Maybe I'm just lucky, but my experience with AF-C and Eye-AF has been pretty good. Did a shoot with a friend's baby recently and it hit the eyelashes almost every time, even at close distances.
tylerdurden801 wrote:
Maybe I'm just lucky, but my experience with AF-C and Eye-AF has been pretty good. Did a shoot with a friend's baby recently and it hit the eyelashes almost every time, even at close distances.
Aug 08, 2020 at 11:07 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Ok, took the lens out yesterday to test it on one of our social distance outings. Decent light at the park, but with two five year olds running around like crazy, hit rate is about 98% using AF-S on Sigma fp, so I'd say it has improved drastically from when I was using it on 1st Gen Sony.
It's been a while since I last used the 45 on a Sony (RII/RIV) and never compared them directly, but I "feel" like the 45s AF is more accurate on the fp. I don't really notice focusing issues with it on the fp, but did on the Sony's (af-s only).
*Completely unscientific and subjective sample of one.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Ok, took the lens out yesterday to test it on one of our social distance outings. Decent light at the park, but with two five year olds running around like crazy, hit rate is about 98% using AF-S on Sigma fp, so I'd say it has improved drastically from when I was using it on 1st Gen Sony.
I love this lens but I refuse to buy another Sigma lens for FE to send a message that this level of AF performance on Sony is not acceptable. I hope more will/can vote with their wallet so there is pressure for Sigma to do something about this lens’ firmware.
FMTopFan wrote:
I love this lens but I refuse to buy another Sigma lens for FE to send a message that this level of AF performance on Sony is not acceptable. I hope more will/can vote with their wallet so there is pressure for Sigma to do something about this lens’ firmware.
I think the only way is to keep reporting the issue (even though they never replied to my 2 messages).
Their other DG DN lenses have better AF than this lens I think/hope?
So, the burning question - how are you feeling about the AF using it on one of the best AF cameras out there?
Thanks!
On the previous 2 pages I talked about how I feel about this lens.
I use it on an A9 and A7RIII. The AF is cr*p IMHO. It behaves the same on both cameras. Not usable in AF-C and often also unreliable in AF-S. I shot several scenes with AF-S first and then MF. Sometimes they look exactly the same, but the AF-S ones are backfocused too often. (It's not my copy because I tried several.)
Steve Spencer wrote:
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 →
Late to the party ... but, I just take this as being the fact that it is in the Contemporary lineup.
I mean, there are compromises to this class of lens. If it performed to the levels (AF & optics) of the top tier lenses, then it would be priced and labeled as such. I think that for as nice as it seems to be, that people are trying to make it into expecting it to be something it isn't expected to be.
I see it as they have brought a lot of top tier to the market, now they can bring a little bit to the midrange for mere mortals to enjoy, too (with certain trade-offs for the price point).
...so I had this lens for two weeks now and was using it daily on my A7Rm4. For reference my other lenses are the manual Zeiss Loxia lenses 21mm 50mm and 85mm. I am fairly content with the Loxia lenses, they are sharp, their rendering is neutral without being special, in a nutshell they are good lenses for german stuff in the Candida Höfer, Thomas Ruff or Andreas Gursky kind of thing (if you omit for the sake of the argument that the two males in this lineup obviously have a preference for behemoth large format cameras). I am german so the Loxias suit me well and I still like them every time I do things that I can do with a tripod. I have a Zony 35mm/F2,8 as well for everyday use, but its rendering for me was always reminiscent of a video look of the early 2000. Too crisp, almost aggressive wherever it's sharp and negligent or dismissive of anything out of focus.
What I like about the Sigma and maybe particularly with the luxury of having 61 million pixels of data, is that the Sigma is never really ever out of focus, which in my romantic german mind is due for one to a fairly slow maximum aperture and then because nothing with this lens is ever fully in focus either. Which is not to say that this lens can't be sharp, but the transition from in focus to out of focus is almost seamless. With the Loxias or the Zony you know when something is in focus because of everything that isn't. The contrast between the two is so stark that in a large print the only exiting thing to look at in images produced with these lenses are all the zones that are in focus. You'd never spend a lot of time contemplating the blurry parts of the image which are merely a wrapping for the crispness in between. With lenses like the Sigma 45mm focus is almost optional. Jacques Henry Lartigue could have used this lens (probably together with a strong rolling electronic shutter). It doesn't really matter what is in focus, because even if it isn't it doesn't make the image unusable even in a large print unless you have a car, or luxury watch manufacturer as a client. On the contrary, I now marvel at the accidents of a lens that sometimes decides that even though "Eye AF" was activated the hair around the neck was much more interesting to have in focus than the pupil of my model. In short this lens allows for accidents that are revealing about how an image works in ways that I have last experienced using film.
Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that Sigma was intentionally making a dysfunctional lens, so they deserve all the criticism they get, but for me this lens is a real joy to use for all those times that I don't have to work for a client and as a consequence don't have to apply standards of quality that really should not exist in the first place as they have very little to do with what makes an image memorable.
So to conclude I can just repeat what I wrote in my initial little post here: I find this lens with all its mistakes and shortcomings to be human and for that reason I really love it.
Aug 19, 2020 at 10:19 AM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
justruppert wrote:
...so I had this lens for two weeks now and was using it daily on my A7Rm4. For reference my other lenses are the manual Zeiss Loxia lenses 21mm 50mm and 85mm. I am fairly content with the Loxia lenses, they are sharp, their rendering is neutral without being special, in a nutshell they are good lenses for german stuff in the Candida Höfer, Thomas Ruff or Andreas Gursky kind of thing (if you omit for the sake of the argument that the two males in this lineup obviously have a preference for behemoth large format cameras). I am german so the Loxias suit me well and I still like them every time I do things that I can do with a tripod. I have a Zony 35mm/F2,8 as well for everyday use, but its rendering for me was always reminiscent of a video look of the early 2000. Too crisp, almost aggressive wherever it's sharp and negligent or dismissive of anything out of focus.
What I like about the Sigma and maybe particularly with the luxury of having 61 million pixels of data, is that the Sigma is never really ever out of focus, which in my romantic german mind is due for one to a fairly slow maximum aperture and then because nothing with this lens is ever fully in focus either. Which is not to say that this lens can't be sharp, but the transition from in focus to out of focus is almost seamless. With the Loxias or the Zony you know when something is in focus because of everything that isn't. The contrast between the two is so stark that in a large print the only exiting thing to look at in images produced with these lenses are all the zones that are in focus. You'd never spend a lot of time contemplating the blurry parts of the image which are merely a wrapping for the crispness in between. With lenses like the Sigma 45mm focus is almost optional. Jacques Henry Lartigue could have used this lens (probably together with a strong rolling electronic shutter). It doesn't really matter what is in focus, because even if it isn't it doesn't make the image unusable even in a large print unless you have a car, or luxury watch manufacturer as a client. On the contrary, I now marvel at the accidents of a lens that sometimes decides that even though "Eye AF" was activated the hair around the neck was much more interesting to have in focus than the pupil of my model. In short this lens allows for accidents that are revealing about how an image works in ways that I have last experienced using film.
Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that Sigma was intentionally making a dysfunctional lens, so they deserve all the criticism they get, but for me this lens is a real joy to use for all those times that I don't have to work for a client and as a consequence don't have to apply standards of quality that really should not exist in the first place as they have very little to do with what makes an image memorable.
So to conclude I can just repeat what I wrote in my initial little post here: I find this lens with all its mistakes and shortcomings to be human and for that reason I really love it....Show more →
justruppert wrote:
...so I had this lens for two weeks now and was using it daily on my A7Rm4. For reference my other lenses are the manual Zeiss Loxia lenses 21mm 50mm and 85mm. I am fairly content with the Loxia lenses, they are sharp, their rendering is neutral without being special, in a nutshell they are good lenses for german stuff in the Candida Höfer, Thomas Ruff or Andreas Gursky kind of thing (if you omit for the sake of the argument that the two males in this lineup obviously have a preference for behemoth large format cameras). I am german so the Loxias suit me well and I still like them every time I do things that I can do with a tripod. I have a Zony 35mm/F2,8 as well for everyday use, but its rendering for me was always reminiscent of a video look of the early 2000. Too crisp, almost aggressive wherever it's sharp and negligent or dismissive of anything out of focus.
What I like about the Sigma and maybe particularly with the luxury of having 61 million pixels of data, is that the Sigma is never really ever out of focus, which in my romantic german mind is due for one to a fairly slow maximum aperture and then because nothing with this lens is ever fully in focus either. Which is not to say that this lens can't be sharp, but the transition from in focus to out of focus is almost seamless. With the Loxias or the Zony you know when something is in focus because of everything that isn't. The contrast between the two is so stark that in a large print the only exiting thing to look at in images produced with these lenses are all the zones that are in focus. You'd never spend a lot of time contemplating the blurry parts of the image which are merely a wrapping for the crispness in between. With lenses like the Sigma 45mm focus is almost optional. Jacques Henry Lartigue could have used this lens (probably together with a strong rolling electronic shutter). It doesn't really matter what is in focus, because even if it isn't it doesn't make the image unusable even in a large print unless you have a car, or luxury watch manufacturer as a client. On the contrary, I now marvel at the accidents of a lens that sometimes decides that even though "Eye AF" was activated the hair around the neck was much more interesting to have in focus than the pupil of my model. In short this lens allows for accidents that are revealing about how an image works in ways that I have last experienced using film.
Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that Sigma was intentionally making a dysfunctional lens, so they deserve all the criticism they get, but for me this lens is a real joy to use for all those times that I don't have to work for a client and as a consequence don't have to apply standards of quality that really should not exist in the first place as they have very little to do with what makes an image memorable.
So to conclude I can just repeat what I wrote in my initial little post here: I find this lens with all its mistakes and shortcomings to be human and for that reason I really love it....Show more →
I also like what you said and how you said it.
But...when I take a photograph, I want to decide where the focus will be, not the lens. That’s why I’ve never used auto mode. As the photographer, creativity comes from my brain, not the lens.
mudlake wrote:
I also like what you said and how you said it.
But...when I take a photograph, I want to decide where the focus will be, not the lens. That’s why I’ve never used auto mode. As the photographer, creativity comes from my brain, not the lens.
...well in my mind creativity mostly originates in the way our mind deals with the accidents it is confronted with, maybe first and foremost the accident of being human and all it implies.
justruppert wrote:
...well in my mind creativity mostly originates in the way our mind deals with the accidents it is confronted with, maybe first and foremost the accident of being human and all it implies.
Unexpected things happen, yes, but if I have an image in my mind that I want to create using my photographic tools, those tools should never stand in the way of my intention. A lens that randomly chooses where to focus is not a lens that inspires creativity. Just the opposite.
mudlake wrote:
Unexpected things happen, yes, but if I have an image in my mind that I want to create using my photographic tools, those tools should never stand in the way of my intention. A lens that randomly chooses where to focus is not a lens that inspires creativity. Just the opposite.
...did you ever think that having twenty or so lenses might not much more stand in the way of your intention than a single lens that occasionally and indeed randomly decides to show you something that you didn't know you wanted until you saw it.
As i said earlier I will not go as far as applauding the Sigma engineers for having made a dysfunctional lens, but now that they did I am happy to have a tool in my kit that has a mind of its own. It's a refreshing change from all those almost perfect tools that only do what I tell them to. Or to paraphrase Jenny Holzer: It's liberating that occasionally something "protects me from what I want".
justruppert wrote:
...did you ever think that having twenty or so lenses might not much more stand in the way of your intention than a single lens that occasionally and indeed randomly decides to show you something that you didn't know you wanted until you saw it.
As i said earlier I will not go as far as applauding the Sigma engineers for having made a dysfunctional lens, but now that they did I am happy to have a tool in my kit that has a mind of its own. It's a refreshing change from all those almost perfect tools that only do what I tell them to. Or to paraphrase Jenny Holzer: It's liberating that occasionally something "protects me from what I want"....Show more →
I’m happy that you love the lens. In life, focus on the things that bring you joy.
For me, I like lenses that focus where they are supposed to, cars that steer where I tell them, phones that work when I need them to, fountain pens that don’t skip, handguns that shoot where I point and don’t jam, etc. 🙂. I don’t tend to get too philosophical about things that don’t work as they should.
justruppert wrote:
...so I had this lens for two weeks now and was using it daily on my A7Rm4. For reference my other lenses are the manual Zeiss Loxia lenses 21mm 50mm and 85mm. I am fairly content with the Loxia lenses, they are sharp, their rendering is neutral without being special, in a nutshell they are good lenses for german stuff in the Candida Höfer, Thomas Ruff or Andreas Gursky kind of thing (if you omit for the sake of the argument that the two males in this lineup obviously have a preference for behemoth large format cameras). I am german so the Loxias suit me well and I still like them every time I do things that I can do with a tripod. I have a Zony 35mm/F2,8 as well for everyday use, but its rendering for me was always reminiscent of a video look of the early 2000. Too crisp, almost aggressive wherever it's sharp and negligent or dismissive of anything out of focus.
What I like about the Sigma and maybe particularly with the luxury of having 61 million pixels of data, is that the Sigma is never really ever out of focus, which in my romantic german mind is due for one to a fairly slow maximum aperture and then because nothing with this lens is ever fully in focus either. Which is not to say that this lens can't be sharp, but the transition from in focus to out of focus is almost seamless. With the Loxias or the Zony you know when something is in focus because of everything that isn't. The contrast between the two is so stark that in a large print the only exiting thing to look at in images produced with these lenses are all the zones that are in focus. You'd never spend a lot of time contemplating the blurry parts of the image which are merely a wrapping for the crispness in between. With lenses like the Sigma 45mm focus is almost optional. Jacques Henry Lartigue could have used this lens (probably together with a strong rolling electronic shutter). It doesn't really matter what is in focus, because even if it isn't it doesn't make the image unusable even in a large print unless you have a car, or luxury watch manufacturer as a client. On the contrary, I now marvel at the accidents of a lens that sometimes decides that even though "Eye AF" was activated the hair around the neck was much more interesting to have in focus than the pupil of my model. In short this lens allows for accidents that are revealing about how an image works in ways that I have last experienced using film.
Obviously it would be a stretch to assume that Sigma was intentionally making a dysfunctional lens, so they deserve all the criticism they get, but for me this lens is a real joy to use for all those times that I don't have to work for a client and as a consequence don't have to apply standards of quality that really should not exist in the first place as they have very little to do with what makes an image memorable.
So to conclude I can just repeat what I wrote in my initial little post here: I find this lens with all its mistakes and shortcomings to be human and for that reason I really love it....Show more →
I agree with everything you said about the S45/2.8's rendering but I would love this lens even more if AF-C was accurate. It looks like SA is the main culprit to the inaccuracies with phase detection AF, so it looks like Sigma prioritized rendering and size. Perhaps if the lens was a little bigger and equipped with a floating element group we would not be having this conversation but could perhaps change the character many of us like about this lens. As it is, contrast detect and MF works well and predictably with it.
