Ah, gotcha. Sorry, life's nuts these days. I shared a few photos and thoughts in the 24/35/65 Sigma thread. I'm very happy with the 24mm. Not quite the same magic as the 45, but close. They are very different focal lengths, so that's expected. It has insane close-focus capabilities, handles transition zones beautifully, almost identical size and build as the 45. Similar AF quirks.
Hope that helps.
scalanc2 wrote:
Sorry.
I would like to see your opinion and comparisons about Sigma 24 and 45.
Thanks.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Ahhh, it's been a while since I've been on a Sony - using a Sigma fp these days - is eye-AF only available in AF-C? The fp does it in AF-S and I can vouch for it working pretty well.
Sony Eye AF was originally contrast-detect and AF-S only. The feature didn't get much attention until the A7RII debuted AF-C Eye AF.
Has anyone directly compared this with the Samyang 45 1.8? Sorry if this has already been covered; I've searched through quite a few pages but not found anything. Wondering if the extra money is worth it for the Sigma which is definitely tempting as I'm a big fan of Sigma and "portable" lenses
flower_power wrote:
Has anyone directly compared this with the Samyang 45 1.8? Sorry if this has already been covered; I've searched through quite a few pages but not found anything. Wondering if the extra money is worth it for the Sigma which is definitely tempting as I'm a big fan of Sigma and "portable" lenses
SY is a "normal" lens, meaning it doesn't have any special weaknesses or strong sides. For regular usage, it's hard to beat it at price-to-performance ratio.
Sigma is "special" in a way that it gives you really nice (and unique) rendering but at a cost of AF-C issues and close-up sharpness. Whether this is worth the extra $$$ depends on your intended usage and what you value in a lens.
SY is perfect for casual snaps, while Sigma can make some otherwise casual pictures look special (but miss some others)...
If you care about handling, Sigma's finishing is exquisite (water sealed only at the mount though).
There was a post somewhere here comparing the two (among other similar lenses), but looking only at it would give you no reason to buy the Sigma .
flower_power wrote:
Has anyone directly compared this with the Samyang 45 1.8? Sorry if this has already been covered; I've searched through quite a few pages but not found anything. Wondering if the extra money is worth it for the Sigma which is definitely tempting as I'm a big fan of Sigma and "portable" lenses
Kept both lenses simply because I like them both a lot. The SY is incredibly small and cheap for an F1.8 lens and the Sigma is just a pleasure to use. If I was forced to chose one I would take the Sigma.
flower_power wrote:
Has anyone directly compared this with the Samyang 45 1.8? Sorry if this has already been covered; I've searched through quite a few pages but not found anything. Wondering if the extra money is worth it for the Sigma which is definitely tempting as I'm a big fan of Sigma and "portable" lenses
I have both and have had several dozen other normal primes. The Sigma and Samyang are rather different. The look and handling of Sigma put me off. It doesn't do that well with test charts, but it makes very nice images most of time.
The Samyang is very sharp wide-open. It makes decent images most of the time--somewhat crunchy. I like the light polycarbonate body.
I am a fan of the FE 50 F1.8. It offers creamy backgrounds like the Sigma with creamy foregrounds that the Sigma makes rather crunchy. It is cheaply made--the Samyang is much more solid. Sony has gotten the DC motor to work well enough.
Kept both lenses simply because I like them both a lot. The SY is incredibly small and cheap for an F1.8 lens and the Sigma is just a pleasure to use. If I was forced to chose one I would take the Sigma.
My experiences with similar lenses favors the Sigma 45. I had the Sony Zeiss 35 2.8 and it just lacked the punch and contrast of the Sigma. Samyang 35 makes really nice colors and sharpness but lacks the smooth rendering. Voightlander 40 is great, but just sold. Mine was really pretty sharp even at 1.2 and got super sharp stopped down. Great colors and contrast, but other than being 2.8 the Sigma equals it at most distances and the rendering is every bit or better. So it's a really fast lens vs AF. I'll go fast somewhere else, the AF as a walk around wins.
MARKFER wrote:
My experiences with similar lenses favors the Sigma 45. I had the Sony Zeiss 35 2.8 and it just lacked the punch and contrast of the Sigma. Samyang 35 makes really nice colors and sharpness but lacks the smooth rendering. Voightlander 40 is great, but just sold. Mine was really pretty sharp even at 1.2 and got super sharp stopped down. Great colors and contrast, but other than being 2.8 the Sigma equals it at most distances and the rendering is every bit or better. So it's a really fast lens vs AF. I'll go fast somewhere else, the AF as a walk around wins. ...Show more →
But AF is like:
The only reason I have Sony Zeiss 35 2.8 is because I can't rely on the AF of this lens.
From Sigma: "It has improved focusing accuracy in single AF (AF-S)."
I've read reports that it has improved AF-C as well..
There's also an update for the 24/3.5- at least for L Mount. Not sure, but there may be others for the I series lenses.
I went ahead and updated both my 24 and 45. I only ever use AF-S or M, so I wasn't experiencing anything awful, but may as well, right? We'll see if the 45mm does any better in low light after the update.
45mm was updated for FE , the rest received an update for sigma fp L. My 45mm after the update got up to af-a, (although maybe just recently went with this mode and did not notice ))
.
:
