p.11 #2 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
By my calculations, and it's early in the AM, but without hoods you get the following working distance:
MFD - Lens Length - Flange Distance = MWD
CV 110mm
35 cm - 15.875 cm - 1.8 cm = 17.325 cm
Sigma 105mm
29.5 cm - 13.56 cm - 1.8 cm = 14.14 cm
In terms of resolution, most of my shooting at macro distances will be flower and insects. But here's a little test I did, mainly looking for LoCA and PF. It's not at MFD, and I just shot both lenses at the same distance from the subject, but hopefully it's worthwhile to gauge the amount of detail captured.
I tried to match focus as best I could, on Washington's eye.
-Tim
Besar wrote:
Hi All. Is the owner of the Sigma 105 and Voigtlander 110 in the room? I wanted to ask if there are differences in macro resolution and distance ?
p.11 #3 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Thank you very much for the test and answer Sigma seems to be sharper. I think the Laowa 100 would be the sharpest of the three. I need to rethink my purchase. The difference is noticeable, but not big Regards Robert.
p.11 #5 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Sigma has a little PF around some of the highlights. I almost feel as though I need to retest, to make sure I didn't boff something up when testing the CV.
j4nu wrote:
Hmm, interesting - Sigma indeed seems a bit sharper, but CV shows cleaner bokeh in my eyes...
p.11 #12 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Not my usual thing, but here's a focus stack of a beetle that my friend Bob found in his house. This was done using a set of 19 images to stack selected regions of the insect. For reference the beetle's body is about the size of my thumbnail. The second image is a single still shot of the head. Lighting was done using two crossed Lumecubes at ~45 deg. The third image is a 1:1 crop (~1,000 pixels square) to show image detail.
p.11 #13 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
This thing is pretty sharp. Please check the specks of dust on the brush and the hair tips. Yay.
Also I wasn't able to summon Purple Fringing Waldo. The scene was lit with a flash held at about 20 cm in front of the scene. Part of the light went directly to the glass vase and brush, some other went there from an angle, diffused and reflected by the white card of the flash. The reflection below the brush was from the direct light, and that's where I expected Waldo to show up. The area is very clean though.
This was at f/5.6 with default C1 settings, CA corrections disabled, +0.33EV exposure correction. For the full resolution pic, please click on the tinyurl link below:
p.11 #16 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
1bwana1 wrote:
Damn good glass this Sigma. Best macro option for Sony E mount right now.
We need someone to do a macro shootout . So many options now in ~100mm focal range:
* the new Sigma 105mm f2.8 dg dn (AF)
* the forgotten Tokina 100mm f2.8 (AF)
* the venerable Sony 90mm f2.8 (AF)
* CV 110mm f2.8 (MF)
* Laowa 100mm f2.8 (MF, 2:1)
I'm still wondering if and how I should upgrade from my CV65...
p.11 #17 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
j4nu wrote:
We need someone to do a macro shootout . So many options now in ~100mm focal range:
* the new Sigma 105mm f2.8 dg dn (AF)
* the forgotten Tokina 100mm f2.8 (AF)
* the venerable Sony 90mm f2.8 (AF)
* CV 110mm f2.8 (MF)
* Laowa 100mm f2.8 (MF, 2:1)
I'm still wondering if and how I should upgrade from my CV65...
Below is a comparison between Laowa 100 vs Voigtlander. Laowa with original filter, VC also with filter, but from what I noticed is very sensitive to filter quality. Aperture f / 2.8, crop ~ 40% .Focus on the right eye. If I succeed next week, I'll have a Sigma 105.
And for comparison laowa 25. Aperture f / 2.8, crop ~ 40%, scale 2.5: 1. Fantastic lens...
p.11 #18 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I don't think the CV 65 is primarily a macro that would be used in the same circumstance as the Sigma macro. It is a MF lens that is only 1:2 instead of 1:1. It is a wonderful general purpose lens, with more character rich rendering. I am still looking to add the CV 65 to my kit one day even when I own the Sigma 105.
I am not the one to do the shootout. testing lenses in lab conditions is not my way of having fun with photography.
But Marc Alhadeff At Sony Alpha Blog who is qualified/experienced with lens testing has tested each of the lenses on your list. He has a comparison table of all the competitive ones except the Tokina which is not in the same league at all. The Tokina is tested elsewhere on the site however.
p.11 #19 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Besar wrote:
Below is a comparison between Laowa 100 vs Voigtlander. Laowa with original filter, VC also with filter, but from what I noticed is very sensitive to filter quality. Aperture f / 2.8, crop ~ 40% .Focus on the right eye. If I succeed next week, I'll have a Sigma 105.
Thanks, that's exactly what I was talking about . I actually missed the release of Laowa 25mm, indeed it looks really nice... My main gripe about Laowas is the complete lack of EXIF .
p.11 #20 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
1bwana1 wrote:
I don't think the CV 65 is primarily a macro that would be used in the same circumstance as the Sigma macro. It is a MF lens that is only 1:2 instead of 1:1. It is a wonderful general purpose lens, with more character rich rendering. I am still looking to add the CV 65 to my kit one day even when I own the Sigma 105.
I am not the one to do the shootout. testing lenses in lab conditions is not my way of having fun with photography.
But Marc Alhadeff At Sony Alpha Blog who is qualified/experienced with lens testing has tested each of the lenses on your list. He has a comparison table of all the competitive ones except the Tokina which is not in the same league at all. The Tokina is tested elsewhere on the site however.
Yes, I agree- CV65 is not really a macro, but it gives a nice close-up option when needed during general "walkaround" snaps (and that's how I use it). That's also why I'm thinking of buying a "real" macro, but I really want to limit my lens lineup, so that would probably mean I would let the CV go then...
Anyways, the comparison photos posted in the recent posts in this thread are exactly what I had in mind when I said "shootout". With all respect for Marc, I find it difficult to visualize the difference betewen "outstanding" and "excellent" .
On the other hand, shooting lenses side by side lets anyone make his/her own mind what he/she values more in the output (e.g. sharpness vs "apo-ness" in Sigma vs CV110).
Sigma seems to be sharper. I think the Laowa 100 would be the sharpest of the three. I need to rethink my purchase. The difference is noticeable, but not big 
.
.