MayaTlab wrote:
Direct comparison with the Samyang here in Dustin Abbott's "IQ breakdown" :
Samyang is sharper at F1.8 than the Sigma at F2.8.
Pretty limited review, no mention of CA or other types of aberrations.
Unfortunately also a pretty bad comparison to the Samyang 45 and Tamron 28-75. I really wanted to see the difference in rendering when the subject is farther away and the background is complicated. In the examples he showed there is simply no difference in rendering between the lenses to speak of.
Mmm while I agree that it's not really going that deep into what makes this lens interesting, at least Dustin keeps an open mind and seems genuinely interested in trying to "get" that lens. That's already better than 90% of the reviews out there.
One of the comparisons already hints at the difference in rendering the Sigma can provide vs. more typically designed lenses I think :
I don't know how to translate the audio track from English to your language but the only thing I understood from the test is bad, the sharpness of the Sigma at short distances ( which is not new) and starting to watch video from 12-20 shows the difference of defocus Sigma and Samyang but how it looks on the real footage is unclear.
MayaTlab wrote:
Mmm while I agree that it's not really going that deep into what makes this lens interesting, at least Dustin keeps an open mind and seems genuinely interested in trying to "get" that lens. That's already better than 90% of the reviews out there.
One of the comparisons already hints at the difference in rendering the Sigma can provide vs. more typically designed lenses I think :
Sure, but the subjects he chose for the comparisons are really really bad. Looking at the crops side by side I barely see a difference (yes a tiny bit smoother on the Sigma but nothing that would win me over to it).
Why not take that portrait shot with all 3 lenses??
keepcoding wrote:
Samyang is sharper at F1.8 than the Sigma at F2.8.
Pretty limited review, no mention of CA or other types of aberrations.
Unfortunately also a pretty bad comparison to the Samyang 45 and Tamron 28-75. I really wanted to see the difference in rendering when the subject is farther away and the background is complicated. In the examples he showed there is simply no difference in rendering between the lenses to speak of.
The Samyang 45 is not sharper than the Sigma 45 at infinity distance @f/4-5.6.
Sigma's spherical aberration is stronger at closer distance (strongest at MFD), so it really depends on the distance they are being compared.
At mid-distance the Samyang's rendering is rather harsh which is not the case with the Sigma. (regardless of aperture)
keepcoding wrote:
Sure, but the subjects he chose for the comparisons are really really bad. Looking at the crops side by side I barely see a difference (yes a tiny bit smoother on the Sigma but nothing that would win me over to it).
I agree they aren't the right subjects. The more the defocus, the less the difference will be seen, and there's a lot of defocus in Dustin's comparisons.
I'm just staying positive as at least there's an attempt here at understanding the lens. We need more of these attempts instead of reviews with a bunch of increasingly irrelevant bar charts IMO .
Yeah, YouTube is the worst. I had to bite my tongue reading the comments there. Last time I replied, some 20 year old got all condescending with me and then I remembered that I was in the comments section of YouTube, where everyone is a Big Deal Expert on everything.
Oh well. People want to dismiss this lens, they're missing the point and missing out. Nothing much to add there.
cwnchkn wrote:
As an engineer, it's situations like this that make me trust and prefer reviews on this forum to most things on YouTube
I really need to shoot this lens more over the next few days. I am still within my return window and haven't been thrilled with up close performance, but maybe I need to stop down and try again. Also, I tend to keep my camera in AF-C and keep forgetting that for closer subjects it's not ideal with the Sigma 45 because of the focus issue. I'll run about a bit with it in AF-S and see what I come up with.
Not a knock on him at all - his work is phenomenal and his reviews are generally on point, just referring to YouTube in general and especially the comments section.
I've fallen in love with this lens, despite a few niggles, I don't want to remove it from my camera. Hoping Sigma will release more with the same design.
I must have missed it when reading about this lens, but at what 'close' distances in feet is this lens soft? Is this the same distances people were complaining about missed focus also?
Deanh wrote:
I must have missed it when reading about this lens, but at what 'close' distances in feet is this lens soft? Is this the same distances people were complaining about missed focus also?
The first post of this thread answers your first question:
Close-up performance:
As mentioned earlier, the Sigma 45/2.8 is not optimized for close focus and does not feature a floating element system. From MTF until about 0.6m, it greatly improves when closing the aperture to f/4. After 1m, resolution and contrast improves greatly and from 3m to infinity it's already great from wide open.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Samyang 45 is not sharper than the Sigma 45 at infinity distance @f/4-5.6.
Sigma's spherical aberration is stronger at closer distance (strongest at MFD), so it really depends on the distance they are being compared.
At mid-distance the Samyang's rendering is rather harsh which is not the case with the Sigma. (regardless of aperture)
Fred have you tried a weak achromat on the Sigma? I’m sure it would improve resolution - but if you have tried it, does it harm bokeh?
DavidBM wrote:
Fred have you tried a weak achromat on the Sigma? I’m sure it would improve resolution - but if you have tried it, does it harm bokeh?
David,
I've tried the Leica Elpro 3 (+1.66 diopter), Elpro 4 (+0.75 diopter) and Marumi 3+ (All 55mm close-up filters)
They all work quite well with the Sigma 45 (similar results as Voigtlaner 40/1.2)
Didn't notice any rendering deterioration.
The Elpro 3 let's me focus up to 1m while the Elpro 4 a bit further. For great IQ at MFD (0.2m) I believe a Marumi 5+ will be needed for high IQ at f/2.8.
Resolution and contrast greatly improve with the achromats by setting the lens from 2m to infinity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
David,
I've tried the Leica Elpro 3 (+1.66 diopter), Elpro 4 (+0.75 diopter) and Marumi 3+ (All 55mm close-up filters)
They all work quite well with the Sigma 45 (similar results as Voigtlaner 40/1.2)
Didn't notice any rendering deterioration.
The Elpro 3 let's me focus up to 1m while the Elpro 4 a bit further. For great IQ at MFD (0.2m) I believe a Marumi 5+ will be needed for high IQ at f/2.8.
Resolution and contrast greatly improve with the achromats by setting the lens from 2m to infinity.
I find it weird that they decided to make it CF. Maybe the same line of thinking as with the Batis 40 and then they figured out "oops this looks bad wide open, let's force the diaphragm to close down a little bit".
Just wondering how it would be received if FW 1.01 fixes not only the AF-C issue, but also the CF behaviour and makes it Batis like
Alternatively maybe Sigma would just include a diopter in the box lol .
.
.