After using this lens for many more months I think I'm going to sell it.
I still like the rendering, size, build,... but the AF-C performance is just all over the place.
I understand that the AF has difficulties at F2.8, because of the spherical aberration. However: when using it at F4 I expected it to be a good performer in AF-C. Sadly it's still hit or miss. The first photo of a burst is perfectly in focus most of the time, but the following ones often are not.
I am new here. I just signed up because of the lens you reviewed here. I know this is not doing justice to all the work you put into your site and your reviews, but such it is. Funny thing is that I ordered this lens two days ago in what should justly be called an impulse buy, merely based on its appearance and on one raving review somewhere. Shortly after buying it, probably born out of a slightly guilty feeling for buying something I don't really need, I decided to check some other reviews, which led me here.
This is where I discovered in horror that this lens had apparently a disastrous autofocus, so bad, that you yourself rather use a fully manual lens than to use the sigma. It all sounded so convincing and given that autofocus was the only reason I had ordered this lens, that I immediately canceled my order only hours after I had placed it.
But as so often when ordering things online, the process is so thoroughly automated that it has to complete its way and cannot be stopped. So I still received the lens today and rather than handing it directly back to the very kind man from Syria who delivers the packages in our neighbourhood, I decided to review it for myself before maybe sending it back in a week.
Well obviously I wouldn't write all this, simply to confirm your findings, although I actually do.
A lot of care has been put into the lens physical appearance and feel and as a consequence it's very agreeable to use.
The lens seems indeed optimised for infinity, and at distances from 3m to infinity it can be very sharp. Field curvature is low and slightly wavy. Its focus is fast though not completely silent particularly in AF-S and yes in AF-C particularly at closer distances it isn't as sharp as in AF-S. Its rendering is very smooth for such a slow lens and spherical aberration at distances below 1m are abundant.
Everything you elaborated in your review is absolutely correct.
Well, I love this lens. The images it makes have a Kodachrome quality to it. The spherical aberration that kicks in at closer distances puts a very kind and respectful glow to skin details, without hiding them though. It's not putting a veil over them it just sees them as I assume most of us would do. So in a nutshell I find this lens to be quite human. Discerning at things that lie in a distance and tender to the things and beings close to us.
What a lovely approach to making a lens and I can't applaud Sigmas engineers and direction enough to have had the courage and determination to do it.
Thanks Fred I really appreciate your efforts and I would probably not have been so exited about this lens had I not read your review first.
nicely put! I have started to prefer the 45mm sigma over my 55mm za for exactly those reasons (and for being 10mm wider).
it is a very enjoyable lens to shoot with and the rendering is sublime. the new rumored small ff body would be a nice complementary body.
I am new here. I just signed up because of the lens you reviewed here. I know this is not doing justice to all the work you put into your site and your reviews, but such it is. Funny thing is that I ordered this lens two days ago in what should justly be called an impulse buy, merely based on its appearance and on one raving review somewhere. Shortly after buying it, probably born out of a slightly guilty feeling for buying something I don't really need, I decided to check some other reviews, which led me here.
This is where I discovered in horror that this lens had apparently a disastrous autofocus, so bad, that you yourself rather use a fully manual lens than to use the sigma. It all sounded so convincing and given that autofocus was the only reason I had ordered this lens, that I immediately canceled my order only hours after I had placed it.
But as so often when ordering things online, the process is so thoroughly automated that it has to complete its way and cannot be stopped. So I still received the lens today and rather than handing it directly back to the very kind man from Syria who delivers the packages in our neighbourhood, I decided to review it for myself before maybe sending it back in a week.
Well obviously I wouldn't write all this, simply to confirm your findings, although I actually do.
A lot of care has been put into the lens physical appearance and feel and as a consequence it's very agreeable to use.
The lens seems indeed optimised for infinity, and at distances from 3m to infinity it can be very sharp. Field curvature is low and slightly wavy. Its focus is fast though not completely silent particularly in AF-S and yes in AF-C particularly at closer distances it isn't as sharp as in AF-S. Its rendering is very smooth for such a slow lens and spherical aberration at distances below 1m are abundant.
Everything you elaborated in your review is absolutely correct.
Well, I love this lens. The images it makes have a Kodachrome quality to it. The spherical aberration that kicks in at closer distances puts a very kind and respectful glow to skin details, without hiding them though. It's not putting a veil over them it just sees them as I assume most of us would do. So in a nutshell I find this lens to be quite human. Discerning at things that lie in a distance and tender to the things and beings close to us.
What a lovely approach to making a lens and I can't applaud Sigmas engineers and direction enough to have had the courage and determination to do it.
Thanks Fred I really appreciate your efforts and I would probably not have been so exited about this lens had I not read your review first.
Very nice summary. Every time I look at my Sigma 45/2.8 images, I feel regret selling it. This lens produces very special images.
Spherical aberration at close distance play some tricks on the phase detect AF mode (AF-C) but it's a trade-off many are willing to accept.
I ended up keeping the Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO which also has very nice rendering and that's the only reason I didn't repurchase this lens.
It's the best rendering Sigma lens in my view. Maybe it should have been made as manual focus, given the character and dimensions will appeal most to that demographic. I hope it sells well enough to encourage them to make more lenses like it.
I agree about it's rendering which also makes it frustrating that I can't use this lens the way I'd like to. For street shooting I use a lot of AF-C and I don't have a single lens that misses focus so often as this one.
The SA argument is true for F2.8, but at F4 (no more SA) that shouldn't be an issue anymore since the camera focuses at the shooting aperture in AF-C.
That's why I think Sigma could improve it with firmware (but they won't).
I'm guessing it's camera-specific, but on the Sigma fp's latest firmware, it's improved a bunch. I still prefer to use it in MF mode for fast action, but that's just how I'm used to working, so YMMV.
Also, ya- read the thread!
Rob L wrote:
I have no read this thread (perhaps I should), but was wondering how the autofocus is on L mount?
Jochenb wrote:
I agree about it's rendering which also makes it frustrating that I can't use this lens the way I'd like to. For street shooting I use a lot of AF-C and I don't have a single lens that misses focus so often as this one.
The SA argument is true for F2.8, but at F4 (no more SA) that shouldn't be an issue anymore since the camera focuses at the shooting aperture in AF-C.
That's why I think Sigma could improve it with firmware (but they won't).
It also misses focus at mid and long distance where SA is no longer relevant...
Fred Miranda wrote:
It also misses focus at mid and long distance where SA is no longer relevant...
I think the lens was designed with L mount contrast detect auto focus in mind and was not designed to optimize phase detect AF. If you use a mode in which phase detect AF dominates (like AF-C) then the lens will not perform well and probably never will. If you use it where contrast detect auto focus can fine tune the results (like in AF-S) the lens will focus fine. This does limit the use of the lens, but not my use of the lens. I primarily shoot in using MF (which is very nice on this lens and much better than I expected given that it is an AF lens), but my wife has good luck with AF-S focus as well. So we just don't use it with AF-C. If that works for you, then you can enjoy the beauty the lens perform without really any AF hassles.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the lens was designed with L mount contrast detect auto focus in mind and was not designed to optimize phase detect AF. If you use a mode in which phase detect AF dominates (like AF-C) then the lens will not perform well and probably never will. If you use it where contrast detect auto focus can fine tune the results (like in AF-S) the lens will focus fine. This does limit the use of the lens, but not my use of the lens. I primarily shoot in using MF (which is very nice on this lens and much better than I expected given that it is an AF lens), but my wife has good luck with AF-S focus as well. So we just don't use it with AF-C. If that works for you, then you can enjoy the beauty the lens perform without really any AF hassles....Show more →
It's more accurate but still misses focus in AF-S though. Like with other DG DN lenses, it is offered in both E and L mounts so there is no excuse here.
Yes, SA may play a role in focus accuracy when shooting wide open + close distance but the lens should focus properly when SA is no longer relevant. (mid/far distance or smaller apertures)
Aug 07, 2020 at 03:55 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's more accurate but still misses focus in AF-S though. Like with other DG DN lenses, it is offered in both E and L mounts so there is no excuse here.
Yes, SA may play a role in focus accuracy when shooting wide open + close distance but the lens should focus properly when SA is no longer relevant. (mid/far distance or smaller apertures)
Like I said, I use this lens with manual focus, so I don't really notice how it does with AF, but my wife uses it with AF-S and she reports that the AF is just fine. I haven't see a discussion of problems with AF-S focus. How often and by how much does it miss in AF-S? Any consistent pattern? Is is the same or different from the more often discussed problems with AF-C.
I also worry now that Sigma is in the L-mount alliance whether they will be as concerned about the performance of their lenses on Sony E mount as much as they used to be, and more precisely whether they will be designing lenses primarily with concerns about the performance of the lenses on L-mount. It seems to me that this lens may have been designed at least partly with the Sigma FP in mind. If that is the case, then the AF performance on Sony E mount may have been a bit of an after thought. There may not be an excuse for not having better AF on Sony, but that doesn't mean that is Sigma's priority now they have formed an alliance that may pull them somewhat away from designing lenses for Sony E mount.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Like I said, I use this lens with manual focus, so I don't really notice how it does with AF, but my wife uses it with AF-S and she reports that the AF is just fine. I haven't see a discussion of problems with AF-S focus. How often and by how much does it miss in AF-S? Any consistent pattern? Is is the same or different from the more often discussed problems with AF-C.
I also worry now that Sigma is in the L-mount alliance whether they will be as concerned about the performance of their lenses on Sony E mount as much as they used to be, and more precisely whether they will be designing lenses primarily with concerns about the performance of the lenses on L-mount. It seems to me that this lens may have been designed at least partly with the Sigma FP in mind. If that is the case, then the AF performance on Sony E mount may have been a bit of an after thought. There may not be an excuse for not having better AF on Sony, but that doesn't mean that is Sigma's priority now they have formed an alliance that may pull them somewhat away from designing lenses for Sony E mount....Show more →
I think that's an unfounded concern - the vast majority of these lenses are purchased by Sony FE users and seems like Sigma is aware that they need their lenses to perform better on Sony to incentive users from buying another 85mm or 100-400mm lens. Competition is a great thing...
