If you prefer Zeiss-ish rendering, I would seriously look at the Batis 40mm. I rented the Sigma 45mm for a week and it has a special rendering, that I enjoyed a lot, but it's not Zeiss-ish.
Paniolo wrote:
Dilemma: This Sigma 45 or the new Rokinon 35mm f/1.8? I prefer Zeiss-ish rendering.
The Sony 35mm f1.8 is worth a look too if you don't mind giving up some corner sharpness vs. the Batis 40mm in exchange for size. Images tend to pop at f1.8 and very sharp wide open.
I've enjoyed using the Sigma 45mm but it's definitely not an all-around lens (wide open performance is frustrating) so picked up a 35mm lens as a companion. I tried the Sigma 35mm f1.2 first but found it far too big and I wanted more punchy Zeiss-like colors. Ended up getting the Sony 35mm since it's sharp from wide open and while not the sharpest lens with the best bokeh, it's very good for everything.
Will keep the 45mm as well for now as I like the image output during day time at f5.6 or f8.
Sep 17, 2020 at 04:52 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Yeah, I would describe the 45/2.8 as much more "Leica-ish" or "Fuji-ish" in rendering than Zeiss. Zeiss tends to go all-out on microcontrast, often at the expense of smooth OOF areas. The closest lens that I have personal experience with that draws like the Sigma 45 is the Fuji 35/1.4. I'm thinking that rounded aperture blades are part of the secret sauce.
httivals wrote:
If you prefer Zeiss-ish rendering, I would seriously look at the Batis 40mm. I rented the Sigma 45mm for a week and it has a special rendering, that I enjoyed a lot, but it's not Zeiss-ish.
You really need to try all of these lens - that's where lensrentals comes in. They're all different, and all good (or better).
I was unimpressed by the Sony 35mm f1.8 - not nearly as sharp as my Sony 35mm f2.8 at f2.8 (wide open for the Sony Zeiss) at any focus distance. It may be that I have an excellent copy of the Sony 35mm f2.8 (pretty sure I do) and the 35mm f1.8 I tried from lensrentals wasn't the best of copies (probably true), but . . . the 35mm f1.8 is a good lens, but all of these lenses are good. Rendering or sharpness weren't anything special. Not bad, not special or remarkable in any way. I decided I'm better off keeping the 35mm f2.8 for compactness and better sharpness (on an A7RIV).
The Sigma 45mm f2.8 does sharpen up a lot by f4 (or even f3.5), and was a bit soft at f2.8 but it's rendering is special from f2.8 - f5.6 (and probably further stopped down). I only rented it for a week, but keep thinking about buying it. The autofocus issues have kept me from buying it until now.
The Batis 40mm - has had issues that we all have read about re focusing - like the Sigma has had issues. I love the Batis 85mm f1.8, and I've read that the Batis 40mm is very similar to it. I was not fond of the Batis 25mm by comparison, but I did like the Batis 18mm a lot.
I keep thinking of getting another prime in this range - 35mm (Voigtlander) f1.2, or Batis 40mm, or Sigma 45mm, but not sure when I'd use it. I already have plenty of lenses.
You should rent from lensrentals. That ends up solving a lot of my lens choice "problems" (fun) for me.
I own this lens - in fact it's my only AF lens - and I really love it for its compact size, rendering and haptics.
However, I found the AF unreliable, especially AF-C, so I use it mostly with DMF. This makes it integrate well with the way I'm used to shooting my MF lenses, and ads just enough automation to be useful (AF becomes pre-focus, which I then only need to adjust; Eye AF means the camera correctly chooses the focus magnification point for me most of the time). For static subjects, since DMF should just be AF-S, reliability is OK.
I use it on an A7ii. I didn't feel a hugely compelling reason to upgrade to the A7iii when I only shot MF lenses (also didn't fancy the price/size increase). But I'm now looking curiously at the A7c and reconsidering.
Given AF is supposed to improve on even the A7iii, would I notice big a difference on the Sigma 45? Or is AF-C with the 45 just as unreliable on every camera?
I can't help you there, because I only have experience using it on 1st Gen a7S and Sigma fp. I can tell you that the AF improved a lot when I updated the lens firmware - have you done that? I also almost always use it in AF-S or MF mode.
NunoC wrote:
Sorry for bumping this.
I'd really like to know from someone who had experience with this lens on both the A7ii and a newer camera if improvements to AF are to be expected.
Thank you. Yes, lens is on the latest firmware (v2 for FE mount). I too am very happy with the lens on AF-S, MF and DMF.
It's just situations that I think call for AF-C (not necessarily fast paced action, but kids have a tendency to move) that get slightly frustrating, because either I use AF-S and miss the shot to subject motion, or AF-C to unreliability (still not sure which gives worse results).
I imagine AF performance improvements might help (as well as stuff like EyeAF in AF-C, real-time tracking, etc), but also didn't want to have unrealistic expectations about an upgrade.
Here are a few family snapshots under harsh lighting from a birthday party I attended last weekend. I took about 100 images and they were mostly in focus using AF-C and Eye-AF. (About 90%. The other 10% were not critically sharp but still usable)
I'd say for events like this, AF accuracy is not an issue on the A7R IV.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here are a few family snapshots under harsh lighting from a birthday party I attended last weekend. I took about 100 images and they were mostly in focus using AF-C and Eye-AF. (About 90%. The other 10% were not critically sharp but still usable)
I'd say for events like this, AF accuracy is not an issue on the A7R IV.
Great shots Fred. Looks like a fun birthday party...probably much needed these days. I think those shots show off quite a bit of what I'm starting to like about the Sigma...It's got great bokeh. There aren't many lenses at any focal length that draw like that. I'm glad I grabbed it, it is shaping up to be quite a mini-STF.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Yeah, I would describe the 45/2.8 as much more "Leica-ish" or "Fuji-ish" in rendering than Zeiss. Zeiss tends to go all-out on microcontrast, often at the expense of smooth OOF areas. The closest lens that I have personal experience with that draws like the Sigma 45 is the Fuji 35/1.4. I'm thinking that rounded aperture blades are part of the secret sauce.
I would agree with your comments on (micro)contrast and Zeiss. I have found that Zeiss, over the years, has gone for the dink-out contrast look at the expense of other aspects. I love it for landscapes, less so for people. The Sigma is definitely more on the 'Minolta' side, which I shot back in the film days a ton with Fujichrome Astia.
I shoot my Sigma mostly wide open so I'm not sure the rounded aperture blades have much to do with the secret sauce...I think they under-corrected spherical aberration, hence the 'glow' up close. It's a nice tool for my tool kit, a very interesting match with my Loxias and STF.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Great shots Fred. Looks like a fun birthday party...probably much needed these days. I think those shots show off quite a bit of what I'm starting to like about the Sigma...It's got great bokeh. There aren't many lenses at any focal length that draw like that. I'm glad I grabbed it, it is shaping up to be quite a mini-STF.
Love the rendering from the Sigma 45/2.8. In many ways it renders like my RX1R II at 45mm.
For events like family gatherings where people's faces are the primary subject, the Sigma 45/2.8 captures a smoother look, almost film-like, where faces are not blistering sharp wide open even though the lens captures a lot of fine detail. It's a very unique lens and a worthy middle ground between my 24 and 85 GM lenses in terms of rendering. It's well corrected for color error but under corrected for spherical aberration. A winning combination in my opinion.
Nice shots! I'm finding it to be a very, very good landscape lens. The softness wide open appears to me to be in the 3m or less zone, getting progressively worse as you get closer. Past, say, 5m it's sharp to the edges. By f/5.6 it's sharp corner to corner. I need to get a filter adapter for the 55m thread size and then I'll start using it more for long exposures.
