Fred Miranda wrote:
You should try it before dismissing it. What you think is "poor" should read "intentional". It'd say the lens is not for everyone but some of us love the images it produces.
Perhaps "intentionally poor" correction is most accurate No doubt it produces some nice images in the right circumstances.
Unfortunately the AFC performance and max aperture for me is a deal killer. At 45mm, it would be almost exclusively an indoors around the house lens for catching the toddler / dog in low light. Almost opposite of what I see as the strong points of the sigma 45mm. If they fix the AFC I'd be much more interested... Unfortunately nothing stays still in my household, hah!
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."
I posted some selfies on the 45mm thread with crops to show eyelash detail. So, we're talking arm's length, a few feet. It's sharp at f/2.8, razor sharp at f/4. Criticisms of the 45's sharpness profile typically come from people who haven't used it in the real world. It's a fantastic lens with very sensible optical compromises. It renders beautifully at f/2.8 where you would use it, in the portrait range. The SA goes away and it's sharp as a razor at f/4 at any distance...I'm likely at least at f/4 or f/5.6 for DOF if I'm focussing closely, flowers or food, for example. At infinity, it's a fantastically sharp lens, corner to corner, at any landscape aperture.
Sigma made something unique, a break from the cookie-cutter optical designs that everybody has been pumping out. It's 'different', that's why it's got such a strong following among those of us who have used it. It's not for everyone, but its strong character is appealing enough many hoped that Sigma would apply it to other focal lengths in the line. They appear to have gone with a different set of equally sensible compromises. More people will likely be able to wrap their head around the performance of something like the 35/2 and I think it renders very nicely. Not 45 nice, but nice.
Dec 13, 2020 at 02:45 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems to me that we have people saying that the AF of the Sigma 45 f/2.8 is horrific or really really bad, who have not even used the lens. That is not my experience with it. I do use the lens with the Sony A9 and that may help, I am not sure. My experience is that in AF-S mode I can't hardly tell the difference between this lens and something like the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN in terms of how accurately it focusses. You can see the AF performance slow down and become a bit less accurate once you get as close as 1M or so. The AF is still typically above 80% accurate in such instances. So not up to the AF performance of the best lenses, but totally useable even for portraits in AF-S, but of course you don't want to use AF-S for portraits if the subject is moving much.
What about AF-C AF and eye AF? Even in this mode I would say the AF is far from horrific. If you want a full body shot (which for this lens means you are about 3 and half meters away) eye AF works pretty well, I would say over 80% accurately in focus on the eye. That may not be ideal, but for me and my uses that is hardly horrific or very bad. If you want a half body shot (which for this lens means you are about 1 and a half meters away), then eye AF still does quite well in my experience with the A9. I would say about 70% accurately in focus on the eye. Some might find that unacceptable, but for me this is more than acceptable and where I find the lens most useful. At that focus distance you still get, for me anyway, adequate AF and an exceptional look. What about head and shoulders portraits? Well, with this lens that puts you closer than 1 meter and the AF performance decreases quite a bit on the A9. I would say more like 50% accurately focussed on the eye and it gets worse the closer you get. So, I would not call that performance horrific or very bad. To me it is totally worth the decrease in AF performance to get the rendering I prefer, of course YMMV.
goldb wrote:
Perhaps "intentionally poor" correction is most accurate No doubt it produces some nice images in the right circumstances.
Unfortunately the AFC performance and max aperture for me is a deal killer. At 45mm, it would be almost exclusively an indoors around the house lens for catching the toddler / dog in low light. Almost opposite of what I see as the strong points of the sigma 45mm. If they fix the AFC I'd be much more interested... Unfortunately nothing stays still in my household, hah!
It's a cunning design if I think about it...as you fall in love with it for what it does well and then you have to buy another one for the uses you outlined
Dave Sanders wrote:
It's a fantastic lens with very sensible optical compromises.
Sigma made something unique, a break from the cookie-cutter optical designs that everybody has been pumping out. It's 'different',
And for those who are rigidly expecting it to have been made the "same" as the others ... they may be better served to look at those which already exist.
If one is open to looking at it within the context of understanding where the intent for draw and mfd capability reside ... and a subsequent quid pro quo exists ... there might be something for them. So, largely it is a matter of expectation if the tail is wagging the dog, or the dog is wagging the tail.
I had it for a while and found AF fine in AF-S, sharp enough close up at f2.8 and fantastic at f4. Compared to the FE 35/1.8 whose AF is superlative it lacked, but compared to most mirrorless body and lens combinations I’ve used in the last ten plus years, this lens performs better than most when on current gen Sony bodies like my A7R4. So totally usable in historical terms, just not at current best standards.
Lovely rendering, I miss it and may get another. Wish more AF lenses like the 45 and the Nikon 581.4 were produced (tempted to get a cheap used z6 just for that lens).
Snapshot of son, close up at f2.8
Edit: added a bit of a crop to give a sense of sharpness (crop is 1292x1722 of the original 6336x9504 file).
Dave Sanders wrote:
I posted some selfies on the 45mm thread with crops to show eyelash detail. So, we're talking arm's length, a few feet. It's sharp at f/2.8, razor sharp at f/4. Criticisms of the 45's sharpness profile typically come from people who haven't used it in the real world. It's a fantastic lens with very sensible optical compromises. It renders beautifully at f/2.8 where you would use it, in the portrait range. The SA goes away and it's sharp as a razor at f/4 at any distance...I'm likely at least at f/4 or f/5.6 for DOF if I'm focussing closely, flowers or food, for example. At infinity, it's a fantastically sharp lens, corner to corner, at any landscape aperture.
Sigma made something unique, a break from the cookie-cutter optical designs that everybody has been pumping out. It's 'different', that's why it's got such a strong following among those of us who have used it. It's not for everyone, but its strong character is appealing enough many hoped that Sigma would apply it to other focal lengths in the line. They appear to have gone with a different set of equally sensible compromises. More people will likely be able to wrap their head around the performance of something like the 35/2 and I think it renders very nicely. Not 45 nice, but nice.
The reputation get ruined because Sigma give this lens half macro capability. It is glow at MACRO distance. For even half body shot, this lens is plenty sharp, SA is only a trace for keen eyes to see at that distance and with distance increase, it is totally disappear.
The reputation get ruined because Sigma give this lens half macro capability. It is glow at MACRO distance. For even half body shot, this lens is plenty sharp, SA is only a trace for keen eyes to see at that distance and with distance increase, it is totally disappear.
I'm curious what you would say regarding the picture above (of the young boy). Perfect example of a half body shot from probably 2-3 feet away? Personally its a good example of a lovely shot that would be, for me at least, one where I'd go "ugh, if only this were sharper." Hard to say without seeing the raw obviously, but in a browser at least, its a good example of a shot I wouldn't be happy with because of the softness.
goldb wrote:
I'm curious what you would say regarding the picture above (of the young boy). Perfect example of a half body shot from probably 2-3 feet away? Personally its a good example of a lovely shot that would be, for me at least, one where I'd go "ugh, if only this were sharper." Hard to say without seeing the raw obviously, but in a browser at least, its a good example of a shot I wouldn't be happy with because of the softness.
goldb wrote:
I'm curious what you would say regarding the picture above (of the young boy). Perfect example of a half body shot from probably 2-3 feet away? Personally its a good example of a lovely shot that would be, for me at least, one where I'd go "ugh, if only this were sharper." Hard to say without seeing the raw obviously, but in a browser at least, its a good example of a shot I wouldn't be happy with because of the softness.
I can't judge sharpness in above beautiful sample at this size. Maybe it was not fully in focus, but it is not the one deliever to client or for winning some contest. I wouldn't know. It certainly doesnt prevent me appreciate such fine portrait. It seems does all the job I want for my family images (capture a subtle moment, preserve a good memo) if I am the shooter, Id be very happy to present it as well.
However, i can supply some samples later to show that it is sharp enough for most cases if not macro distance at WO. It will not win bench contest but I have other lenses for that task. What is the expectation you have for a lens at 225g with excellent build and beautiful rendering and have a AF? Many people seems get its limitation and still happy with it, and some will move on if the requirement was different. Just saying.
Edit: thanks for update the post, the image show plenty sharpness.
Fred Miranda wrote:
You should try it before dismissing it. What you think is "poor" should read "intentional". It'd say the lens is not for everyone but some of us love the images it produces.
I thought you weren't fond of the OOF images the 45 was producing when using AF-C at close distances. I don't think this is image character we are talking about...but just straight back focus. Wasn't that your conclusion?
Foresska wrote:
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....Show more →
chez wrote:
Inconsistent focus would drive me nuts.
AF-C is inconsistent. It's definitely a caveat one needs to be aware of. I don't think I've ever missed a shot in AF-S, not that I've noticed. But it's like the T stop on the 100 STF, it's something one needs to be aware of and weigh for their tolerance and use case. I think the compromises Sigma made with the 35/2 will satisfy more people.
EDIT: The 100 STF is a good comparison, actually. Buying it and complaining about the fact that it's tough to use indoors or in low light is silly. I would say it's almost at that stage with AF-C on the Sigma. But what both lenses do well, they do better than any other lens.
People see differently. Reviews encourage and teach users to observe what they perceive as perceptual sharpness as a primary intent and often the major goal in imaging, ahead of the gestalt of the narrative or emotional impact or the image.
What some see as a failure to perform acceptably, others enjoy for the sake of the meaning and interest in the image, as seen. As with all things, too much of a good thing may hinder the intention of the photographer.
The relentless sharpness craze will be looked back on in ten years time as a passing phase, before the many aspects of image appreciation were later rebalanced towards 'rounded sharpness'. The sharpest lenses do not - purely as a product of their sharpness - make the best images.
Sharpness can override and impede the intent of images, can steal attention from the inherent appeal of the image. p32#16 is a fine example of what designers can achieve when they understand this phenomenon - the *lack of excess sharpness* leaves the image content to speak more directly and eloquently to the viewer. For this approach, sharpness is but one of a host of factors, all in balance, all aimed at producing excellent images.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I posted some selfies on the 45mm thread with crops to show eyelash detail. So, we're talking arm's length, a few feet. It's sharp at f/2.8, razor sharp at f/4. Criticisms of the 45's sharpness profile typically come from people who haven't used it in the real world. It's a fantastic lens with very sensible optical compromises. It renders beautifully at f/2.8 where you would use it, in the portrait range. The SA goes away and it's sharp as a razor at f/4 at any distance...I'm likely at least at f/4 or f/5.6 for DOF if I'm focussing closely, flowers or food, for example. At infinity, it's a fantastically sharp lens, corner to corner, at any landscape aperture.
Sigma made something unique, a break from the cookie-cutter optical designs that everybody has been pumping out. It's 'different', that's why it's got such a strong following among those of us who have used it. It's not for everyone, but its strong character is appealing enough many hoped that Sigma would apply it to other focal lengths in the line. They appear to have gone with a different set of equally sensible compromises. More people will likely be able to wrap their head around the performance of something like the 35/2 and I think it renders very nicely. Not 45 nice, but nice.
darrellc wrote:
I had it for a while and found AF fine in AF-S, sharp enough close up at f2.8 and fantastic at f4. Compared to the FE 35/1.8 whose AF is superlative it lacked, but compared to most mirrorless body and lens combinations I’ve used in the last ten plus years, this lens performs better than most when on current gen Sony bodies like my A7R4. So totally usable in historical terms, just not at current best standards.
Lovely rendering, I miss it and may get another. Wish more AF lenses like the 45 and the Nikon 581.4 were produced (tempted to get a cheap used z6 just for that lens).
Snapshot of son, close up at f2.8
Edit: added a bit of a crop to give a sense of sharpness (crop is 1292x1722 of the original 6336x9504 file). ...Show more →
I don't think anyone is discounting the image quality of this lens or even focusing in AF-S. It's the AF-C focusing that appears to struggle which is tied to the eye focus tracking.
philip_pj wrote:
People see differently. Reviews encourage and teach users to observe what they perceive as perceptual sharpness as a primary intent and often the major goal in imaging, ahead of the gestalt of the narrative or emotional impact or the image.
What some see as a failure to perform acceptably, others enjoy for the sake of the meaning and interest in the image, as seen. As with all things, too much of a good thing may hinder the intention of the photographer.
The relentless sharpness craze will be looked back on in ten years time as a passing phase, before the many aspects of image appreciation were later rebalanced towards 'rounded sharpness'. The sharpest lenses do not - purely as a product of their sharpness - make the best images.
Sharpness can override and impede the intent of images, can steal attention from the inherent appeal of the image. p32#16 is a fine example of what designers can achieve when they understand this phenomenon - the *lack of excess sharpness* leaves the image content to speak more directly and eloquently to the viewer. For this approach, sharpness is but one of a host of factors, all in balance, all aimed at producing excellent images. ...Show more →
But it's not sharpness that keeps me away from this lens...it's the inconsistent focusing using AF-C which is what I use quite a bit when following moving subjects. I love the rendering...but not OOF images.
This lens reminded me a lot of shooting with m43. Horrible continuous AF but great single af forced me to adapt to m43 and learn how to shoot with afs in circumstances where I’d prefer to use afc. Was not ideal but adaptive skills development was necessary to get the shot if I was to enjoy the upside of m43 (at that point in time).
I have lots of adaptations I have to make with Sony bodies due to shortcomings vs other platforms (eg crappy IBIS so upping shutter speeds in stills and a bunch of hacks for handheld video) it is just what you have to do with certain equipment if you want the benefits, like with this lens.
I also have the FE 35/1.8, which imposes no constraints whatsoever on focus performance, but alas has other faults (though I love it). Shocking how good AF-C is on this lens... like magic!
chez wrote:
I don't think anyone is discounting the image quality of this lens or even focusing in AF-S. It's the AF-C focusing that appears to struggle which is tied to the eye focus tracking.
Dec 13, 2020 at 04:17 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It struggles with AF-C on a Sony, which - correct me if I'm wrong - only uses PDAF in AF-C. SA and PDAF don't play well. So it's not entirely the fault of the lens.
In AF-S and average light, it's great. Dim light and it starts becoming a problem. Often it will lock on a vertical edge (CDAF just LOVES vertical edges) and not necessarily where you meant to focus. For human faces, often this is the hair, so it presents as "back focused" and the eyes/nose will be slightly soft. Wives tend to love this lens, test charts, not so much.
In very low light or with fast-moving subjects, I prefer to just use it as a manual focus lens. chez wrote:
I don't think anyone is discounting the image quality of this lens or even focusing in AF-S. It's the AF-C focusing that appears to struggle which is tied to the eye focus tracking.
No doubt it produces some nice images in the right circumstances. 
