"Nice comparison! I think Sigma sharpens up considerably once you step away a bit.....
I am not saying anything new, but it surprises me people see these two lenses as rivals."
Thanks, Yes I know I am not noticing anything new that many others haven't detailed previously and more thoroughly on this thread. I don't necessarily see them as rivals, I've had the Batis for a year and half and love the results it produces, I just dislike the bulk/footprint of it - wish it was lighter...In the last 6 months I've increasingly found myself carrying only my a7r3 and my sony ziess 35 2.8 as a single walk around lens - I use one of those hand straps from spider, and am able to shoot one handed using the back screen to compose instead of holding the camera up to my eye and using the viewfinder. It's kind of like what I imagine William Eggleston was talking about when he compared shooting a rifle from waist level compared to the regular shoulder/sighting down the barrel way. It's much harder to get a sharp picture one handing w the Batis in this way.
I guess I was hoping the Sigma would give me the benefits of the Batis, (solid build quality, across the frame resolution stopped down, more 'normal' FL -so many of my shots with the Zony 35 I wish I was able to be 5 feet closer and end up cropping the foreground) but with the more svelte size/weight of the sony 35 2.8.
After a week and a few more sessions, it's still a tough call. But the Batis is the one I'm leaning on parting with out of the 3, even though I know there's bound to be certain situations where I'll miss it's delivery of the goods.
this and this both with the Sigma, are more representative of the types of pictures I take normally.
Irving wrote:
Thanks, Yes I know I am not noticing anything new that many others haven't detailed previously and more thoroughly on this thread. I don't necessarily see them as rivals, I've had the Batis for a year and half and love the results it produces, I just dislike the bulk/footprint of it - wish it was lighter...In the last 6 months I've increasingly found myself carrying only my a7r3 and my sony ziess 35 2.8 as a single walk around lens - I use one of those hand straps from spider, and am able to shoot one handed using the back screen to compose instead of holding the camera up to my eye and using the viewfinder. It's kind of like what I imagine William Eggleston was talking about when he compared shooting a rifle from waste level compared to the regular shoulder/sighting down the barrel way. It's much harder to get a sharp picture one handing w the Batis in this way.
I guess I was hoping the Sigma would give me the benefits of the Batis, (solid build quality, across the frame resolution stopped down, more 'normal' FL -so many of my shots with the Zony 35 I wish I was able to be 5 feet closer and end up cropping the foreground)
After a week and a few more sessions, it's still a tough call. But the Batis is the one I'm leaning on parting with out of the 3, even though I know there's bound to be certain situations where I'll miss it's delivery of the goods.
this and this both with the Sigma, are more representative of the types of pictures I take normally....Show more →
I actually meant myself repeating trivialities about sharpness, etc. when I mentioned "saying nothing new" ...
Your comparison photos are very informative, as I think I've not seen such a direct comparison of these two before.
Just noticed that the close-up "grass" shots are at f5.6 and Batis still holds a strong lead. Interesting!
I also just picked one up on special. On an A7RIV, I am finding autofocus is good, even in poor light, even in continuous focus; maybe not perfect, but good. Good enough for me. When I use continuous autofocus, I always use the slowest speed, so that may be helping. The issue with autofocus and sharpness with the lens close up, is, I believe, not entirely or perhaps mostly about autofocus but rather that the optics are not pin sharp at f2.8 at closer distances and especially as you move away from the center. It sharpens up a lot at f3.5 (1/2 stop), more so at f4, and f5.6.
I cross posted on FP thread and maybe later L mount thread as well. as it may helps others
I took many ground level shooting rely on AF and on screen electric level indication. maybe because this is the area my other cameras don't do well, I think only A7c give it a run I don't miss flip screen on this one. I wish Sigma can remove all the fancy video feature and heat sink (though this might be the only selling point for this little fp for most of its users) and make it $1500 below and 300g, Oh man, Can I dream?
Here are two JPG out of camera with minor tweaking. I used T&O preset. A little too much for my taste sometime, I wouldn't recommend using it globally but I think it will give nice effect for certain condition. I will post more later.
Took it hiking in the forest today. Still on the A7II for a few more days, but the lens performs very well. Looking forward to some suitable f2.8 subjects, but this ain't it. Near MFD @ 5.6 is sweet.
So far my pics are SOOC jpeg with minimal PP.
I received the 45mm DG DN today. Like many, I like the character of this lens, however the sharpness in the center is not good at f2.8 at close distance, very low contrast with sort of haze.
Oddly, the midfield and corners (especially left corner) are sharper than the center wide open (only at close distance; the lens is sharper at infinity). The lens sharpens a bit @3.2 and become very sharp at f4.
I am finding that the lens is sharp enough in much of the frame at f2.8 for sharp portraits of people or dogs on an A7RIV. Softness at f2.8 is focus-related. I am using single point AF and zooming in when I want to get sharp portraits at f2.8, and they are sharp. Even then there is some inconsistency at f2.8. Focus consistency and sharpness improves a lot by f3.5. . . . It's a very unusual lens, worth the focusing issues, IMHO.
groune wrote:
Oddly, the midfield and corners (especially left corner) are sharper than the center wide open (only at close distance; the lens is sharper at infinity).
I confirm the midfield is sharp and haze free for wide-open MFD. Fun with optics. The 45C is not a closeup specialist but can act like one by f/5.6, and stopping down makes DOF practical anyway.
groune wrote:
I received the 45mm DG DN today. Like many, I like the character of this lens, however the sharpness in the center is not good at f2.8 at close distance, very low contrast with sort of haze.
Oddly, the midfield and corners (especially left corner) are sharper than the center wide open (only at close distance; the lens is sharper at infinity). The lens sharpens a bit @3.2 and become very sharp at f4.
Yes, there's pretty much no way around the 'glow' of the under-corrected spherical aberration at or near the minimum focus distance. It's also what makes this lens look so good, so you have to take the good with the bad
I find that this is more of a 'testing my lens' issue than a real world issue. By 0.75m or so, it's more than sharp enough in the centre and the rendering is beautiful. For me, this is where it gets the most use as a portrait lens. When I get any closer, depth of field becomes an issue, so I stop down to f/4. At f/4 the glow is gone and the lens is really sharp. At infinity, where I use it for landscapes, none of the optical quirks apply. It's more-or-less perfect by f/5.6.
Hi @Fred Miranda! Several questions!
Curious to hear your thoughts on whether the 45C gaps well with the 24GM and 85GM/Batis 85.
The CV40 used to be my normal lens in between the 24 and 85. I determined that I prefer AF for this FL, and as such, think that the 45C would be great for my needs. However, the 5mm (or 3.5mm since CV40 is actually slightly narrower than 40) extra reach is making me a little uneasy. Do you think this is a non-concern and that the FOV is similar enough? Would the 45C still gap well with the 24GM and 85GM?
My next question concerns whether I should upgrade to the 85GM from a rendering perspective. I'm going to rent the 85GM to test out whether I can deal with the bulk. Assuming I can, should I upgrade to the 85GM? Is the rendering that much more pleasing over the Batis 85?
I've personally found the Batis 85 bokeh rendering to be busy and harsh in more challenging backgrounds. Trying to see if others agree with observation. Perhaps, I'm just being harsh.
Thanks!!!
EDIT: Didn't tag Fred, but question still mostly answered!
I actually had a debate with myself whether using only lenses with aperture rings was considered snobbish...
You know the conclusion based on the fact that I'm asking for upgrade advice. hahaha
...
I don't miss flip screen on this one. I wish Sigma can remove all the fancy video feature and heat sink (though this might be the only selling point for this little fp for most of its users) and make it $1500 below and 300g, Oh man, Can I dream?
