p.3 #1 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
freaklikeme wrote:
The Sigma may give you a little lift in absolute resolution and color correction, but I'd take this into consideration when comparing the two. The G is 100+ grams lighter, has OSS, has what I think is one of the best MF designs for FBW lenses, and gives you, thanks to the similarity in MFD and difference in physical length, about three and a half more centimeters working distance at 1:1. It may not sound like much, but every centimeter counts when you're trying to light something tiny.
Or maybe I'm just jaded about new lenses. Every time I see one announced these days, my first thought is, "And how many of them are you going to produce that perform to that specification?" The more complex the lens, the less confident I am that percentage will be high....Show more →
p.3 #2 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
freaklikeme wrote:
The Sigma may give you a little lift in absolute resolution and color correction, but I'd take this into consideration when comparing the two. The G is 100+ grams lighter, has OSS, has what I think is one of the best MF designs for FBW lenses, and gives you, thanks to the similarity in MFD and difference in physical length, about three and a half more centimeters working distance at 1:1. It may not sound like much, but every centimeter counts when you're trying to light something tiny.
Or maybe I'm just jaded about new lenses. Every time I see one announced these days, my first thought is, "And how many of them are you going to produce that perform to that specification?" The more complex the lens, the less confident I am that percentage will be high....Show more →
The Sony is also 5mm shorter.
I think we have already superb macro lenses and any improvement from new lenses won't be substantial. However, I don't think we can dismiss the improvements in axial CA correction and higher resolution across the field from newer designs.
For those with good copies of the FE 90/2.8 (which is rare), it's hard to see a reason to upgrade but there are many shooters looking for a macro lens and I would say the Sigma looks better than the Sony in price and IQ.
p.3 #3 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I get the impression that the recent (not only Sigma) lenses are a result of computerized optimization algorithms and little engineering mastermind. Any optimization can quickly go over board like now to me with the number of elements and groups. Then the question is, which variables like consistency in production, over lifetime, focus breathing, flaring etc. were underrepresented in the optimization.
p.3 #4 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
GHarris wrote:
Personally, however, I would find a new 150mm or 180mm macro more interesting. The old DSLR macros, of 150 and 180mm, were good: The working distance they enable has its uses... And they had a tripod collar for easy rotation and better-balanced tripod mounting.
I wonder whether they will, with time, go further, and replace one or the other? 150 or 180, I wouldn't mind which. 105mm is I guess an easier "play it safe" option to start out with - cheaper, lighter, probably more mass-market.
I also prefer a longer focal length and have the non-OS 150/2.8. It is a good focal length for maintaing distance and more compact than the 180mm. Sigma is long overdue to replace those macros for MILC; even the OS SLR versions are old now.
p.3 #5 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
BokehBeauty wrote:
I get the impression that the recent (not only Sigma) lenses are a result of computerized optimization algorithms and little engineering mastermind. Any optimization can quickly go over board like now to me with the number of elements and groups. Then the question is, which variables like consistency in production, over lifetime, focus breathing, flaring etc. were underrepresented in the optimization.
Using skilled people setting the boundaries + computational optimization is the way to go. It will be very hard to single-handedly go through numerous design possibilities and optimize them based on experience of completely different designs.
Every optical engineer knows about the various influence factors and can weigh them individually.
p.3 #6 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Holger wrote:
Using skilled people setting the boundaries + computational optimization is the way to go. It will be very hard to single-handedly go through numerous design possibilities and optimize them based on experience of completely different designs.
Every optical engineer knows about the various influence factors and can weigh them individually.
It’s not so easy. Some variables are not well measurable and consequently less well modeled and tend to be underestimated. Their effect come up much later. This is where the experience of an optical / engineering mastermind comes in. It’s the same with the glorified AI, which gives quick success and then struggles at the 2..10% cases.
p.3 #7 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sony is also 5mm shorter.
I think we have already superb macro lenses and any improvement from new lenses won't be substantial. However, I don't think we can dismiss the improvements in axial CA correction and higher resolution across the field from newer designs.
For those with good copies of the FE 90/2.8 (which is rare), it's hard to see a reason to upgrade but there are many shooters looking for a macro lens and I would say the Sigma looks better than the Sony in price and IQ.
Just want to +1 on this.
I think I’m on record here as saying I’ll stick with my Sony.
But it took me three copies to get one, and I’m not as picky as many. New Sony lenses aren’t too bad in consistency, but this one was a shocker. Sigma, OTOH, are pretty reliable (which is not to say perfect of course).
So if I were buying from scratch the better LoCA, probably somewhat higher resolution, lower price and lower expected variance would trump the clutch on the Sony.
(I wonder, though what distance the Sigma MTF is calculated for. The Sony is noticeably better in macro than at distance)
p.3 #8 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I may be out of order for some reason but I've never seen real MTF with higher contrast over 60% of the frame than on axis.
Hubert Nasse said that computing was the big leveller over accumulated corporate knowledge, but you get the impression that savvy experience, intuition and 'what worked before' are big contributors to final lens releases. Cosina's top guy seemed to imply as much. Zeiss used Nasse to do the serious design inspection, but he never said how much he found, in the way of problems, just that it happened. Great video, thank you.
p.3 #9 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I'm curious to see if there's going to a black friday sale on this
I'm really delighted with Sigma's DG DN lineup so far, and if this is on promotion I can certainly see myself being interested.
p.3 #10 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
After the disaster with the firmware upgrade of the Sigma 35mm f1.2, for which no solution has been found to date and with regard to a completely incompetent and unfriendly service department of Sigma, I will think carefully about the next purchase of a Sigma product.
Such things should always kept in mind when assessing the price of product.
p.3 #11 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I’m in total agreement. I love my 35mm 1.2 and the fact they effectively broke it with a firmware update leaves me astounded. Terrible customer service over the matter has just compounded the problem and shown how they deal with issues. I’m certainly not interested in any further Sigma lenses at this point.
HelBen85 wrote:
After the disaster with the firmware upgrade of the Sigma 35mm f1.2, for which no solution has been found to date and with regard to a completely incompetent and unfriendly service department of Sigma, I will think carefully about the next purchase of a Sigma product.
Such things should always kept in mind when assessing the price of product.
p.3 #12 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
The thing about 35mm f1.2 firmware update bug is that there seems to be some randomness to it as some people are not reporting any issues at all under the same conditions. In general, I'm happy with the way Sigma supports its DG DN lenses, so I hope this one is an exception, rather than the rule .
p.3 #13 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Sony is also 5mm shorter.
I think we have already superb macro lenses and any improvement from new lenses won't be substantial. However, I don't think we can dismiss the improvements in axial CA correction and higher resolution across the field from newer designs.
For those with good copies of the FE 90/2.8 (which is rare), it's hard to see a reason to upgrade but there are many shooters looking for a macro lens and I would say the Sigma looks better than the Sony in price and IQ.
I'm impressed with the optics. I'm impressed with the care they took with the bokeh. I don't have your or David's faith that great copies will be any less rare than the G. If I remember Roger's variance charts correctly, Sigma overall didn't fare significantly better than Sony, but my memory isn't perfect.
p.3 #14 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
photomadnz wrote:
I’m in total agreement. I love my 35mm 1.2 and the fact they effectively broke it with a firmware update leaves me astounded. Terrible customer service over the matter has just compounded the problem and shown how they deal with issues. I’m certainly not interested in any further Sigma lenses at this point.
Which body are you using it on? I wonder if the problem is body specific..
p.3 #15 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
photomadnz wrote:
I’m in total agreement. I love my 35mm 1.2 and the fact they effectively broke it with a firmware update leaves me astounded. Terrible customer service over the matter has just compounded the problem and shown how they deal with issues. I’m certainly not interested in any further Sigma lenses at this point.
We have two 35/1.2 on various Sony cameras and no problems at all, some wedding photographers we know, however, report issues. It is a bit weird.
p.3 #16 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
j4nu wrote:
The thing about 35mm f1.2 firmware update bug is that there seems to be some randomness to it as some people are not reporting any issues at all under the same conditions. In general, I'm happy with the way Sigma supports its DG DN lenses, so I hope this one is an exception, rather than the rule .
Both Dustin Abbott and Christopher Frost noted that they used older bodies in their reviews, namely an A7R3 and A7R2. Dustin did say that on his A92 it's a whole lot faster, but that wasn't his main review body supposedly.
p.3 #20 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Please ignore this post, the Sigma is actually 17 elements in 12 groups. B&H listed incorrect specs for the lens, and was the source for my comments below.
Arguably the Sigma "looks" less complex (you note complexity not limited to Sigma) than the Sony and CV 110, and I was able to get a good copy of the CV 110 on the first try. Arguably the Sigma is similar to the CV 125 (an older design) in terms of complexity. Watching the Sigma video posted in this thread, it seems like extra care was taking to keep ghosting (and I assume flare) under control.
Sony FE 90 G
15 elements in 11 groups
CV 110
14 elements in 12 groups
Sigma 105
12 elements in 7 groups
CV 125
11 elements in 9 groups
I haven't (as far as I know) had my CV 110 go out of whack, and I'm not sure how to evaluate whether something was underrepresented in the optimization.
-Tim
BokehBeauty wrote:
I get the impression that the recent (not only Sigma) lenses are a result of computerized optimization algorithms and little engineering mastermind. Any optimization can quickly go over board like now to me with the number of elements and groups. Then the question is, which variables like consistency in production, over lifetime, focus breathing, flaring etc. were underrepresented in the optimization.
