p.22 #1 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Not offering perfection here, but I would hope this is good enough. Sony a7R III and same processing on all files. No correction for CA or fringing. I used Photo Ninja to make sure there were no shenanigans and all corrections were off in camera.
Brain fart, I missed f/2.8 on the CV. I hope everyone can live with that.
Theodoric wrote:
Hey Tim, yes, that would be very useful.
Also, would you be willing to do some LoCA-vs-aperture comparisons for a real-word close-up subject? Maybe a flowering plant, or anything with details and colors, so LoCA can be judged well. I would really appreciate it.
Cheers
p.22 #6 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I'm going to have to think about the flower request. It's literally the darkest month of the year here and it's snowing, supposed to get 12-20 inches. I'll see what I can come up with.
-Tim
Theodoric wrote:
Hey Tim, yes, that would be very useful.
Also, would you be willing to do some LoCA-vs-aperture comparisons for a real-word close-up subject? Maybe a flowering plant, or anything with details and colors, so LoCA can be judged well. I would really appreciate it.
Cheers
p.22 #8 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
The bigger problem is I don't have any flowers. I could get some for my wife, but then it will be awfully suspicious if I start a big photo shoot on the flowers...... Although telling her the flowers aren't really for her doesn't seem like a winning hand either.
-Tim
rico wrote:
Thanks for the latest series. Tim. Your testing is always super helpful. For flowers, perhaps a vase and Speedlight setup can serve.
p.22 #9 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Thanks so much Tim, this is really helpful.
The Sigma looks pretty darn impressive at F/5.6 and smaller, in my opinion.
Substituting for flowers, maybe you could try a small object with some detail and contrast? Dice, a lighter, a battery, keys, ...
By the way, I find it interesting that both lenses are blue in the front and yellow in the back, instead of the more common magenta in the front and cyan in the back. I don't know much about optics, would be interesting to learn why that is and what effects it has.
I doubt you'll find many options that are significantly better than these two, in terms of LoCA. Although I've never tried the FE 90, my impression is that it will not be tangibly better these lenses in that particular area. There is the Laowa as well, which I believe is also excellent in this regard.
Theodoric wrote:
Thanks so much Tim, this is really helpful.
The Sigma looks pretty darn impressive at F/5.6 and smaller, in my opinion.
Substituting for flowers, maybe you could try a small object with some detail and contrast? Dice, a lighter, a battery, keys, ...
By the way, I find it interesting that both lenses are blue in the front and yellow in the back, instead of the more common magenta in the front and cyan in the back. I don't know much about optics, would be interesting to learn why that is and what effects it has.
p.22 #11 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Arri have resolution charts they use to 'break lenses' in terms of showing CA. One of the things they in these $25,000 lenses is to intentionally warm up one side of the CA artefacts and cool down the other side - to make the impact of CA in the image (or cine in their case) much less obvious. We are used to observing warm and cool whereas green/magenta looks like neon lights.
Arri (like many/most informed people) feel that CA cannot be entirely removed even in APO lenses, it's in the nature of the beast. This explains why top end designers like Leica's Peter Karbe leave the small amount of lateral CA in the image to be handled by a profile, while attacking LoCA ferociously. But 'you can't completely get rid of it' as one Arri guy put it.
I haven't been able to find the 'lens breaking' charts but the process involves slowly focusing back and forth with reference to the focal plane. You can see it here, in the first shot video:
p.22 #12 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
Some other things apparent in these comparisons. We have a somewhat different image magnification due to the FL difference, but the Sigma is showing more ovalisation of white 'circles' in some letters with the CV being much less obvious.
Darker motifs remain so well off the plane in the Sigma sets, indicating greater contrast retention in bokeh. The greater abstraction in the CV lens interacts with and lessens this effect.
More lines are shown in the Sigma sets, and abstraction seems to get to a point then stay at that level. The CV is more gradual in its fall-off - every line looks different from its neighbours, and this (IMO) aids the 3D effect. The Sigma shows more 'word islands' (words standing out off the page background) than the CV. The texture of the paper at the plane (image centre) is drawn with greater clarity in the CV. Thanks for these.
p.22 #14 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I'm 99% sure the answer is no. I have the Sigma 45/2.8 and updated it via the same software that Sony uses. You hook the camera up and run the software, and the camera is basically the dock, I assume this lens is the same way.
Actually, I have the 14-24, and I think I've updated that lens the same way as well.
-Tim
realVivek wrote:
Does this lens need an optional lens dock for FW updates like the Samsung lenses?
Hi Tim,
yes I did see this. A wide-open-only comparison is not the most useful for me personally.
Thanks though, it's a good comparison, especially in the highlights.
p.22 #16 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
What are the attributes are you trying to gauge in the comparison?
Theodoric wrote:
Hi Tim,
yes I did see this. A wide-open-only comparison is not the most useful for me personally.
Thanks though, it's a good comparison, especially in the highlights.
p.22 #17 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
tsdevine wrote:
What are the attributes are you trying to gauge in the comparison?
I am using the predecessor (105mm OS) for nature photography - insects and flowers - with the aperture mostly between F/5.6 and F/11, sometimes brighter for flowers.
It's a solid lens, but I'm not happy with the amount of LoCA, that's why I'm trying to find out if I'll be happy with the new one before pulling the trigger.
If I didn't need AF I would just buy the Irix, Laowa or Voigtlander, but my shooting is mostly freehand, run-and-gun, very rarely on a tripod.
p.22 #18 · In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799)
I bought the Sigma for my run and gun shooting with the CV more for when I'm setup with a tripod. The Sigma doesn't AF as fast as the FE 90 from what I gather, but it sure beats my CV 110 for the freehand use. The following are all handheld, no CA or fringing correction.
Will still see what I can come up with for a comparison, but I just don't see LoCA is really field relevant at least in the real life shooting I've done. I just don't notice it, but maybe I'm not as critical.
Sony a7R III + Sigma 105mm DG DN Art @ f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
Theodoric wrote:
I am using the predecessor (105mm OS) for nature photography - insects and flowers - with the aperture mostly between F/5.6 and F/11, sometimes brighter for flowers.
It's a solid lens, but I'm not happy with the amount of LoCA, that's why I'm trying to find out if I'll be happy with the new one before pulling the trigger.
If I didn't need AF I would just buy the Irix, Laowa or Voigtlander, but my shooting is mostly freehand, run-and-gun, very rarely on a tripod.
For flowers, perhaps a vase and Speedlight setup can serve.
