teddoman wrote:
You're going to need something wider for indoors once your child starts walking around 1 yo. These Sigma lenses will be fine once your child is a lot older, but at the moment, you may want to consider a native lens. FE 35mm 2.8 is relatively affordable. I'd consider the 24mm 1.4 over the 35mm if a used copy is within your budget. From what I've seen, you need a native lens to do AFC in photo AND video, and you're going to want to do some video too.
Hah, totally agree. Once kids start moving at all it is hard to be distant enough for candid shots with an 85. Given the AF-C issues with the Sigma 45, I would think twice about trying that one, and maybe wait for first reports on the Sigma 35. I used my Sony 28/2 a lot at that age, but the 24/1.4 GM would have been even better. I was happy to shoot a wider lens and crop a bit in post if needed. Framing exactly is not always easy with moving targets
my thought is, I would like to try the 45 for now. My daughter is ~6 month now, which means she will stay still for at least another 6 months or so. None of the native FE lens at ~$600 range can catch my eyes atm.
In that period I can wait for user reports on the 35 and other new lens, or even save up for 24GM and maybe sell the 45. Its price for used is so low atm, won't cost me too much even if ended up sold eventually
hco0 wrote:
my thought is, I would like to try the 45 for now. My daughter is ~6 month now, which means she will stay still for at least another 6 months or so. None of the native FE lens at ~$600 range can catch my eyes atm.
In that period I can wait for user reports on the 35 and other new lens, or even save up for 24GM and maybe sell the 45. Its price for used is so low atm, won't cost me too much even if ended up sold eventually
I'd advise against 45mm for AF-C & children... I mean, you will get some keepers but a lot of missed shots too (and AF-S is too slow to capture moving kids). I think any other normal-ish (35-55 mm) will do just fine, not necessarily Sony branded (e.g Samyang 35mm f1.8 if you want to go really low cost) ...
j4nu wrote:
I'd advise against 45mm for AF-C & children... I mean, you will get some keepers but a lot of missed shots too (and AF-S is too slow to capture moving kids). I think any other normal-ish (35-55 mm) will do just fine, not necessarily Sony branded (e.g Samyang 35mm f1.8 if you want to go really low cost) ...
Seconded. I and others have written extensively about the uselessness of AF-C on the Sigma 45C. "Normal-ish" lenses that I have tried on my A7III that work absolutely fine in AF-C and eye AF include the Samyang 45/1.8 and Zony 55/1.8.
bobby350z wrote:
Sorry, didn't understand the native part? You mean only Sony lenses can do AFC in photo on Sony bodies?
Native, meaning Sony OEM lenses, as opposed to third party lenses like Sigma ones. Sony lenses are reliable in AF-C because Sony made them and knows exactly how to make them work with the bodies. All of the Sony lenses I've used are also smooth and silent in video AF. The Sigma DSLR lenses I've used are too loud for video.
The Sony 20mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 28mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8, and 35mm 2.8 are all competent options for an indoor environmental portrait lens although the angle of the 20mm is probably too wide. Larger aperture lenses are very helpful indoors for their light gathering ability and the shallow depth of field look but they tend to be pricier.
The specific issue with the 45 on Sony bodies is believed to be undercorrected SA, which vexes Sony's AF-C. Don't take the AF-C performance of the Sigma 45 and extrapolate to all non-Sony lenses.
teddoman wrote:
Native, meaning Sony OEM lenses, as opposed to third party lenses like Sigma ones. Sony lenses are reliable in AF-C because Sony made them and knows exactly how to make them work with the bodies. All of the Sony lenses I've used are also smooth and silent in video AF. The Sigma DSLR lenses I've used are too loud for video.
The Sony 20mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 28mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8, and 35mm 2.8 are all competent options for an indoor environmental portrait lens although the angle of the 20mm is probably too wide. Larger aperture lenses are very helpful indoors for their light gathering ability and the shallow depth of field look but they tend to be pricier....Show more →
OK, I only have Sigma 105mm f1.4 FE on my A7rIV and so far seems to work like a charm in AF-C mode. But I am not shooting running backs in a football game like back in the days.
I am looking at Sigma 28mm f1.4 DG Art for Sony, not sure how well the AF on that would be.
bobby350z wrote:
OK, I only have Sigma 105mm f1.4 FE on my A7rIV and so far seems to work like a charm in AF-C mode. But I am not shooting running backs in a football game like back in the days.
I am looking at Sigma 28mm f1.4 DG Art for Sony, not sure how well the AF on that would be.
For photos, the AF on my Sigma DSLR lenses on the MC-11 is fast and accurate, although loud. Nothing like what I've heard about the AF of the 45mm.
For video AF of kids, though, I would probably avoid third party lenses and get a native lens.
Dec 31, 2020 at 10:49 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
teddoman wrote:
For photos, the AF on my Sigma DSLR lenses on the MC-11 is fast and accurate, although loud. Nothing like what I've heard about the AF of the 45mm.
For video AF of kids, though, I would probably avoid third party lenses and get a native lens.
For video of kids (or anything else) I would try to avoid AF period. Not a fan of watching any lens AF on video, but as always YMMV.
teddoman wrote:
Native, meaning Sony OEM lenses, as opposed to third party lenses like Sigma ones. Sony lenses are reliable in AF-C because Sony made them and knows exactly how to make them work with the bodies. All of the Sony lenses I've used are also smooth and silent in video AF. The Sigma DSLR lenses I've used are too loud for video.
The Sony 20mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 28mm 2.0, 35mm 1.4, 35mm 1.8, and 35mm 2.8 are all competent options for an indoor environmental portrait lens although the angle of the 20mm is probably too wide. Larger aperture lenses are very helpful indoors for their light gathering ability and the shallow depth of field look but they tend to be pricier....Show more →
My Sigma lenses do AFC in video perfectly fine. This is not an issue.
teddoman wrote:
For photos, the AF on my Sigma DSLR lenses on the MC-11 is fast and accurate, although loud. Nothing like what I've heard about the AF of the 45mm.
For video AF of kids, though, I would probably avoid third party lenses and get a native lens.
There are sigma dSLR lenses with MC-11 and then there are sigma dSLR design lenses but with MC-11 built in and for use on Sony. I think there is a difference between the two. The Sony versions of Sigma work pretty good. Video, I don't care much. If I did, then it will be using nice MF lens.
Steve Spencer wrote:
For video of kids (or anything else) I would try to avoid AF period. Not a fan of watching any lens AF on video, but as always YMMV.
I tried years ago on my Nikon D7000 years ago, but it was really an exercise in futility. Manual focus for a photography takes a lot of careful effort, which I'm willing to do. In video, kids move around too quickly and unpredictably, so for family video, I use AF. Add in some careful handholding plus gyro stabilization from the A7C and A7S III and handheld video is remarkably watchable.
Dec 31, 2020 at 12:03 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
teddoman wrote:
I tried years ago on my Nikon D7000 years ago, but it was really an exercise in futility. Manual focus for a photography takes a lot of careful effort, which I'm willing to do. In video, kids move around too quickly and unpredictably, so for family video, I use AF. Add in some careful handholding plus gyro stabilization from the A7C and A7S III and handheld video is remarkably watchable.
I take a very different approach to video. It of course would be an exercise in futility if you tried to shift focus manually on video to follow a toddler, but manual focus for video does not have to be that. You can set a wider lens with enough depth of field and it is surprisingly easy, and even a simple two camera set up makes the resulting edited video a lot better, IMO. It is of course fine if you want to shoot a different way, but people, IMO, should not get the wrong impression that if you want to shoot kids on video you need a native AF lens, or even an AF lens at all. You can shoot wonderful video without using AF at all.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I take a very different approach to video. It of course would be an exercise in futility if you tried to shift focus manually on video to follow a toddler, but manual focus for video does not have to be that. You can set a wider lens with enough depth of field and it is surprisingly easy, and even a simple two camera set up makes the resulting edited video a lot better, IMO. It is of course fine if you want to shoot a different way, but people, IMO, should not get the wrong impression that if you want to shoot kids on video you need a native AF lens, or even an AF lens at all. You can shoot wonderful video without using AF at all....Show more →
Fair enough, though if you use wider DOF, that's not without a price. You're giving up the shallow DOF look and indoors you're taking a hit on ISO (in most cases). Equivalent to shooting on a smaller sensor, really. Good video AF allows us to shoot video of kids at wider apertures.
Dec 31, 2020 at 12:47 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
teddoman wrote:
Fair enough, though if you use wider DOF, that's not without a price. You're giving up the shallow DOF look and indoors you're taking a hit on ISO (in most cases). Equivalent to shooting on a smaller sensor, really. Good video AF allows us to shoot video of kids at wider apertures.
Sure there are tradeoffs for everything, but personally I hate to see the lens focussing in the video. Avoiding that look is a high priority for me. I think with video having multiple cameras makes a huge difference. This strategy lets you have one camera with a wide angle and more DOF, and a second camera with narrower DOF. That way you don't need to get the shallow DOF in focus all the time, but you can add it to the wider shot when you edit.
Dec 31, 2020 at 03:12 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Respectfully disagree. My kid is 5 and eats a lot of sugar. AF-S is fine in decent light with the 45. Indoors at night, it does struggle a bit, so I just use MF mode for those situations.
Just get it. 45's awesome.
j4nu wrote:
I'd advise against 45mm for AF-C & children... I mean, you will get some keepers but a lot of missed shots too (and AF-S is too slow to capture moving kids). I think any other normal-ish (35-55 mm) will do just fine, not necessarily Sony branded (e.g Samyang 35mm f1.8 if you want to go really low cost) ...
Right. Also not all photos need to be f2.8. Plenty of nice ones at f4 where it focuses just fine. And the rendering helps hugely.
I don't post pics of my kids as a rule, but just the other day I was reviewing one at f5.6, backlit, with a fence (and tree branches) going all through the "transition zone," that would've jumped at me with double edged structure and chromatic aberrations in the bokeh if it was "any other" lens. No problem for the Sigma 45, and as a bonus the kid's head is fully in focus (Eye-AF still nailed it).
Not a lot of "blur amount" but compared with smaller sensor cams (and/or lesser lenses) at equivalent DoF, the difference is sticking, IMO.
PS: People complained loudly about the Zeiss 40 fiasco. I actually wouldn't mind the same behavior (closing up automatically if focused closer) on the Sigma, at least on AF-C. I guess you can't please everyone.
PS2: I actually use DMF most of the time with this one. It helps me manual focus faster, not only because it does "half the job," but also with face detect magnification is automatically on the face.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Respectfully disagree. My kid is 5 and eats a lot of sugar. AF-S is fine in decent light with the 45. Indoors at night, it does struggle a bit, so I just use MF mode for those situations.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Respectfully disagree. My kid is 5 and eats a lot of sugar. AF-S is fine in decent light with the 45. Indoors at night, it does struggle a bit, so I just use MF mode for those situations.
Just get it. 45's awesome.
1-3 yo was the hardest to photograph and video for me. Just walking all over the place in unpredictable ways. As the kids get older, they settle down into one sedentary activity at a time. Much easier to swoop in for a portrait shot then.
