fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3 … 30

32 … 75 76 end

Archive 2020 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #1 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

RustyBug wrote:
+1

Understanding that this is part of the Contemporary series ... it isn't intended to be top tier (size & cost) AF performer. There are other lenses for that level of AF performance. The market it is intended for isn't likely to be using it to compete with the big guns.

If I build / buy a small dog house, why should I complain that a horse won't fit inside it?

As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for. There are many lenses which are not in the so called "big guns" level that have fantastic AF abilities. I just don't buy AF is related to lens cost as there are many examples of lenses on both sides of the equation.

Dec 13, 2020 at 12:27 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #2 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

chez wrote:
As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for.

Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.

Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.

Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.

I just don't expect to get top tier of "everything I want" ... in a mid-curve product. In this instance, the product doesn't have top tier AF. Neither does a $1,000 Zeiss.

Dec 13, 2020 at 12:41 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #3 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

RustyBug wrote:
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.

Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.

Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.

I...Show more →

I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.

I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.

Dec 13, 2020 at 12:51 PM

goldb
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #4 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

RustyBug wrote:
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.

Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.

Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.

I...Show more →

From what I've read / seen, the 45mm isn't just "not great" at AFC. It is positively bad; worse than budget offerings like samyang. Seems likely a function of software/processing rather than the ability to physically move the glass fast enough but I'll leave that to others to determine.

Clearly the 45 has a following here due to the rendering, but poor close-up performance, relatively small aperture, plus bad AFC is a recipe for very limited appeal IMO. I'm glad sigma went with a more well-rounded performer with the 35/65.

Dec 13, 2020 at 12:51 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #5 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

It is perform well on SL2 on both AFC and AFS.
On the other hand, it focus poorly on sigma�s own FP on AFC, AFS need also careful that if focus box is large. It tend to focus to background on FP.
For people need state of art AFC, it is not for you, so are many awesome cameras out there.

goldb wrote:
From what I've read / seen, the 45mm isn't just "not great" at AFC. It is positively bad; worse than budget offerings like samyang. Seems likely a function of software/processing rather than the ability to physically move the glass fast enough but I'll leave that to others to determine.

Clearly the 45 has a following here due to the rendering, but poor close-up performance, relatively small aperture, plus bad AFC is a recipe for very limited appeal IMO. I'm glad sigma went with a more well-rounded performer with the 35/65.

Edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 01:24 PM · View previous versions

Dec 13, 2020 at 12:57 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #6 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

chez wrote:
I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.

I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.

Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.

Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.

Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid pro quo in speed for precision or proximity for correction. If the lens is getting that close, that presents different design (optics and mechanics) from one which only focus to a .08 or .15 distance.

Again, look at the whole, not the isolation. If there is a quid pro quo involved, then one has to discern how much that matters to them. Personal choice. Optics are almost always of exercise in "choose your poison" ... so, your call to how much you can live with, or without.

Edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 01:12 PM · View previous versions

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:04 PM

JVan_02
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #7 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

The 45's AF-C issues stem from the huge amounts of uncorrected SA, most likely. The association between SA and problems with phase detect isn't exactly new. The article in question was written with DSLRs in mind, and I don't know exactly how that difference affects focusing with regards to SA. But the fact that this lens works better with contrast detect focus makes it more likely to me that SA is the culprit, as this is pretty common.

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:04 PM

tsdevine
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #8 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

For my shooting, I can live with AF-S for the 45mm. So far, it seems pretty reliable. I wonder whether it's solely Sigma's fault on this, or whether Sony has a part in as well, anyone know? If it truly is an issue due to undercorrected SA, then I would expect L mount bodies to have an issue as well, any. If they don't, it may be more than just a Sigma problem.

Sometime this forum seems like a rag fest. Samyang may focus better, but after 5 copies I couldn't get a centered 35/2.8, I literally gave up. Different people have different priorities, which is fine, lots of choices.

If the 35/65 floats your boat, that's great, I'm interested as well. Having these options is a good thing....almost too much of a good thing.

-Tim

goldb wrote:
From what I've read / seen, the 45mm isn't just "not great" at AFC. It is positively bad; worse than budget offerings like samyang. Seems likely a function of software/processing rather than the ability to physically move the glass fast enough but I'll leave that to others to determine.

Clearly the 45 has a following here due to the rendering, but poor close-up performance, relatively small aperture, plus bad AFC is a recipe for very limited appeal IMO. I'm glad sigma went with a more well-rounded performer with the 35/65.

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:06 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #9 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

JVan_02 wrote:
The 45's AF-C issues stem from the huge amounts of uncorrected SA, most likely. The association between SA and problems with phase detect isn't exactly new. The article in question was written with DSLRs in mind, and I don't know exactly how that difference affects focusing with regards to SA. But the fact that this lens works better with contrast detect focus makes it more likely to me that SA is the culprit, as this is pretty common.

Well corrected 1:4 would be a different price point.

Bear in mind, too ... Sigma's building to the L Alliance. How many of those cameras are phase detect vs. contrast detect?
Makes me wonder if those experiencing the poor performance are doing so because of the diff's in match vs. mis-match.

I actually have been considering this lens ... now that I've come to realize how close it focuses, that's a plus one for me. I don't shoot AF-C, so that's no biggie for me. And, I'd be mounting it on a contrast detect body. So, those three points make it more viable for me.

Some chasing the kids around the room with it on a Sony, maybe it's not for them. Probably better off to buy the Sony lens designed for the Sony camera.

Edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 01:23 PM · View previous versions

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:15 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #10 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

RustyBug wrote:
Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.

Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.

Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid...Show more →

I agree, use the right tool...but that's not what I'm talking about. You claimed this lens is not a "top tier" lens so we should not expect good AF...which I contested saying there are many examples of lower tier lenses with great AF...so your theory is blown out.

Many people have the same issue with a "top tier" Sony 85 1.4 lens where the AF is too slow for many that shoot non stationary subjects.

I personally can deal with slow AF as long as when it achieves focus...it actually nailed focus. I can't deal with unreliable focus.

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:21 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #11 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

chez wrote:
I agree, use the right tool...but that's not what I'm talking about. You claimed this lens is not a "top tier" lens so we should not expect good AF...which I contested saying there are many examples of lower tier lenses with great AF...so your theory is blown out.

Many people have the same issue with a "top tier" Sony 85 1.4 lens where the AF is too slow for many that shoot non stationary subjects.

I personally can deal with slow AF as long as when it achieves focus...it actually nailed focus. I can't deal with unreliable focus.

I understand ... but "slow focus" and AF-C are kinda antithetical aren't they. So, if it is a "slow focus", and works well in AF-S, to lock focus accurately, but doesn't do so well in AF-C ... isn't that mostly a byproduct of speed or is it the difference in phase vs. contrast detection?

Nobody wants a lens that hunts and misses ... but, imo that's different from one that isn't up to the task of close focus AF-C. If one can deal with slow AF, isn't that essentially AF-S vs. AF-C (subject speed variable)?

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:27 PM

JVan_02
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #12 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

RustyBug wrote:
Well corrected 1:4 would be a different price point.

Bear in mind, too ... Sigma's building to the L Alliance. How many of those cameras are phase detect vs. contrast detect?
Makes me wonder if those experiencing the poor performance are doing so because of the diff's in match vs. mis-match.

I actually have been considering this lens ... now that I've come to realize how close it focuses, that's a plus one for me. I don't shoot AF-C, so that's no biggie for me. And, I'd be mounting it on a contrast detect body. So, those three points make it more viable...Show more →

Mmmmm... dunno about just better corrected for SA. The 45's look is quite attractive�and it's almost entirely due to the gobs of SA. Sony's 35 1.8 is over-corrected for SA (so better corrected?) and price aligns with the difference in aperture. Samyang's 35 1.8 is somewhat better corrected, and cheaper despite the wider aperture. Zeiss' 40 CF is better corrected, and like 2.5x the cost�but I think that lens is grossly overpriced despite its strengths.

Honestly, I think the closest lens to what you're describing would be the Tamron 35 2.8 FE... which is cheaper. Granted, the AF motor is terrible on that lens and the hull is unnecessarily inflated�but it has the best balance of image characteristics I've seen on any lens in a long while.

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:36 PM

AndereObjektiv
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #13 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

The 24mm F3.5 DG DN sample images are up on the Sigma global site.

It does seem they followed the under-correction of SA as was done with the 45mm. The glow in the images is quite beautiful along with excellent bokeh at f3.5. It's drawing is excellent. I'll be getting one.

No shots at infinity focus in the sample images, unfortunately. A big oversight, perhaps they'll update.

Edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 01:58 PM · View previous versions

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:57 PM

goldb
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.31 #14 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

Dec 13, 2020 at 01:58 PM

Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #15 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:03 PM

zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #16 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

tsdevine wrote:
For my shooting, I can live with AF-S for the 45mm. So far, it seems pretty reliable. I wonder whether it's solely Sigma's fault on this, or whether Sony has a part in as well, anyone know? If it truly is an issue due to undercorrected SA, then I would expect L mount bodies to have an issue as well, any. If they don't, it may be more than just a Sigma problem.

Sometime this forum seems like a rag fest. Samyang may focus better, but after 5 copies I couldn't get a centered 35/2.8, I literally gave up. Different people...Show more →

+1.

As I mentioned, it focus fine with both AFS and AFC on SL2. For scientifically define this problem, we need specify out of focus scenarios, what is the speed and distance of subject moving? is it just out of focus in AFC even for stationary subject? or It is just can't keep up for either Camera or Lens. For Sony, most likely is the lens can't keep up, for Leica, it is most like Camera can't keep up. CDAF generally having problem with AFC, the view kind of jittery during action,(because it is a feedback system that require back and forth comparison instead of PDAF, a open loop system) and if either camera or lens not fast enough, you get out of focus images. I understand that before I get SL2 or FP or RX1 for that matter.

For me, I don't use this lens track my dog or kids running toward me, or capture moving human subject close range in street, so it doesn't bother me. Do I wish it can do all, yes, but it will most likely lose its charming if it is able to do it all. I have learned that expect a tool to do it all will only lead disappointment. That is why we either buy more tools to cover different need or buy something fit your priority and live with tradeoffs. my 2c.

Edited on Dec 13, 2020 at 02:20 PM · View previous versions

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:17 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #17 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

goldb wrote:
Reviews / images I've seen say the poor correction extends out to about 2 feet away - not just at MFD. 2 feet away on a 45mm is not all that close... If you like the soft look - then go for it. But its not just a normal instance of "slightly soft at MFD."

My point isn't the distance being shot at ... but the distance for which it was designed for. Designing a lens with mfd be shot at 2 feet away is going to result in a more readily corrected lens than one that is capable of mfd of 9 inches. That decision influences the quality of the optic. That's part of the reason why floating elements or other optical engineering implementations are needed to contend with the challenges that such a close mfd range induces. Advantage to the 2 ft mfd is inherent to optical design. Conversely, 9 inch mfd.

The fact that the design choice was made to focus as close as 9 inches influences the optic more than just when shooting at mfd of 9 inches. The fact that the range of 9 - 24 inches is effected ... comes as little surprise for a lens with mfd of 9 inches. Even in top tier glass with extra short mfd's there is often an accompanied quid pro quo compared to lens of more "normal" mfd's.

The fact that the lens trades off some IQ for mfd ... and holds a price point. Again, no surprise that there's some quid pro quo.

If folks can't see the concept of engineering quid pro quo to a market point involved, then keep bashing it till the cows come home, rather than trying to understand what the trade-off might be. Once you understand what / where the quid pro quo is ... sure, then make your decision if it's for you or not. It it ain't for you, plenty of others to choose from.

So, my take away from this is that AF-C on Sony bodies at close focusing isn't as good as folks want it to be. Got it.

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:17 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #18 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

JVan_02 wrote:
Mmmmm... dunno about just better corrected for SA. The 45's look is quite attractive�and it's almost entirely due to the gobs of SA. Sony's 35 1.8 is over-corrected for SA (so better corrected?) and price aligns with the difference in aperture. Samyang's 35 1.8 is somewhat better corrected, and cheaper despite the wider aperture. Zeiss' 40 CF is better corrected, and like 2.5x the cost�but I think that lens is grossly overpriced despite its strengths.

Honestly, I think the closest lens to what you're describing would be the Tamron 35 2.8 FE... which is cheaper. Granted, the AF motor is...Show more →

I haven't shot the Tammy 35, but I've got the Tammy 45/1.8 (EF mount). ... I like its draw and close focus. AF isn't a barn burner there either.

If the Siggy draws like the Tammy, and has close focus, it might be something I can use in the L mount.

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:24 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.31 #19 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

Fred Miranda wrote:
What you think is "poor" should read "intentional".

Bingo.

Fred to the rescue.

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:29 PM

Foresska
Offline
•
[X]

p.31 #20 · Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses

I have been using the Sigma 45mm f/2.8 on Sony A7 III for a year. In my experience, the Eye-AF on AF-C struggles when faces are in shade - low contrast, low brightness. You get sporadic hits on AF, but they may not be accurate.

I did some testing at home, and the results I got using f/2.8 versus f/5.0 was consistent when I compensated exposure time to have the same brightness. I started having issues getting a hit when I stayed in the lower 20-25% of the histogram. By increasing the exposure with one or two stops, I would get constant Eye-AF tracking. I did the testing at 5 meters and then 2 meters distance.

I doubt that SA is solely responsible for the AF issues with the 45mm f/2.8. There are softer lenses with better autofocus. I've gotten better results with the Sony FE 85mm f/1.8 on distant subjects at f/1.8, which is pretty soft.

Dec 13, 2020 at 02:34 PM

1 2 3 … 30 31 32 … 75 76 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 30 31 32 … 75 76 end