Update: the lens is back from Sigma UK today. The repair note says 'tested and adjusted AF'. On a quick test it is considerably improved. Eye-detect is working properly -- better than ever, in fact. Not a single failure to focus properly in a batch of some 40 shots, using both AF-C and AF-S. Will give it a longer spin in the coming weeks, but so far, so good. The Sigma Service turnaround was quite fast too.
rob_ww wrote:
Update: the lens is back from Sigma UK today. The repair note says 'tested and adjusted AF'. On a quick test it is considerably improved. Eye-detect is working properly -- better than ever, in fact. Not a single failure to focus properly in a batch of some 40 shots, using both AF-C and AF-S. Will give it a longer spin in the coming weeks, but so far, so good. The Sigma Service turnaround was quite fast too.
The repair was free as it was still under warranty -- only 10 months old.
But ... UK buyers beware, I purchased it from Amazon UK who shipped it from Amazon EU. As it was not UK stock, Sigma declined to provide the additional two year warranty extension they provide to UK stock. There is no indication from Amazon themselves of this sourcing route. They just list "supplied by Amazon" and "shipped by Amazon".
Having seen the improvement I would recommend anyone else with a doubtful version of this lens consider having it checked and adjusted by Sigma. Mine was getting a 2-in-3 hit rate. Now I suspect it will perform pretty much as my other Sigma lenses which are >99% hit rate. Time will tell, of course. I only got it back this morning!
In the end I decided to sell my Sigma 45mm 2.8. This is despite the focusing improvements after Sigma adjusted it for me. For some pics it is terrific -- typically portraits of 2-3 people at 3-4 metres distance (full body or 3/4 body) can render beautifully sharp against a smoothly blurred background. Looking back over this thread that scenario occurs quite often in the favourites Fred and other people have posted.
Under other conditions pics can be flat and even unsharp. Landscapes like the beautiful 'Holy Light' posted above can be reliable at small apertures like f8.0, but then, most lenses perform well at f8.0.
Part of my use for the lens was as a general purpose walk-around lens when I wanted something small and light for a compact kit. That means shooting a variety of possibilities, not just the ones best suited to the lens. So I have swapped it for the Sony 35mm ZA f2.8 which is even smaller and lighter, and performs more reliably under a wider range of conditions.
rob_ww wrote:
In the end I decided to sell my Sigma 45mm 2.8. This is despite the focusing improvements after Sigma adjusted it for me. For some pics it is terrific -- typically portraits of 2-3 people at 3-4 metres distance (full body or 3/4 body) can render beautifully sharp against a smoothly blurred background. Looking back over this thread that scenario occurs quite often in the favourites Fred and other people have posted.
Under other conditions pics can be flat and even unsharp. Landscapes like the beautiful 'Holy Light' posted above can be reliable at small apertures like f8.0, but then, most lenses perform well at f8.0.
Part of my use for the lens was as a general purpose walk-around lens when I wanted something small and light for a compact kit. That means shooting a variety of possibilities, not just the ones best suited to the lens. So I have swapped it for the Sony 35mm ZA f2.8 which is even smaller and lighter, and performs more reliably under a wider range of conditions....Show more →
I think what you are encountering is the ability of the lens to produce soft rendering or sharp rendering depending on subject distance and aperture. This is a designed-in characteristic of the lens. Here are some brief comments by Fred about this design characteristic and how the lens renders that includes a link to a very interesting article by a Sigma engineer about how uniquely this lens was designed. Your experience does show that it is not for everybody, but I do love it and it is probably my most-used lens!
Thanks Chiron, I'm sure you are right and the lens works well for specific situations which play to its strengths. I need something more general purpose than that, and I have other lenses when I want a particular look.
Renes wrote:
Hello to everyone - it's my first post here.
I have a question about true fl of the Sigma 45mm - is it 45mm or rather close to 43mm? (whcih I would prefered, even closer to 40mm).
It doesn't have much breathing which means it's focal length reduces the closer it is focused. I found its angle-of-view to be close to the Pentax 43mm F1.9 at a meter or two.
QuietOC wrote:
It doesn't have much breathing which means it's focal length reduces the closer it is focused. I found its angle-of-view to be close to the Pentax 43mm F1.9 at a meter or two.
Thanks.
I am thinking about it for landscape in f5.6-f11 most of the time but prefer 40mm fl - for 25/40/65mm set or 25/40/85mm.
For me there is a huge difference between a 15mm lens and a 20mm lens. The difference between a 40 or 45, I can arrange my shooting to make up that difference so it's pretty irrelevant.
To me the Sigma 45 is a perfect compromise. It's small, it has AF, and outside of up close at 2.8 it is sharp and great all arounder. I have the Zeiss 35 1.4 which gives me that creamy up close bokeh and I find mine very sharp. The 35 2.8 Zeiss never worked for me. I loved the lens hood and size, but never grew to like.
The Sigma 24 3.5 and the 65 2.0 are great lenses as well.
Renes wrote:
Hello to everyone - it's my first post here.
I have a question about true fl of the Sigma 45mm - is it 45mm or rather close to 43mm? (whcih I would prefered, even closer to 40mm).
Looking at this comparison with the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608234/18#14971140 the Sigma 45 looks very slightly longer. I believe the Voigtlander 40mm is reputed to be ~42mm. I have had the Voigtlander 40mm for some time and recently bought the 45mm because I wanted an AF lens to try on my new a7rv. If you can manage the manual focus and added cost, the Voigtlander is fantastic. But for the price a used Sigma 45mm goes for here in the states (~$200) it is a great value and can produce terrific images.
Thank you. I still can't decide which ones to buy... for short tele it will certainly be Sigma 65/2 (or Loxia 85/2.4) though for landscape I found that 70mm fl works the best for me. Regarding WA is 24/25mm. Sigma 24/3.5 has little distortion, huge viggneting and do not reach resolusion of Sigma 24/2 which unfortuanately has huge distortion. Sony 24/2.8G also has huge distortion.... is seems Loxia 25/2.4 is the best performer but the price... Sony 40/2.5 delivers great resolution in f/5.6-9 and little distortion, looks good... so I will look now and compare CV 40/1.2, Sony 40/2.5 (hope Fred made its review) and Sigma 45/2.8.
Distortion is a quick fix in LR, just sayin. A lens’ resolution has never even crossed my mind . Maybe grab one and take some photos rather than the over-analysis..? If its not what you want, you can return it and try another one.
Renes wrote:
Thank you. I still can't decide which ones to buy... for short tele it will certainly be Sigma 65/2 (or Loxia 85/2.4) though for landscape I found that 70mm fl works the best for me. Regarding WA is 24/25mm. Sigma 24/3.5 has little distortion, huge viggneting and do not reach resolusion of Sigma 24/2 which unfortuanately has huge distortion. Sony 24/2.8G also has huge distortion.... is seems Loxia 25/2.4 is the best performer but the price... Sony 40/2.5 delivers great resolution in f/5.6-9 and little distortion, looks good... so I will look now and compare CV 40/1.2, Sony 40/2.5 (hope Fred made its review) and Sigma 45/2.8....Show more →
