tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.14 #14 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799) | |
No, I noticed. His tests tend to be less rigid and offer more opinion and not as much data driven analysis. I don't often point to his reviews, but other than Youtube videos, there doesn't seem to be many tests where the two lenses are shot side by side.
I have no beef with you, other than offering opinions and then getting ape over someone else's opinion when it doesn't agree with yours. Or maybe someone went ape first, causing you to push back in kind. Maybe you didn't instigate it, or didn't have much of a part in it.
Everything I've seen from the FE 90 makes me think it's a great lens, I've never had one to try though. I have the CV 110 for MF macro, the Sigma for me was to fill the gap when serious macro setup is not viable and I needed AF. I might have been able to get away with the CV 110 if sony implemented trap focus, but it doesn't. I was surprised with the results the Sigma delivered, and I can see myself using it more than expected.
My single-minded pursuit of 28mm legacy primes has been based on my personal experience. You'll see there is very little posting of measured resolution, formal controlled tests, bokeh comparisons, etc by me. I don't point to 20 reviews made by others either, although I may point to threads here on FM where someone else may have compared certain lenses.
I have the Sigma and CV 110, and I posted some comparisons. I consider them to be excellent lenses, based on personal experience. I suspect the Sigma might be better optically than the FE 90, but I can't prove that personally, because I don't have that lens, nor are there many reviews out there. On the flip side, I would be shocked if the FE 90 is incredibly better optically than the Sigma. If it were, it's because I only have the a7R III, not the IV, so I'm not seeing the flaws as readily. And a higher resolution camera would expose them.
Maybe we're all victims here, you and I included. I bear no ill will, and I would never fault you for finding the FE 90 great....as well as having a special look. I do value opinions. You have first hand experience with the FE 90, and to me that puts you in a great position to offer opinions on the lens.
I just get frustrated when people express their opinions, as do others, and it degenerates....well...into this. And I sometimes get swept into the vortex. I'll take responsibility for where I may have contributed to this, and hope everyone does as well.
Maybe we'll luck out and we'll get someone on this thread who has both, I don't think I've seen any real comparisons here. I'm also sort of surprised on how slow the reviews are coming out for the Sigma, maybe due to being a slowish macro lens.
I'm not going to continue down this path, my future posts will be more geared towards the Sigma......and less related to other lenses, unless it's a lens I have. So don't block me! 
I would suggest anyone looking for a 90-110'ish macro lens, take a look a the FE 90, Laowa 100, Sigma 105, and CV 110.
-Tim
osv2 wrote:
or you just didn't know any better, until after i pointed out how flawed his work is...
it's a bit of a disappointment actually, given your single-minded pursuit of 28mm legacy primes and such, i expected better from you.
i posted a link with a popular pic, that a number of people thought had that look.
of course, for people who think that marc alhadeff walks on water, it may not make much sense 
or it may not, and the sigma 105 could end up having worse variation issues...
i've already posted the actual ca measurements, i guess that you didn't see it.
once again... i didn't start out claiming that either lens was better, i simply stated that the fe90 had a look that i liked, and i posted proof of that.
this thread degenerated because certain individuals need to justify what they spent their money on, to the point of making outright false claims.
the fact that you didn't point out where those claims were wrong speaks volumes about where you stand on this... it's obviously not on the side of impartiality.
the sigma 105 fails at manual focusing, it's a poor implementation of focus-by-wire, who wants that in a macro lens? and the autofocus is weak sauce compared to the fe90... so how is it that focusing a lens isn't a "huge driver" for you?
bottom line, you are trying to justify your purchase of this lens by glossing over the reality of it, just like the other posters.
fortunately there are some reviewers who build credibility by pointing out both pluses and minuses:
"The Sigma, by comparison, uses a standard focus-by-wire system where input on the focus ring moves through the focus motor to effect focus change. There’s a bit of lag, so sometimes minor adjustments don’t register, but if you are too broad in trying to get the lens to detect the movement, it will focus too much. It was a bit frustrating at first, though my brain started to adapt and it got easier. Still, however, there’s no question the Sony is the preferred lens for this kind of manual focus work.
...while the [auto]focus quality is pretty good here, it’s not as smooth, quiet, and refined as I’ve come to expect in the best lenses and isn’t quite at the level of 85mm F1.4 DN I recently tested from them.
There is a quiet clicking that can be heard while focus changes are made, but it is loud enough that the on-camera microphone will pick it up. You will notice it it a bit while shooting stills with the lens the first few times, but it will quickly blend into the white noise as it isn’t very loud. The greatest liability will be for shooting video, though if you capture your audio separately, it won’t be an issue.
The biggest thing I hope to see corrected was an observed reluctance at times to focus on a foreground object, which is particularly annoying in a macro lens where this is often your shooting priority."
https://dustinabbott.net/2020/09/sigma-105mm-f2-8-dn-macro-review/
...Show more →
|
