I would definitely be curious to know your thoughts concerning the Voigtlander 40 and the 55/1.8. I like the image rendering of the Sigma 45, at least from what I have seen, but I really don’t need it.
chiron wrote:
I solved the problem of the weak Eye-AF tracking with this lens by only photographing the backs of my subjects' heads. It seems that the plane of focus is near the floor. Do slippers even have heads?
I may need to get a copy of this. It's quite more compact than the i35. Rendering looks similar. Wish it's not a full stop slower. Somehow I feel if I get a prime for everyday purposes, it should be f2 or faster.
Your photos have always proved it's about the photographer not the hardware, but not having thought about getting a new lens in a couple of years seeing you're using this Sigma is a big nudge! My one worry is that 45mm is not a focal length I've ever got on with. Slightly ot, how do you find the sigma fp compared to the A7s?
After purchase and getting nice results of the 35i got interested in the 45i.
Took it for a spin yesterday afternoon around town. Happy with the results, colour&contrast have the same feeling when compaired to files of the 35i. Distortion is much better handled by the 45i. AF is a mixed bag on the 45i, I got plenty of keepers where focus was on the spot (or very close to it), but getting focus in shadows with bright lights around in the frame are not it strengh. 35i is the better lens on AF in my opinion.
I am pretty sure that may sample has significant astigmatism midfield, that is tangential and sagittal planes of focus are different, but I have not seen negative effects on real world images.
I'm really tempted to pick this up, so I went out with my Minolta 45mm F2 today. For me at least...I love the focal length, but not quite as much as 40mm. My voigtlander 40mm 1.4 is noticeably wider (I've tested them side by side).
I feel like once you go 45 it feels like I'm shooting 50. Nothing wrong with that, but if I had to choose...I think 40 is more to my liking overall. With that said, I really like the images coming off the Sigma 45mm 2.8 and I do personally see something special there in the rendering. It kind of reminds me of the Olympus 17mm 1.8 which was noted for being soft but had surprisingly smooth bokeh....noticeably so compared to the Panasonic 20mm 1.7.
Dang, I still think I'm going to end up buying this lens.....
ReleaseDrive wrote:
I'm really tempted to pick this up, so I went out with my Minolta 45mm F2 today. For me at least...I love the focal length, but not quite as much as 40mm. My voigtlander 40mm 1.4 is noticeably wider (I've tested them side by side).
I feel like once you go 45 it feels like I'm shooting 50. Nothing wrong with that, but if I had to choose...I think 40 is more to my liking overall. With that said, I really like the images coming off the Sigma 45mm 2.8 and I do personally see something special there in the rendering. It kind of reminds me of the Olympus 17mm 1.8 which was noted for being soft but had surprisingly smooth bokeh....noticeably so compared to the Panasonic 20mm 1.7.
Dang, I still think I'm going to end up buying this lens........Show more →
I believe others have mentioned that this lens more like a 42mm fov. If so, it may be close to what you want.
