rendering. Sharpness is a given, but this lens would appear to tick quite a few boxes for me. I also shoot 80/20 stills and video, so I need to see how it handles in video, if the on-board mic will pick up focus motor noise, how well face-detect works and how pleasant and accurate the manual focusing is on it.
Guess I'll see in a few days, will report back.
scalanc2 wrote:
I’m under the impression this lens is nothing special apart bokeh.
A 45 2.8 so expensive must carry a high resolution from wide open in my opinion.
Then bokeh is an added value.
Unless it is considered a special lens like 60’s or 70’s legacy lenses like Helios or similar but which cost is 10 times lower.
Also the missing coating....!
Strange approach.
Nevertheless Fred’s picture are beautiful, but he is a great shooter!
I hope to be wrong in my reading.
Some of you may find this interesting. (updated numbers)
According to the manufacture's diagonal AOV data (which seems to be precise), the Sigma 45/2.8 is a true 45mm at infinity distance and 3.5mm longer than the CV 40/1.2 Nokton.
scalanc2 wrote:
I’m under the impression this lens is nothing special apart bokeh.
A 45 2.8 so expensive must carry a high resolution from wide open in my opinion.
Then bokeh is an added value.
Unless it is considered a special lens like 60’s or 70’s legacy lenses like Helios or similar but which cost is 10 times lower.
Also the missing coating....!
Strange approach.
Nevertheless Fred’s picture are beautiful, but he is a great shooter!
I hope to be wrong in my reading.
Thank you.
If you just compare specs, the Sigma 45/2.8 seems overpriced but once you handle the lens (all metal, including hood), compare features (aperture ring, AF-MF button) and inspect IQ (resolution/rendering/CA control), I think the price is warranted if you are OK with a f/2.8 lens.
For $150 less you can get the Samyang 45/1.8, which is slightly more than a stop faster and seems sharper at some distances but it's not as well corrected for CA, rendering is a bit harsh and it does not have a metal build nor extra features like aperture ring, AF/MF button.
The Sigma does not seem to be as sharp as the Samyang but in exchange rendering is smooth like butter. So, it depends on your priorities. I prefer sharp with outstanding rendering instead of very sharp with harsh rendering. This is basically an optical design decision to under-correct spherical aberration benefitting rendering in exchange for less resolution.
This stuff is very subjective and I'm glad we have so many options for the E-mount.
This is right.
Then for Sony we have Sigma ART fast, heavy and super resolution, good.
Sigma Cont. not so fast, relatively light standard/high resolution and beautiful bokeh.
Sony lenses with a more traditional approach.
Not counting Batis, cheap Samyang and all manual lenses like Voigt. Loxia etc.
The important point is to exactly know what you are going to buy in respect of you priorities.
This is why your tests are so important to us
I didn't calculate it myself, Fred, but plugging Sigma's reported 51.3 degree diagonal angle of view and the Sony sensor size into a couple of on-line calculators suggests a focal length much closer to 45mm than 43.5mm. What am I missing?
I cropped the full size examples a few posts ago and found that 5511 pixels width of the CV40 fills the same frame of 6000 pixels width of the Sigma 45. That is, the CV40 seems about 8.87% wider close to the infinite. If we assume the CV40 as 41.5mm, the Sigma should be 45.2mm focused at the infinite.
However, from previous examples posted by you I measured around only 1.6mm longer (done on crops, not so accurate) focusing at around 2 metres. You also mentioned how close they were. So it seems that the Sigma has also far more focus breathing.
EDIT: the 3.7mm difference measured in a horizontal line near half the height of the image (introducing distortion into the game, the results could vary further depending on the region measured -e.g. near the corners-).
zugzwang2 wrote:
I didn't calculate it myself, Fred, but plugging Sigma's reported 51.3 degree diagonal angle of view and the Sony sensor size into a couple of on-line calculators suggests a focal length much closer to 45mm than 43.5mm. What am I missing?
---------------------------------------------
cgarcia wrote:
I cropped the full size examples a few posts ago and found that 5511 pixels width of the CV40 fills the same frame of 6000 pixels width of the Sigma 45. That is, the CV40 seems about 8.87% wider close to the infinite. If we assume the CV40 as 41.5mm, the Sigma should be 45.2mm focused at the infinite.
However, from previous examples posted by you I measured around only 1.6mm longer (done on crops, not so accurate) focusing at around 2 metres. You also mentioned how close they were. So it seems that the Sigma has also far more focus breathing.
EDIT: the 3.7mm difference measured in a horizontal line near half the height of the image (introducing distortion into the game, the results could vary further depending on the region measured -e.g. near the corners-)....Show more →
You both are correct. The Sigma seems to be a true 45mm at infinity according to Sigma's diagonal AOV data. I initially plugged in the wrong numbers.
If you just compare specs, the Sigma 45/2.8 seems overpriced but once you handle the lens (all metal, including hood), compare features (aperture ring, AF-MF button) and inspect IQ (resolution/rendering/CA control), I think the price is warranted if you are OK with a f/2.8 lens.
For $150 less you can get the Samyang 45/1.8, which is slightly more than a stop faster and seems sharper at some distances but it's not as well corrected for CA, rendering is a bit harsh and it does not have a metal build nor extra features like aperture ring, AF/MF button.
The Sigma does not seem to be as sharp as the Samyang but in exchange rendering is smooth like butter. So, it depends on your priorities. I prefer sharp with outstanding rendering instead of very sharp with harsh rendering. This is basically an optical design decision to under-correct spherical aberration benefitting rendering in exchange for less resolution.
This stuff is very subjective and I'm glad we have so many options for the E-mount....Show more →
I fully agree.
I'm glad Sigma decided to not only focus on resolution. My favorite lenses are always a balance of resolution and rendering.
It doesn't feel overpriced at all. It has to be one of the nicest AF lenses I've used when it comes to size, sturdy metal build (it also has a rubber sealing gasket around the mount), great feeling aperture ring,... and it's still quite a bit cheaper than the similar sized, harsh rendering, plastic, aperture ring lacking FE 35/2.8.
