Charlie N wrote:
I like the combo, I was on a trip with the 24/85 f1.4's and it worked out very well, love the contrasting style. The only thing was the size and weight, double of what a samyang 24mm f1.8 and sigma 90mm f2.8 would weigh, my current configuration since I've preordered
along with the 28-60, I think I can end my search for a travel kit. Since I had the m43's 85 equivalent, I've always wanted a closer focusing 85, 1:5 may not mean much for most folks, but for me, that's great, considerably better than the sony 85. I'm typically too shy to bring around a longer lens because they are a bit too bulky for my liking, and this will be the change I need....Show more →
I also have the 28-60 as a staple in my travel kit. Issue is that if I want to keep things small, currently 60mm is about as long as I can go. The 90 gives me reach plus f/2.8 if needed.
j4nu wrote:
Hmm#2, lenstip reports 24mm barrel distortion to be similar to that of Tamron, so pretty big...
I guess these are not lenses for optical purists .
Most likely not. If your not a fan of distortion which I’m not than maybe a tough call.
The Sigma bests the Sony 1.8 in most ways. Maybe oof rendering a bit nicer for the Sony, but I think it’s horses for courses when you get to mfd with the slower Sigma.
Mostly he’s focused on portrait applications, but the corner sharpness suggests what many of us will want to use this lens for: landscape.
I’m resisting hitting buy on this right now. But struggling.
Fred Miranda wrote:
At first I thought the 65/2 DG DN was accurate but in reality it misses focus very often in AF-C, especially when using Eye-AF.
Do you mean eyeAF of someone running towards you or more portrait-like usage?
I just can't get my heard around this, there seem to be so many reports of AF on DN series being on the poor side, but the only case where I really see my 85DN AF fall apart are action shots (like somebody running towards me, etc.).
Here is what I learned from this Sigma 90/2.8i review:
(cameralabs' tests and samples)
Strengths:
1) Super compact and well built 90mm AF lens
2) Low color aberration (Axial and Lateral)
3) Short focusing distance at 0.5m. (great for close-ups, flower shots, etc.)
4) Slight SA at close distance. Some may not like this but I do. :-)
5) Very low focus breathing. Great for video and focus stacking.
6) High resolution from center to corner at f/2.8. Noticeably beats the Sony 85/1.8 off-axis at any aperture.
Cons:
1) cats-eye bokeh at f/2.8, especially at mid-distance
2) rendering not as pleasant as the 45/2.8i
j4nu wrote:
Do you mean eyeAF of someone running towards you or more portrait-like usage?
I just can't get my heard around this, there seem to be so many reports of AF on DN series being on the poor side, but the only case where I really see my 85DN AF fall apart are action shots (like somebody running towards me, etc.).
Both. After many months of usage, I don't find AF-C very reliable, especially when depth of field is narrow and small miss-focus is noticeable. I get better accuracy with my 85/1.4 GM which has slower focus.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Both. After many months of usage, I don't find AF-C very reliable, especially when depth of field is narrow and small miss-focus is noticeable. I get better accuracy with my 85/1.4 GM which has slower focus.
Thanks, I guess this is one of those mysteries that will never be solved ...
Fred Miranda wrote:
Both. After many months of usage, I don't find AF-C very reliable, especially when depth of field is narrow and small miss-focus is noticeable. I get better accuracy with my 85/1.4 GM which has slower focus.
So I've been under the impression that Sigma lenses other than the 45i tracked well in AF-C, but is that not the case? I'm curious to try the 35i and this new 90i is also on my list of considerations, but having reasonably good eye-AF in AF-C is important to me. Otherwise I'll use my manual lenses.
The 45i is definitely the least accurate in PDAF due to higher SA. (It’s fine on the Leica SL and SL2 since these bodies only uses CDAF) but the 65/2 and 85/1.4 miss focus more than most Sony lenses, especially the latest GMs. Hopefully the 90/2.8 will have greater accuracy.
Perhaps this is due to focus architecture or algorithm used, not sure. If it’s the later there is a chance it may be improved by firmware.
grahamgibson wrote:
So I've been under the impression that Sigma lenses other than the 45i tracked well in AF-C, but is that not the case? I'm curious to try the 35i and this new 90i is also on my list of considerations, but having reasonably good eye-AF in AF-C is important to me. Otherwise I'll use my manual lenses.
I'm mostly seeing somewhat good to great reviews on these new additions to the lineup. Not really the glowing reviews I was expecting; especially on the 90/2.8 but even on the 24/2. The pincushion distorting on the latter is just too strong and the portrait option comes quite close to its rivals for a similar price. Makes it quite a bit harder to see the value proposition and where these lenses differentiate from the pack.
It gives off the impression that it's just a little too rough around the edges and not quite on point for a $600-700 prime.
grahamgibson wrote:
So I've been under the impression that Sigma lenses other than the 45i tracked well in AF-C, but is that not the case? I'm curious to try the 35i and this new 90i is also on my list of considerations, but having reasonably good eye-AF in AF-C is important to me. Otherwise I'll use my manual lenses.
I'd advise you to try it yourself, there are many opinions on this matter ...
I just can't decide if I should first continue building out my Voigtlander set or Sigma i series set. I don't have a voig. over 50 and the 75mm 1.5: it keeps calling my name.
This Sigma 90mm is much more pratical though l and obviously a longer focal length. Maybe I should buy both and let them fight it out amongst themselves.
or more portrait-like usage?