I'm sending mine back. I thought it could replace my Batis 40 as it was smaller, lighter and I typically shoot close up which makes it necessary to use smaller apertures for increased DOF. The Batis isn't perfect but, for me, it's more perfect than the little Sigma.
Lol, maybe Sigma is using the CDAF only by mistake since they need to do the same thing for Panasonic dfd. It will be fixed eventually. A few people here got AF inconsistency with the 35 as well.
Make sense. I agree. This is exact problem Nikon’s 58G on their SLR body. httivals wrote:
Problems with eye AF at close distances make this a pass. Bummer. Hopefully Sigma will fix this in a firmware upgrade.
From the infinity samples, the Loxia 50 wide open seems better to me. That is not a problem for landscape if the lens turns tack sharp stopped down... but neither I find much sharp the mid-zone picture at f/5.6. I think that both the Loxia 50 and CV 40 and CV 50 are better there. Maybe it improves at f/8, but from what I have seen till now I only feel it "okayish" for landscape, I'd not pick this lens just for that (and I'm not talking about sunstars, these are a mere personal preference).
IMO what makes the Sigma 45/2.8 unique is the smooth rendering. @vdo1, I know that's something you care about.
It may not be as sharp as other lenses (cheaper or more expensive) but none will beat it on rendering and color correction. (relative to its size and price)
I've just tested it against the CV 40/1.2 and rendering is smoother for the Sigma. (both at f/2.8)
The CV 40/1.2 Nokton stopped down to f/2.8 still can't match the Sigma LoCA correction wide open! I will post some crops later on.
Fred Miranda wrote:
IMO what makes the Sigma 45/2.8 unique is the smooth rendering. @vdo1, I know that's something you care about.
It may not be as sharp as other lenses (cheaper or more expensive) but none will beat it on rendering and color correction. (relative to its size and price)
I've just tested it against the CV 40/1.2 and rendering is smoother for the Sigma. (both at f/2.8)
The CV 40/1.2 Nokton stopped down to f/2.8 still can't match the Sigma LoCA correction wide open! I will post some crops later on.
Well I didn’t dismiss it. Lenses that I have no interest in, I just don’t participate in the thread. This one I even bothered taking comparative shots, and on short notice that is
cgarcia wrote:
From the infinity samples, the Loxia 50 wide open seems better to me. That is not a problem for landscape if the lens turns tack sharp stopped down... but neither I find much sharp the mid-zone picture at f/5.6. I think that both the Loxia 50 and CV 40 and CV 50 are better there. Maybe it improves at f/8, but from what I have seen till now I only feel it "okayish" for landscape, I'd not pick this lens just for that (and I'm not talking about sunstars, these are a mere personal preference).
I think the Loxia 50/2 actually performs similarly to the Sigma 45 at infinity. Too bad I don't own the Loxia anymore to test them side by side.
Both need f/5.6-8 for optimal sharpness across the field. (For the Loxia, it's mainly to improve mid-field)
Having said that, the Loxia does beat it in color/sunstar rendering and flare resistance. It was my favorite lens for many years.
I just tested the Sigma against the CV 40/1.2 at infinity a few minutes ago and it's stronger everywhere, except for the mid-field at f/5.6 where the Voigtlander does very well and wins by a good margin.
Here is the Sigma's extreme corner compared to the Voigtlander's (both at f/5.6). It's better in resolution/contrast and way better corrected for LaCA. At f/2.8, the CV 40/1.2's corners looks way worse even though the Sigma is wide open!
Here is a quick rendering comparison to the CV 40/1.2 with both lenses at f/2.8.
To put in perspective, the CV 40/1.2 is famous for its smooth rendering and from previous tests, you guys know it beats the 50/1.4 ZA and even the new Sigma 35/1.2 in smoothness.
So, it's hard to beat the Voigtlander...But as you can see from the crops below, Sigma 45/2.8 does!!
It's also interesting that their FL is not that different at this distance (~2.5m) and even though the Sigma is wide open, it has better LoCA correction compared to the Voigtlander. Keep in mind the latter is way stopped down and therefore LoCA is vastly better than wide open.
Let's give Sigma some praise for this accomplishment here.
Sigma top, Voigtlander bottom (overview)
Focused area. More SA for the Sigma. The Voigtlander beats it in sharpness but start paying attention to color correction.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a quick rendering comparison to the CV 40/1.2. Both at f/2.8
To put in perspective, the CV 40/1.2 is famous for its smooth rendering and from previous tests, you guys know it beats the 50/1.4 ZA and even the new Sigma 35/1.2 in rendering smoothness. Is that a new word?
So, it's hard to beat the Voigtlander...But the Sigma 45/2.8 does!!
It's also interesting to notice that their FL is actually not that different at this distance (~2.5m) and even though the Sigma is wide open, it has better LoCA correction compared to the Voigtlander 2.5 stops down! Let's give Sigma some praise here. ...Show more →
Gosh that's really interesting: the concentrating on bokeh schtick wasn't just marketing. They've traded off ultimate resolution for remarkable smoothness at f2.8.
Could the mid-field lower sharpness due to some kind of wavy field curvature, or are Sigma MTFs not reliable?
That's a great question and I will test it tomorrow to make sure. I wrote 'dip' because I see a mid-field deterioration compared to center and extreme corners but I don't know if it's due to a real resolution dip or wavy field curvature.
Fred Miranda wrote:
That's a great question and I will test it tomorrow to make sure. I wrote 'dip' because I see a mid-field deterioration compared to center and extreme corners but I don't know if it's due to a real resolution dip or wavy field curvature.
I think most MTF is flat-field MTF, meaning that regardless of whether it's a real resolution dip or wavy curvature it should show up on the MTF. Weird.
AmbientMike wrote:
Wondering what the selling points are for this lens. $549 seems a lot for a 2.8 normal lens (that doesn't say Leica lol)
Weirdly enough... that it is slow. In 2019 I think that you'll struggle to find a faster prime with enough spherical aberration to have the same rendering as the Sigma at f2.8. Combined with fairly good homogeneity throughout the frame (with the notable exception of vignetting), that's quite rare these days.
