I quickly tested one in the store today. Quite soft wide open, but overall a really nice rendering.
Didn't check close range AF-C yet, but everything at mid-range was spot on. At least on the A9 with real-time tracking. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to buy it soon.
Jochenb wrote:
I quickly tested one in the store today. Quite soft wide open, but overall a really nice rendering.
Didn't check close range AF-C yet, but everything at mid-range was spot on. At least on the A9 with real-time tracking. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to buy it soon.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I don't find it soft wide open. At least from 1.5m and longer distances.
Here is a comparison to the sharpest 50mm I've ever had at center. (FE 50/1.4 ZA on A7R3) https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1608234/6#14946747
At 1m and closer, it does get softer with more SA from the lack a floating element system.
When I first received the lens I was testing with portraits and was getting very soft images. Later on, I realized the culprit was AF-C accuracy.
The copy I tested (on a 24MP sensor with AA) is certainly soft at F2.8, not only at close range.
It sharpened up nicely when stopping down though.
Center of the image at a distance of approx. 15m:
F2.8
F5.6
At infinity I notice that it's sharper, F2.8 again:
Aug 16, 2019 at 05:07 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Do you recall - or can you check - which focusing mode it was in? We may be looking at missed focus. Either that or some serious sample variation, as per Fred's results. Curious if it was AF-C or not.
Jochenb wrote:
The copy I tested (on a 24MP sensor with AA) is certainly soft at F2.8, not only at close range.
It sharpened up nicely when stopping down though.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Do you recall - or can you check - which focusing mode it was in? We may be looking at missed focus. Either that or some serious sample variation, as per Fred's results. Curious if it was AF-C or not.
itai195 wrote:
I'm still feeling like I'd prefer the CV 40 for the faster aperture, but I like this Sigma's rendering too and AF may be handy for my use case. Maybe the right answer is to get both...
I have the CV 40/1.2 and may buy the Sigma. Shocked that the images Fred is posting. I love the the 40-55 range for everyday use.
I think Fred is right...this is the right companion to my 100 STF. Very nice rendering. I've always liked viciously sharp portraits, my subjects never have. I think this one will be a crowd pleaser. I've been trolling for a decent deal on a Batis 40mm but I think this will be the one I grab. The group shot shows nice subject isolation.
Aug 16, 2019 at 09:46 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Dave Sanders wrote:
I think Fred is right...this is the right companion to my 100 STF. Very nice rendering. I've always liked viciously sharp portraits, my subjects never have. I think this one will be a crowd pleaser. I've been trolling for a decent deal on a Batis 40mm but I think this will be the one I grab. The group shot shows nice subject isolation.
Having had the Batis twice now I can confirm this 45 renders much better. It's just a bummer it back focuses as much as it does
nhsonyshooter wrote:
Having had the Batis twice now I can confirm this 45 renders much better. It's just a bummer it back focuses as much as it does
Thanks for the info. The Batis looks like an excellent landscape lens and, to my eye, renders decently if the background isn't too complicated. The Sigma appears to just roll over messy backgrounds, not quite STF, but very nicely. I think Sigma made a nice rendering decision with a slow prime...given limited DOF control, how do you make it pop? They've done well. Bummer, as you said, about the focus. Let's hope they get on it...is it just AF-C or AF-S as well?
Ok, so - honest opinion here. Is the Samyang 45/1.8 just completely awful compared to this? I feel like I'd miss the speed, but this lens looks to be a WINNER with tones and rendering. How would you rate the MF experience on them? Passable?
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is very harsh lighting and it's no problem for this Sigma.
There is something about the rendering. It's a special lens.
Ok, so - honest opinion here. Is the Samyang 45/1.8 just completely awful compared to this? I feel like I'd miss the speed, but this lens looks to be a WINNER with tones and rendering. How would you rate the MF experience on them? Passable?
If you care about rendering, imo the Samyang is out.
Both have linear MF, so better implementation than Sony's early lenses like the 55/1.8 or 35/2.8.
As far as build, one feels like holding plastic and the other metal...There is the aperture ring and AF/MF bottom in favor of the Sigma as well.
The Sigma costs more but has special rendering. Many photographers would buy the RX1R just for the Sonnar 35/2's rendering. Same applies here and the blur between 32/2 is not that different from 45/2.8 at same distance.
Fred Miranda wrote:
This is very harsh lighting and it's no problem for this Sigma.
There is something about the rendering. It's a special lens.
Well, Fred, this is the image that changed my vote from a No to a Yes. It’s more than sharp enough at what I’m guessing was a distance between 4 and 5 feet. Nice pop and the Sigma has totally tamed that busy background. I’ll wait now until a firmware update addresses the AF issues.
