Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sigma 45's AF will never do as well in tracking mode compared to other lenses because SA glow tricks the pd algorithm. When I initially wrote the review, I thought it was a shortcoming but now understand this is a compromise to achieve a special rendering look.
So, it's not a lens I would recommend for tracking kids playing sports nor for moving portraits. It was not designed for excel at many applications but I personally love it for group portraits and still life.
I love the rendering of the lens also, which is why I find its AF so frustrating. I do wonder about the SA explanation. The 45mm picks up the target quickly and accurately enough, but it loses it. If you pump the AF-On button, it will keep on picking up the target quickly and accurately, but keeps losing it when it tries to track. So it is able to make a quick accurate focus in AF-C but it can't track accurately. Given that it can do focus quickly in af-c, the problem seems more algorithmic. The algorithm may be more challenged because of the lens's SA, but it is capable of focusing so to that extent it is dealing with the SA successfully.
I have the Canon EF 50 1.2L which is infamous for its aberrations, which are tolerated because many people like its rendering. It has loads of spherical aberrations, veiling flare, and also focus shift. But even operating on a Sony body through an adapter, it does eye-AF and tracking extremely well. I only have to not bring the focus point too close to the edges. I also have the Canon EF 85II 1.2L, of which the same is true (though I have used it less in tracking situations, so I am less sure in its case).
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sigma 45's AF will never do as well in tracking mode compared to other lenses because SA glow tricks the pd algorithm. When I initially wrote the review, I thought it was a shortcoming but now understand this is a compromise to achieve a special rendering look.
So, it's not a lens I would recommend for tracking kids playing sports nor for moving portraits. It was not designed for excel at many applications but I personally love it for group portraits and still life.
Only partially true Fred. See also my posts in the 45 DG DN AF issues thread.
When you stop the lens down to a point where the spherical aberration isn't visible anymore AF-C is still not reliable at all.
DG DN lenses always focus at the working aperture in AF-C.
Hmm, I'd recommend you do a simple test:
a couple times AF-C vs a couple times AF-S on the same static target, wide open, close enough for dof not to mask focusing inaccuracies (e.g. 0.4m) .
Like mine in one of the posts above.
I never got my 45mm to focus as repeatably in AF-C as in AF-S, so in my experience it's not a problem with tracking.
chiron wrote:
I love the rendering of the lens also, which is why I find its AF so frustrating. I do wonder about the SA explanation. The 45mm picks up the target quickly and accurately enough, but it loses it. If you pump the AF-On button, it will keep on picking up the target quickly and accurately, but keeps losing it when it tries to track. So it able to make a quick accurate focus in AF-C but it can't track accurately. Given that it can do focus quickly in af-c, the problem seems more algorithmic. The algorithm may be more challenged because of the lens's SA, but it is capable of focusing so to that extent it is dealing with the SA successfully.
I have the Canon EF 50 1.2L which is infamous for its aberrations, which are tolerated because many people like its rendering. It has loads of spherical aberrations, veiling flare, and also focus shift. But even operating on a Sony body through an adapter, it does eye-AF and tracking extremely well. I only have to not bring the focus point too close to the edges. I also have the Canon EF 85II 1.2L, of which the same is true (though I have used it less in tracking situations, so I am less sure in its case)....Show more →
Fully agree with you.
The more I read about people experiences with 45mm's AF-C, the more confused I am. Mine is simply inconsistent in AF-C, i.e. it can give you properly focused shots, but more often than not it will give you more or less misfocused shots (when you are close enough / not stopped down so that DoF does not mask focus inaccuracies).
Fred Miranda wrote:
It does not even run on 10.14 and 10.15....Finally did it on a PC.
Does it matter which OS version you have? It looks like you format your card in the camera, trash the files, copy the firmware download from your Mac to the card, insert the card in the camera and follow instructions. Am I missing something? I have three of the Sigma Contemporary lenses (24 f3.5, 35 f2.0 and 45 f2.8) and plan to use them this weekend on a SL2, so I want to avoid any issues before updating the firmware.
Bill Hollinger wrote:
Does it matter which OS version you have? It looks like you format your card in the camera, trash the files, copy the firmware download from your Mac to the card, insert the card in the camera and follow instructions. Am I missing something? I have three of the Sigma Contemporary lenses (24 f3.5, 35 f2.0 and 45 f2.8) and plan to use them this weekend on a SL2, so I want to avoid any issues before updating the firmware.
Thanks!
Hi Bill,
Unfortunately that's not how firmware updates work with Sony bodies and E-mount lenses. You must connect the camera to your computer and that's why the OS version matters.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Hi Bill,
Unfortunately that's not how firmware updates work with Sony bodies and E-mount lenses. You must connect the camera to your computer and that's why the OS version matters.
OK - I have an A9 ans A7r IV, and I remember I really have to follow the directions closely to upgrade firmware. I've only had the SL2 for a couple of weeks, but I updated the firmware for the SL APO 75, and I was amazed, and impressed about how simple this was to accomplish. I would like to thank you for your reviews of the Sigma lenses. None of the other reviews I found even approached the level of information you shared with us.
Apr 01, 2021 at 03:39 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I really want to pick up a lens in the 40-45mm area and want to get this Sigma but having a hard time paying twice as much over the Samyang 45 when I shoot mostly f8 and above for landscapes. Any reason to pick this Sigma over the competition? Is "rendering" gonna matter much in my case since I don't care about bokeh/OOF areas?
flower_power wrote:
I really want to pick up a lens in the 40-45mm area and want to get this Sigma but having a hard time paying twice as much over the Samyang 45 when I shoot mostly f8 and above for landscapes. Any reason to pick this Sigma over the competition? Is "rendering" gonna matter much in my case since I don't care about bokeh/OOF areas?
Reality? Probably not. Samyang is building some very capable lenses. I tried their 35 and 75 last fall. Both had excellent image quality IMO, they were small, light and focused well at a very reasonable price. But I returned them because I just did not like the look and feel of them, just way too much plastic, again for me. I would not hesitate to recommend them though with the caveat concerning the look and feel which has nothing to do with image quality of course. I ended up buying the Sigma 35mm f2 DG DN and while it cost me more, I am very happy with the complete package, image quality, size, weight, fit and finish. Everyone is different so choice is great! I will probably pick up the Sigma 45 one day to give it a try but I have a Voigtlander 40 and 50 already but an AF lens in that range may be nice at some point, it is certainly a tempting lens but you also can’t go wrong with Samyang/Rokinon.
Samyang makes great budget lenses and at times hits triples with great image quality. The Sigma I's are more money, but so far have been home runs. That extra bit of magic with rendering and a true wonderful build quality while keeping small in size.
Dustin Abbott’s review of the Samyang says corners never get super sharp even stopped down, if you are looking for some reasons to buy the Sigma. He considered the Samyang more a “character” lens. Not sure if other reviews found the same regarding corners. You might hold each in hand - samyang lenses bring no tactile joy to me, while the Sigmas are like a well crafted, jewel-like tool. That may not be important to you.
flower_power wrote:
I really want to pick up a lens in the 40-45mm area and want to get this Sigma but having a hard time paying twice as much over the Samyang 45 when I shoot mostly f8 and above for landscapes. Any reason to pick this Sigma over the competition? Is "rendering" gonna matter much in my case since I don't care about bokeh/OOF areas?
Best bang-for-buck is the Canon EF 40mm F2.8 STM especially if you already have an EF adapter. It works well on the Yongnuo EF-E II adapter in native emulation. I think Yongnuo sells their own 40mm, but I haven't tried it.
The Sigma seems to have extra deep depth-of-field, and it does have the best out-of-focus background rendering. It is my choice for landscapes. It's only optical weakness is foreground out-of-focus rendering.
My Rokinon 45 is really sharp in the corners. That is not a weakness. I also have the big Tamron SP 45 F1.8. It is alright--the best at night sky. Neither is as good as the Sigma for daylight landscapes. But they might be good enough.
Pentax 43 F1.9 Limited is pretty poor compared to these. The Konica 40 F1.8, Minolta 45 F2, Pentax-M 40 F2.8 all quite poor. I highly recommend the Canon over these.
darrellc wrote:
Dustin Abbott’s review of the Samyang says corners never get super sharp even stopped down, if you are looking for some reasons to buy the Sigma. He considered the Samyang more a “character” lens.
You might hold each in hand - samyang lenses bring no tactile joy to me, while the Sigmas are like a well crafted, jewel-like tool. That may not be important to you.
Yeah I just checked out Dustin's review of the Sigma again and he says in his IQ breakdown that it's never sharper than the Tamron 28-75 zoom he tested against, and then goes on to say it's only real strength is bokeh and OOF rendering. Hard to justify the 2x cost when it's not any sharper than a cheap zoom for my uses.
Since I don't do any photography that uses bokeh/OOF areas, then I guess I just answered my own question! I actually already have the Samyang 18mm and honestly prefer the extremely lightweight style of it and really don't mind the plastic construction at all.
Now if I wait long enough for the new Sony G 40mm, things may get complicated if it's worth 2x the cost for landscapes...
DA is very fussy re the ergo issues. His videos are over-saturated to the point of pain. Lots of false assumptions, like the reason for primes is lens speed. The zoom he appears to prefer is 250% the weight and would not suit so many applications the small Sigmas excel at. Must be aiming for a different audience - the mainstream. He is behind the times on Sigma's direction and that of the enthusiast community.
It's a photographer's lens. It was made clear on p3, as compared with another similar photographic lens:
'I just tested the Sigma against the CV 40/1.2 at infinity a few minutes ago and it's stronger everywhere, except for the mid-field at f/5.6 where the Voigtlander does very well and wins by a good margin.
Here is the Sigma's extreme corner compared to the Voigtlander's (both at f/5.6). It's better in resolution/contrast and way better corrected for LaCA. At f/2.8, the CV 40/1.2's corners looks way worse even though the Sigma is wide open!'
I picked up the Sigma 45/2.8 C to try out. Wonderful bokeh on this lens. I'm using AF-C mode to start (on the A7rII). I was getting a pretty decent hit rate just playing around yesterday, but I did have a couple that came out slightly back-focused. Eye-AF seemed to not engage as well as I am used to, so I stopped using it and just let AF-C do its thing. Has anyone had back-focus issues without using Eye-AF and just AF-C?
AF hiccups aside, I like the lens. I did a bokeh comparison against my CV40 and 55/1.8 which I can share later if people are interested. The 45C's bokeh is wonderfully smooth of course, though it doesn't quite achieve the same subject pop as the faster lenses wide open. I could see keeping it, though I don't think I can make enough use of all three of these. For me, I'm mostly evaluating it against the 55/1.8 as another "small" normal AF lens. I'll have it in the stable for a while and see whether it earns its keep.
