Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, I usually use +2EV with "Highlight" metering in flat light and lower a bit under high contrast lighting. It's almost an automated ETTR for better shadows.
.. I don't think I have tried that in the past. I tried highlight metering and didn't like it at all but i never really thought about using the compensation with it as my default. I often change metering modes but I feel like the spot metering tied the autofocus point is awesome. Do you think your highlight +EV offset works better than using EV with the metering tied to the autofocus point?
Oops forgot why went to this thread... I got to use this lens a bit of late.. I found the AF a bit flakey but otherwise the lens is pretty awesome. The aperture ring is awesome. The build quality, size, weight specs etc are all awesome. I hope sigma does make another 2 or 3 lenses to give us a full family of primes like this offering.
Rebuilt barn in Steamboat Springs, CO. I didn't have the room to back up to this is a stitch so I could get the tiniest rainbow ever in the left corner.
zhangyue wrote:
For fun take sigma for usability take 35mm. (if you have no other lens in this focal, you should consider 35mm first for the speed and fast AF etc...)
grahamgibson wrote:
Anyone give up their Voigtlander 40/1.2 for this lens?
I'm sticking with the CV40 but may add the Sigma at some point. It's really just the AF-C issue that is holding me back at the moment — if I'm going to add a redundant focal length lens for autofocus, the main thing it needs to be pretty good at is autofocus.
Finally a direct comparison to the Samyang 45mm.
According to the review the Samyang is the better choice in every aspect except for build quality (not to mention the big price difference). Bokeh seems comparable, although I have to admit there is little evidence in the review that supports this claim (especially subjects at longer distances and transition zone comparison is missing).
I do like the rendering of the Samyang 45mm and I am a bit surprised how little the lens is discussed in this forum compared to similar lenses (Sigma 45, Sony 35). Some of you have mentioned the Samyang produces 'harsh' bokeh, but I've yet to find sample images that prove it.
I am just looking for a reason that justifies to buy the (overpriced) Sigma 45/2.8 in addition to the Samyang
grahamgibson wrote:
Anyone give up their Voigtlander 40/1.2 for this lens?
No, I still have both. Sigma for spontaneous friends & family (and some street) shooting, the CV40 for everything else.
The bokeh of the Sigma makes portraits a bit more flattering. As much as I like AF, I am quite decent with MF, so the weather sealing was the more attractive feature of the Sigma, in my case.
cwnchkn wrote:
No, I still have both. Sigma for spontaneous friends & family (and some street) shooting, the CV40 for everything else.
The bokeh of the Sigma makes portraits a bit more flattering. As much as I like AF, I am quite decent with MF, so the weather sealing was the more attractive feature of the Sigma, in my case.
The Sigma is not weathersealed. It simply has a rubber gasket around the mount.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
Quite curious to see how the 35/1.8 compares to the new Sigma 45/2.8. I'll likely be picking up one of these two...
Same. I'd love to compare photos from both lenses on a tripod to better evaluate the focal length difference, since it seems the 35/1.8 may shoot a bit longer than stated.
flilow06 wrote:
Same. I'd love to compare photos from both lenses on a tripod to better evaluate the focal length difference, since it seems the 35/1.8 may shoot a bit longer than stated.
