nehemiahphoto wrote:
Thanks for the info! I can see where you were coming from and how that would be such a tricky situation. What AF settings are you using?
The ZA 55 is absolutely spectacular for zippy AF and you can track dogs wide-open running quite fast with a capable body like the A9 or even the a7iii gives pretty decent results. If the focus speed is just average or slightly above, it will not work for me. If the focus speed is fairly fast to very fast, it becomes a lot more interesting.
If anyone else has any experience with the 65i tracking kids or dogs thy are moving quickly, please do chime in....Show more →
It may very well be that I'm not using the ideal settings to keep him in focus. I've been using the following when taking pictures of him: AF-C/Focus Area Wide/Animal Subject and Eye Detect. I have no doubt I'd have far more keepers with an A9/A9II. (Although my RIV does seem to handle larger BIF like double crested cormorants better with the 100-400 than any of my other lenses handle the pup.)
So I just took the pup out to the backyard during lunch and fired off about 100 shots with the RIV and 65i at f/2 with the above settings. At least half are unusable. Zero claim to any kind of good technique tracking a speedy puppy, so I'm sure success rates would be higher with better skill. Apologies in advance for flooding the thread with a ton of dog photos. First two shots below represent what most of the unusable out of focus shots look like. Next two represent another quarter or so that are usable for social media but are still out of focus (usually behind his face). And the last two represent the maybe 15% that have more usable focus to be able to crop in.
That being said, I usually am at f/4 or higher to try to have more shots in focus and usually have a higher keeper rate than half. I haven't ever shot with the 55 1.8, so I can't personally say how it compares.
photosbyjaron wrote:
It may very well be that I'm not using the ideal settings to keep him in focus. I've been using the following when taking pictures of him: AF-C/Focus Area Wide/Animal Subject and Eye Detect. I have no doubt I'd have far more keepers with an A9/A9II. (Although my RIV does seem to handle larger BIF like double crested cormorants better with the 100-400 than any of my other lenses handle the pup.)
So I just took the pup out to the backyard during lunch and fired off about 100 shots with the RIV and 65i at f/2 with the above settings. At least half are unusable. Zero claim to any kind of good technique tracking a speedy puppy, so I'm sure success rates would be higher with better skill. Apologies in advance for flooding the thread with a ton of dog photos. First two shots below represent what most of the unusable out of focus shots look like. Next two represent another quarter or so that are usable for social media but are still out of focus (usually behind his face). And the last two represent the maybe 15% that have more usable focus to be able to crop in.
That being said, I usually am at f/4 or higher to try to have more shots in focus and usually have a higher keeper rate than half. I haven't ever shot with the 55 1.8, so I can't personally say how it compares. ...Show more →
If you're at f4 you're starving the sensor of light that it needs to get accurate AF. I would try at f2 or 2.8 and see how it does then.
*Edit* just saw that you tried shooting these at f2 and had worse luck. In that case I'm not sure what to do as I don't have an R IV.
photosbyjaron wrote:
It may very well be that I'm not using the ideal settings to keep him in focus. I've been using the following when taking pictures of him: AF-C/Focus Area Wide/Animal Subject and Eye Detect. I have no doubt I'd have far more keepers with an A9/A9II. (Although my RIV does seem to handle larger BIF like double crested cormorants better with the 100-400 than any of my other lenses handle the pup.)
So I just took the pup out to the backyard during lunch and fired off about 100 shots with the RIV and 65i at f/2 with the above settings. At least half are unusable. Zero claim to any kind of good technique tracking a speedy puppy, so I'm sure success rates would be higher with better skill. Apologies in advance for flooding the thread with a ton of dog photos. First two shots below represent what most of the unusable out of focus shots look like. Next two represent another quarter or so that are usable for social media but are still out of focus (usually behind his face). And the last two represent the maybe 15% that have more usable focus to be able to crop in.
That being said, I usually am at f/4 or higher to try to have more shots in focus and usually have a higher keeper rate than half. I haven't ever shot with the 55 1.8, so I can't personally say how it compares. ...Show more →
I quickly played around with the 35i and 65i with my (no longer owned) A7RIV. I had a bad user experience with the sigma contemporary lenses and AF-C performance on the A7RIV. I experienced similar focus issues as you. I no longer have the 35i as I am getting the GM. But I still have the 65i and plan to test it on the a1 and see how it performs.
Some minor tweaks you could try on your RIV:
Tracking sensitivity: 1
AF Area: Tracking Zone or Tracking expand flexible spot.
Drive mode: Continuous shooting: Mid
I ordered the i 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.4 DN Art lens, but after viewing this thread, I cancelled the order for the 85 as I think the 65 f/2 will be a better choice for me to serve double duty as a normal and portrait lens. I have the 105 macro if I need to get closer.
This will give me 20 f/1.8 G, Sigma 35 f/2, 65 f/2 and 105 f/2.8 Macro Art.
Keep the photos coming, folks! I love the look of the 45/2.8 but the 35mm renders beautifully as well, and the flexibility of 35/65 (and both at f/2) is very compelling instead of just 45mm.
I wonder if Sigma are planning another I-series lens around 135/2.8, maybe something for a nice lightweight telephoto to use while hiking. Would be nice to get more compression than the 65mm offers. But for the number of times I actually want to hike with something that long, probably the Tamron 70-300 plastic zoom would be a better tradeoff.
GMPhotography wrote:
I have not seen this thread at all before I bought the 35/65. Glad I did now here I see mojo in these images. Nice work folks
I recall long ago buying a C/Y 35-70/3.4 (which I still have) based on someone's indication of how good it's mojo was as a 35mm, even compared to 35mm primes.
Any chance you have any thoughts on the Sigma 35 in context of the C/Y 35-70/3.4?
trigger08 wrote:
Keep the photos coming, folks! I love the look of the 45/2.8 but the 35mm renders beautifully as well, and the flexibility of 35/65 (and both at f/2) is very compelling instead of just 45mm.
I wonder if Sigma are planning another I-series lens around 135/2.8, maybe something for a nice lightweight telephoto to use while hiking. Would be nice to get more compression than the 65mm offers.
I hope so, but then it'll be the 35-65 guys vs me and the rest of the 24-45 gang, where I'd much rather complete the set with a 90 or ~100
I'm a 24,45,65 guy. Feel I'm missing the 35 but I really think the 45 is the gem and I can't really justify a 35 too. My other thought is Sigma will go with a bit of an odd focal length again if they make more I series. Something like a relatively small 150mm f4 or something.
jrscls wrote:
I ordered the i 35 f/2 and the 85 f/1.4 DN Art lens, but after viewing this thread, I cancelled the order for the 85 as I think the 65 f/2 will be a better choice for me to serve double duty as a normal and portrait lens. I have the 105 macro if I need to get closer.
This will give me 20 f/1.8 G, Sigma 35 f/2, 65 f/2 and 105 f/2.8 Macro Art.
I did the opposite and returned the 65/2 for the 85/1.4, but as much as I love the 85DN and won't part with it, now I'm trying to figure out how to justify to the wife buying the 65 again. Each has its own distinctive look, and while I love the added bokeh of the 85/1.4, the 65/2 is ridiculously sharp. The 65 couldn't keep up with my pup when running towards me, but that isn't the application it was really designed for.
I've also since returned the 35i and am waiting for my delivery of the GM (Amazon says May to June!?!?), but the 35i is also fantastic, and I already miss it.
photosbyjaron wrote:
I did the opposite and returned the 65/2 for the 85/1.4, but as much as I love the 85DN and won't part with it, now I'm trying to figure out how to justify to the wife buying the 65 again. Each has its own distinctive look, and while I love the added bokeh of the 85/1.4, the 65/2 is ridiculously sharp. The 65 couldn't keep up with my pup when running towards me, but that isn't the application it was really designed for.
I've also since returned the 35i and am waiting for my delivery of the GM (Amazon says May to June!?!?), but the 35i is also fantastic, and I already miss it. ...Show more →
Kind of same here. I have the 35 F2 and 65 F2. I also have the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN. I have been out taking photos with the 65mm and 85mm this morning thinking I would probably sell the 65mm but I wanted to make sure. My 85mm DG DN is fantastic. My 85mm is not going anywhere either. What a lens! However I think I will keep the 65mm and 85mm. There is 20mm focal difference and and yes you are right, they each have their own distinctive look. I really like both, some for the same reasons such as sharpness and rendering but also for different reasons as well. In my case justifying both the 65mm and 85mm DG DN is easier now. The 35i is fantastic as well. Was going to buy the GM but the 35i does such a great job I decided to hold off. Also heard that Sigma is releasing a 35mm 1.4 DG DN and want to wait and see what that is all about.
The I series seems to me a direct response to the quietly thriving 'new' manual focus vintage like lens makers like Voightlander etc. The fact that there is fairly decent quick auto focus is a bonus. Good tracking in the small form is just too much to ask, though more a decision than a fault. For me it's perfect, for others though I doubt the nice rendering makes a difference if you can't get a moving subject in focus. If these lenses do well, I think the Art lenses in the future might pick up this great build quality with an eye towards smaller size.
photosbyjaron wrote:
I did the opposite and returned the 65/2 for the 85/1.4, but as much as I love the 85DN and won't part with it, now I'm trying to figure out how to justify to the wife buying the 65 again. Each has its own distinctive look, and while I love the added bokeh of the 85/1.4, the 65/2 is ridiculously sharp. The 65 couldn't keep up with my pup when running towards me, but that isn't the application it was really designed for.
I've also since returned the 35i and am waiting for my delivery of the GM (Amazon says May to June!?!?), but the 35i is also fantastic, and I already miss it. ...Show more →
I am trying to keep a somewhat minimal and lightweight kit, and since portraits are no longer my primary genre and I already have a 105 macro, the 65 seemed to fit better into my lineup to play double duty as a 50 and 85. Who knows, I may eventually add the 85, but I'm going to see if I miss it with the 35/65 combo.
