Dave Sanders wrote:
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.
Yes, spherical aberration is only visible at close distance and wide open. That's why phase detect AF-C has more trouble with accuracy at this distance. If you shoot at 2m+ the lens is quite sharp from wide open.
I looked back at a few photos with this lens and found some selfie tests that I did in June at f/2.8 and f/4. Since we're talking arm's length, this is in the less than 1m range. At f/2.8 I think it is sharp enough to see eyelashes but still have a 'kind' rendering to my 45 year old face. At f/4 you can see that resolution sort of explodes, making it less 'kind' to the years that I'm wearing. In both shots, the background is uniformly smooth, though the scenario isn't exactly challenging, bokeh-wise.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I looked back at a few photos with this lens and found some selfie tests that I did in June at f/2.8 and f/4. Since we're talking arm's length, this is in the less than 1m range. At f/2.8 I think it is sharp enough to see eyelashes but still have a 'kind' rendering to my 45 year old face. At f/4 you can see that resolution sort of explodes, making it less 'kind' to the years that I'm wearing. In both shots, the background is uniformly smooth, though the scenario isn't exactly challenging, bokeh-wise.
Definitely gentle on the face. My wife loves this lens.
I recently picked up a used copy of this lens from eBay (for $300!) and it's fantastic. Excellent image quality and far sharper then I was prepared for after browsing this thread. Will be lovely for using as a small lightweight walk-around, and to bridge the gap between my 16-35 and 70-180.
It's one of the best value lenses on the market, it has that rare ability to show the subject as they are rather than do the usual 'value adding' we see in so many modern lenses, where the lens signature tends to take over the image. I like pretty much everything I've seen from it. As a lover of consistency, this one is a winner. A good choice for the a7c? 215 grams..
Dagatech wrote:
I recently picked up a used copy of this lens from eBay (for $300!) and it's fantastic. Excellent image quality and far sharper then I was prepared for after browsing this thread. Will be lovely for using as a small lightweight walk-around, and to bridge the gap between my 16-35 and 70-180.
I just picked up a used copy for about the same amount (converted to US$). I’m currently in a 45mm lens groove and the Sigma will complement my Tamron SP 45/1.8 perfectly.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
I just ordered this lens from B&H with the $100 price reduction. This will be my perfect light weight, AF, standard’ish prime walk-around lens.
I paid full price and I still feel like it was a bargain. To me, it's the auto focus Voigtlander.
Chainring wrote:
I paid full price and I still feel like it was a bargain. To me, it's the auto focus Voigtlander.
Best rendering of any modern AF lens with similar FL. Surprising low CA.
Can't wait for their 28mm f/2.8 and 90/2.8 with similar signature rendering. Make it happen Sigma!
Fred Miranda wrote:
Best rendering of any modern AF lens with similar FL. Surprising low CA.
Can wait for their 28mm f/2.8 and 90/2.8 with similar signature rendering. Make it happen Sigma!
A mirrorless 28 can be 2/3 of the length and diameter of a 45; so if they made it the same size they might be able to make it f2.4 AND have floating elements, or a tiny bit bigger and f2. That would be a very desirable lens....
DavidBM wrote:
A mirrorless 28 can be 2/3 of the length and diameter of a 45; so if they made it the same size they might be able to make it f2.4 AND have floating elements, or a tiny bit bigger and f2. That would be a very desirable lens....
DavidBM wrote:
A mirrorless 28 can be 2/3 of the length and diameter of a 45; so if they made it the same size they might be able to make it f2.4 AND have floating elements, or a tiny bit bigger and f2. That would be a very desirable lens....
Any hint from Sigma that the 45/2.8C was the first of a possible set?
