smpetty wrote:
I wonder if Sigma has improved the AF of their lenses.
In terms of AF, the 65/2 DG DN behaves the best of the DG DN lenses, in my experience, but it's still not as good as Sony lenses.
The Sigma 85 DG DN is a stunning lens, but even my heavy old Sony 85 GM generated more keepers with eye-AF and moving subjects.
Debbie Downer,
Exactly.
I've now been saying this here (with examples) for over a year. It's good to see more people start to agree.
Every single DG DN lens I own and tested behaves that way in AF-C.
I love the build, optical performance and price of the DG DN lenses. But when reliable AF-C is needed I use a Sony lens.
j4nu wrote:
I'd advise you to try it yourself, there are many opinions on this matter ...
I own the 45i and have found the AF tracking to be frustratingly inconsistent. Even in AF-S or with stationary subjects, I still see a lot of slightly back-focused images on my A7rII.
grahamgibson wrote:
I own the 45i and have found the AF tracking to be frustratingly inconsistent. Even in AF-S or with stationary subjects, I still see a lot of slightly back-focused images on my A7rII.
I was referring to:
to try the 35i and this new 90i
45i is generally considered to be the outlier as you probably know, but even in its own thread you can find people saying they are satisfied with its AF-C performance. So even in this case (clearcut to me), there are different opinions .
As for 85DN, I shoot my kids with it and I can't say I see much diffference compared to native "Sonys". Maybe it's the way I shoot, as I don't try to catch them "in flight" (rather wait for the moment they slow down a bit), but small movements, twitching, etc. are no issue for Sigma's AF in my case...
Edit: Anyways, the new Sigma 90mm seems to be improved in AF department:
?t=176
(2:56 - AF test on walking target ).
45i is generally considered to be the outlier as you probably know, but even in its own thread you can find people saying they are satisfied with its AF-C performance. So even in this case (clearcut to me), there are different opinions .
As for 85DN, I shoot my kids with it and I can't say I see much diffference compared to native "Sonys". Maybe it's the way I shoot, as I don't try to catch them "in flight" (rather wait for the moment they slow down a bit), but small movements, twitching, etc. are no issue for Sigma's AF in my case...
Gotcha, yes I have heard mostly good things on this forum about the other DG DN lenses and had considered the 45i the outlier. Interestingly, I don't recall the AF-C for the 45i being called out as an issue in any professional reviews, it was only from reading this forum and Fred's review that the issue was brought to light (a credit to the value of the contributors here!). Reading Fred's comment earlier on the 65i made me question my assumption on the other Sigma lenses. But he compares it to the 85GM, which in Dustin Abbott's 85mm AF comparison test was actually very accurate if only a bit slower to track focus.
You have to find something similar in reviews to what you personally do (or want to do). I watched 4-5 just now, some points from them:
'It is a pity we can not switch the aperture ring to clickless' (Marc Alhadeff)
Corner performance at longer distances gets mixed reviews. Distortion is prominent. Alhadeff reports it's strongest at f5.6 and 'very good at f2.8 but you get a clear boost of sharpness at f4'.
It does not look like a high end character lens which may be a real drawback to some, but it seems ideal as a light 'EDC' lens for general work, a clean crisp city lens. And it will bring more people in at a higher level for the FL. Sigma might find themselves caught between the 'it's too slow' group and those who value the finer things of portrait/landscape crossover lenses.
But it wins the 'small breathing video lens' award hands down which might be a major aim here. And its real trick is the close MFD, where bokeh is very sound. The standard distance portraits for a 90mm may show contrasty backgrounds not so well, and a little 'liney' and neither help 3D in stills.
Colour looks strong in skin tones but who knows what profiles revewers are using? They all seem to amp up colour thereby drowning out the subtleties of tone grading. Virtually no breathing, and it does tick a lot of boxes.
They said they had weather sealing but I think that's still only at the mount right? For me as a street shooter I want to want these, but f/2.8 on the 90 and no proper weather sealing makes them non-starters really.
philip_pj wrote:
You have to find something similar in reviews to what you personally do (or want to do). I watched 4-5 just now, some points from them:
'It is a pity we can not switch the aperture ring to clickless' (Marc Alhadeff)
Corner performance at longer distances gets mixed reviews. Distortion is prominent. Alhadeff reports it's strongest at f5.6 and 'very good at f2.8 but you get a clear boost of sharpness at f4'.
It does not look like a high end character lens which may be a real drawback to some, but it seems ideal as a light 'EDC' lens for general work, a clean crisp city lens. And it will bring more people in at a higher level for the FL. Sigma might find themselves caught between the 'it's too slow' group and those who value the finer things of portrait/landscape crossover lenses.
But it wins the 'small breathing video lens' award hands down which might be a major aim here. And its real trick is the close MFD, where bokeh is very sound. The standard distance portraits for a 90mm may show contrasty backgrounds not so well, and a little 'liney' and neither help 3D in stills.
Colour looks strong in skin tones but who knows what profiles revewers are using? They all seem to amp up colour thereby drowning out the subtleties of tone grading. Virtually no breathing, and it does tick a lot of boxes....Show more →
Great summary, thanks for that!
If I'm honest with myself I have a greater need for a lens to be used for landscapes in the 100-400 range, but this lens is definitely near the top of my list after that. The 'slow' 24-45-90 Sigmas feel like a very nice light kit with some sensible compromises.
j4nu wrote:
Edit: Anyways, the new Sigma 90mm seems to be improved in AF department:
?t=176
(2:56 - AF test on walking target ).
Doesn't look improved to me.
For those easy scenarios (subject just walking towards you while standing still yourself) most of the DG DN lenses do OK.
But as you can see even in such an easy sequence there were still some out of focus results.
If people don't plan to shoot anything faster/more erratic they'll probably be perfectly happy with the Sigmas. So it really depends on the use case.
A lens like the Sony 85/1.8 blows the Sigmas out of the water when it comes to AF-C tracking. The difference on my A9 really is night and day to me. Because of this I regret selling it for the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN. My keeper rate in AF-C went down so bad.
So I'll probably get one back in the future, while keeping the Sigma for slower, more planned things.
zz wrote:
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.
Well, one persons value proposition is the next persons rip off,
But in terms of rough around the edges, my feeling is that is is truly astonishing that they have managed to make such a high IQ 90mm f2.8 so small. As far as I can tell from samples and the MTF it is way better than most classic 90s even extremely expensive ones that still have a good reputation. It seems to be about as good as much larger class leading optics for two thirds of the frame and a little weaker wide open into the corners, but still excellent. The only optical weakness that might occasionally affect portraiture is mechanical vignetting and it’s attendant cats eyes, but that’s inevitable on a compact tele. Sure it has more pincushion distortion than some classic compact short teles. But it resolves so much better than most of them, that after distortion correction it’s still better.
The differentiation is of course the compactness. If you don’t care about compactness you wouldn’t buy this. If slightly compact will do, you are better off with the Batis 85 for a bit of extra speed (or maybe the Sony 85 for a different set of trade offs). If you can tolerate still more weight, the 1.4/85 DGDN is superb. Or for state of the art optics in a small but not light lens there’s the Loxia 85.
So you don’t buy it because it’s a bargain. You buy it, if you do, for the fact that you get remarkable compactness and attractive build with very very little compromise in IQ compared to the very best lenses, and better IQ than most. This might be because you just prefer the experience of shooting with compact lenses - many people do, and maybe get better images because they are using the workflow they like, or it might be that for travel or backpacking purposes the size and weight is of practical importance.
If I get one, it will be as a replacement of my current multi day backpacking tele lens, the ZM 85. The sigma is smaller and lighter than the ZM plus adapter, and focuses closer. Just going by MTF it maybe a touch better over 2/3 of the frame when both are wide open (impressive given the Sigma is a stop faster). The ZM is a touch ahead in the corners at f 4 compared to the Sigma at 2.8. If the Sigma catches up by f5.6 in the corners, I’ll probably switch - especially as there are non hiking situations in which I can imagine throwing the little Sigma in the bag when I would leave behind my larger short teles.
Flavourdynamic wrote:
My impression from DpRTv's review: decently sharp, seem quite well-controlled, decent rendering too from what I saw. Sample galleries
They said they had weather sealing but I think that's still only at the mount right? For me as a street shooter I want to want these, but f/2.8 on the 90 and no proper weather sealing makes them non-starters really.
Non starter? That’s strong. What is your risk tolerance? I have been shooting in all weathers for forty years and almost all my lenses have not had proper sealing. Not one has ever had a weather related problem. In absolutely pouring rain I’ve usually used a plastic bag or something but that’s it.
I’m not of course saying full sealing isn’t desirable. Sure it is. But full sealing doesn’t guarantee weather safety, nor does lack of it mean that you are extremely likely to have weather related issues. It’s just another relatively small risk reward factor to consider.
zz wrote:
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.
it's more of forum enthusiasm than for most folks, I doubt these will be high sellers like the 28-70 f2.8 they made, these are for super enthusiasts. These will probably sell like the compact G lenses, without a whole lot of love. The metal construction is appealing for some.
Flavourdynamic wrote:
My impression from DpRTv's review: decently sharp, seem quite well-controlled, decent rendering too from what I saw. Sample galleries
They said they had weather sealing but I think that's still only at the mount right? For me as a street shooter I want to want these, but f/2.8 on the 90 and no proper weather sealing makes them non-starters really.
sigma has stated that their lenses with mount only seal are good for light rain, and for heavy rain, is anyone still shooting?
I definitely wont be using these for sea scapes, my tamrons have been durable for that sort of thing.
DavidBM wrote:
Non starter? That’s strong. What is your risk tolerance? I have been shooting in all weathers for forty years and almost all my lenses have not had proper sealing. Not one has ever had a weather related problem. In absolutely pouring rain I’ve usually used a plastic bag or something but that’s it.
I’m not of course saying full sealing isn’t desirable. Sure it is. But full sealing doesn’t guarantee weather safety, nor does lack of it mean that you are extremely likely to have weather related issues. It’s just another relatively small risk reward factor to consider.
Absence of sealing doesn't mean lenses can't tolerate any moisture at all, and presence of sealing doesn't mean they will tolerate anything, of course. But we don't have robust tests or ratings, for most equipment, regarding how much weather something will resist. All I have to go by is the manufacturer saying "this is weather sealed" or "this is not". With the amount of options for FE today that are sealed, I would be limiting myself and/or causing myself unnecessary stress choosing a lens without it.
Jochenb wrote:
Doesn't look improved to me.
For those easy scenarios (subject just walking towards you while standing still yourself) most of the DG DN lenses do OK.
But as you can see even in such an easy sequence there were still some out of focus results.
If people don't plan to shoot anything faster/more erratic they'll probably be perfectly happy with the Sigmas. So it really depends on the use case.
A lens like the Sony 85/1.8 blows the Sigmas out of the water when it comes to AF-C tracking. The difference on my A9 really is night and day to me. Because of this I regret selling it for the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN. My keeper rate in AF-C went down so bad.
So I'll probably get one back in the future, while keeping the Sigma for slower, more planned things. ...Show more →
Well, unless someone compares them directly we can't tell for sure.
There are some pointers towards better AF performance:
* 2.8 vs 1.4, so "easier" DoF
* lighter elements to move by the motor (with 85DN it seems to me the stepper motor is not able to move the heavy elements fast enough)
* recent Sigma 150-600 Sports supposedly tracks well (also stepper motors)
I did a similar test with 85DN, albeit indoors and I think at f1.4 and got visibly worse results.
Also, Sony 85 f1.8 is one of the fastest focusing Sony lenses, especially considering its age. Now, when more and more lenses get XD linear motors that might become less true, but it still seems faster than some recent GMs, e.g. 35GM. So it's not surprise to me that it's better than 85DN, what's more interesting is what other member posted here, that even 85GM is faster in both focusing and tracking...
Flavourdynamic wrote:
Absence of sealing doesn't mean lenses can't tolerate any moisture at all, and presence of sealing doesn't mean they will tolerate anything, of course. But we don't have robust tests or ratings, for most equipment, regarding how much weather something will resist. All I have to go by is the manufacturer saying "this is weather sealed" or "this is not". With the amount of options for FE today that are sealed, I would be limiting myself and/or causing myself unnecessary stress choosing a lens without it.
here's talk about the sigma sealing:
j4nu wrote:
Well, unless someone compares them directly we can't tell for sure.
There are some pointers towards better AF performance:
* 2.8 vs 1.4, so "easier" DoF
* lighter elements to move by the motor (with 85DN it seems to me the stepper motor is not able to move the heavy elements fast enough)
* recent Sigma 150-600 Sports supposedly tracks well (also stepper motors)
I did a similar test with 85DN, albeit indoors and I think at f1.4 and got visibly worse results.
Also, Sony 85 f1.8 is one of the fastest focusing Sony lenses, especially considering its age. Now, when more and more lenses get XD linear motors that might become less true, but it still seems faster than some recent GMs, e.g. 35GM. So it's not surprise to me that it's better than 85DN, what's more interesting is what other member posted here, that even 85GM is faster in both focusing and tracking......Show more →
The Sony 85/1.8 has got double linear motors.
Regarding age, lenses may well stay in production for a decade or two.
DavidBM wrote:
Well, one persons value proposition is the next persons rip off,
But in terms of rough around the edges, my feeling is that is is truly astonishing that they have managed to make such a high IQ 90mm f2.8 so small. As far as I can tell from samples and the MTF it is way better than most classic 90s even extremely expensive ones that still have a good reputation. It seems to be about as good as much larger class leading optics for two thirds of the frame and a little weaker wide open into the corners, but still excellent. The only optical weakness that might occasionally affect portraiture is mechanical vignetting and it’s attendant cats eyes, but that’s inevitable on a compact tele. Sure it has more pincushion distortion than some classic compact short teles. But it resolves so much better than most of them, that after distortion it’s still better.
The differentiation is of course the compactness. If you don’t care about compactness you wouldn’t buy this. If slightly compact will do, you are better off with the Batis 85 for a bit of extra speed (or maybe the Sony 85 for a different set of trade offs). If you can tolerate still more weight, the 1.4/85 DGDN is superb. Or for state of the art optics in a small but not light lens there’s the Loxia 85.
So you don’t buy it because it’s a bargain. You buy it, if you do, for the fact that you get remarkable compactness and attractive build with very very little compromise in IQ compared to the very best lenses, and better IQ than most. This might be because you just prefer the experience of shooting with compact lenses - many people do, and maybe get better images because they are using the workflow they like, or it might be that for travel or backpacking purposes the size and weight is of practical importance.
If I get one, it will be as a replacement of my current multi day backpacking tele lens, the ZM 85. The sigma is smaller and lighter than the ZM plus adapter, and focuses closer. Just going by MTF it maybe a touch better over 2/3 of the frame when both are wide open (impressive given the Sigma is a stop faster). The ZM is a touch ahead at f 4 compared to the Sigma at 2.8. If the Sigma catches up by f5.6 in the corners, I’ll probably switch - especially as there are non hiking situations in which I can imagine throwing the little Sigma in the bag when I would leave behind my larger short teles.
...
zz wrote: