I was really enjoying a minimal kit and having just a couple lenses, but now I'm back up to 6 or so, all of which I'm stoked about. This is one of those "luxury problems", but it definitely makes the Sigma seem harder to bring out- it's not as fast as my 40/1.2, not as versatile or compact as my 28/2.8... or maybe I'll just bring the film camera along today? I know I don't want to bring a bunch of lenses, because I'll just end up stressing over what to use, so I'll just bring one. You know how that goes. Or, maybe you don't, but that's my narrative before heading out the door.
Add a bunch of crappy weather and challenging Life Stuff, I haven't been able to enjoy much photo time lately. For that reason- just knowing I'm going to be relegated to taking a few snaps on the way to work or whatever, the Sigma has been perfect. It's so small and light, I started out just carrying it every day for convenience and I haven't really been feeling too inspired. That is, until I see the files on the big screen. HOLY SMOKES.
So, for now it's my "lens cap lens" as Guy used to say.
Anyway, here's one from tonight. This is the only time I can get dude to stay completely still, when he's watching cartoons before bed. Apologies for more boring family snaps, hopefully they show what the lens can do,
Jan 14, 2020 at 12:42 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
smpetty wrote:
I think your images of kids are consistently the best I've ever seen. Every image has a story to tell. I'm so glad that you have and love this lens.
Like darrellc, I need to get out and shoot with my copy.
I still like the rendering and feel of this lens, but I'm also still very disappointed about the crappy AF when using AF-C.
I saw a reaction that you have to use it stopped down a bit, because of the SA wide open.
Well I don't buy all this "it's by design" thing, because it still doesn't focus very well (in AF-C) when stopping down. It's just not consistent.
Such a pity because it really limits it's usability for me.
It’s definitely a negative but in exchange we get beautiful rendering. Definitely not a lens for tracking your subject as AF-S works best with stills. (EyeAF still works)
Jochenb wrote:
I still like the rendering and feel of this lens, but I'm also still very disappointed about the crappy AF when using AF-C.
I saw a reaction that you have to use it stopped down a bit, because of the SA wide open.
Well I don't buy all this "it's by design" thing, because it still doesn't focus very well (in AF-C) when stopping down. It's just not consistent.
Such a pity because it really limits it's usability for me.
Despite its AF-C nits I still use this lens with more than reasonable success. Case in point, we had our friends with their toddlers over for NY's eve. This must be the supreme stress test for this lens - low light and contrast. I am quite happy with how it focused. Pictures I deleted I did so mostly for other reasons - unusable framing or subject.
On the other hand I can't help feel frustration, I would like to find a deterministic way of improving focus, narrowing it down to the ideal combination of lighting, aperture and distance to subject.
All of these at F/3.2, ISO 6400.
Jan 14, 2020 at 06:27 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I was curious about Eye AF with it. Maybe my friend will let me borrow his a73 to test it out. Been using AF-S with Flexible Spot S on a7S with a *passable* keeper rate. However, the thing with the lens locking onto vertical edges primarily has jammed me up a few times.
The kiddo with the blue glasses up there is a really good example. I wish I hadn't deleted them, but there were like 5 shots in that series where I am POSITIVE I was focusing on his eyes/glasses, but the focus locked on the zipper of his jacket, even though it was well outside the focus area. I've actually been practicing using it more in MF for these types of shots for this reason. If I'm going to be popping off a burst of a kid at close range, who is *mostly* stationary for, ohhhh... like 2 seconds if I'm lucky, MF has yielded a much higher keeper rate.
Let me know how I should tweak the Eye AF to get the best results- my friend is only a recent Sony convert, so he's still pretty clueless about all the features. Loves that MC-11, though!
Fred Miranda wrote:
It’s definitely a negative but in exchange we get beautiful rendering. Definitely not a lens for tracking your subject as AF-S works best with stills. (EyeAF still works)
imagesfromobjects wrote:
I was curious about Eye AF with it. Maybe my friend will let me borrow his a73 to test it out. Been using AF-S with Flexible Spot S on a7S with a *passable* keeper rate. However, the thing with the lens locking onto vertical edges primarily has jammed me up a few times.
The kiddo with the blue glasses up there is a really good example. I wish I hadn't deleted them, but there were like 5 shots in that series where I am POSITIVE I was focusing on his eyes/glasses, but the focus locked on the zipper of his jacket, even though it was well outside the focus area. I've actually been practicing using it more in MF for these types of shots for this reason. If I'm going to be popping off a burst of a kid at close range, who is *mostly* stationary for, ohhhh... like 2 seconds if I'm lucky, MF has yielded a much higher keeper rate.
Let me know how I should tweak the Eye AF to get the best results- my friend is only a recent Sony convert, so he's still pretty clueless about all the features. Loves that MC-11, though!
I find AF-C inaccurate at close distances due to spherical aberration. However, it works fine at mid and long distances.
With this lens, I only use AF-S and get accurate results on the A7R4 (and my previous AR73). The downside is that AF-S can't track and therefore the subject must be still. AF-S even works with Eye-AF whenever the model poses for you and remains still until you take the picture.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
There is a firmware update for the 45/2.8 for Sony E-mount:
"It has corrected the phenomenon whereby the image rarely blurs when using the in-body image stabilization."
numbertwo wrote:
I guess sometimes the ibis was malfunctioning, leading to blurred pictures.
It says: "image rarely blurs", so the opposite from what you wrote.
Could be a bad translation. I will update it today and do some testing to see if anything changed.
