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 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.
Seems to be a great AF alternative to the fabulous 85/4 ZM but we still don't know for sure how well the Sigma performs against the light and how it renders sunstars. If you like defined sunstars, DG DN lenses with 9 aperture blades do well at f/16 and smaller. The ZM will give you great stars after f/5.6.
I have to admit I was/am interested in the 90mm (really is impressively small) and I do like the look and build of the Sigma lenses. Problem is I'm learning to control my impulses a little better with age. But it's hard because things are not as exciting (with each release) now a days that we have so many options. Sometimes you want to buy something just because it's new even though your happy with your kit. But when I look at my current 3 lens kit the simple fact is there would not be a big enough difference that 90 would make from 75mm. I'd kinda be trading speed for better minimum focus it seems. There, I think I talked myself out of it. For now
I like the new 90i, but not sure if really offer much more optically or rendering-wise over the Contax G 90, especially for my purposes as MF landscape and nature lens. The 90i will be much more pleasant to use with ergo, sealing and AF and in lens coupled MF (no small deal), but it's also much much expensive (also no small deal) at the same FL, aperture and size. I think the cat's eye is not at all attractive, though the distortion does not bother me. The sharpness seems superb but both are sharp enough for me at 42mp WO across nearly the entire frame, and while the G90 has quite good flare resistance with only some veiling if pushed in my experience, I suspect the 90i will be better yet (though the 35i is pedestrian for flare performance). I think the bokeh looks nicer on the G90, while I think the transitions will be smoother on the 90i. I will definitely prefer the colors and contrast of the Contax G. The CA correction on the 90i will trump the G90 though, though that's never really been an actual issue for me on the G90 in years of shooting it.
Both compelling options, both offering something a little different. I could be happy with either, but I'll stick with my G90 until I can manage to find the 90i a couple hundred off just cause I am curious. I would have preferred less correction and more rendering for the 90i, but I am probably in a small minority there.
That 90mm looks good but I’m really digging portraits with the 50GM in crop mode. I haven’t used the marvelous 85/1.8 since the GM arrived months ago, and I’m afraid this 90 would also be neglected.
639.00 for the 24mm f2 and 549.00 for the 24mm Makes the 3.5 look over priced. I get it's smaller, but 1.5 stops slower for only 100 less. Should be priced around 450 now IMO.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Seems to be a great AF alternative to the fabulous 85/4 ZM but we still don't know for sure how well the Sigma performs against the light and how it renders sunstars. If you like defined sunstars, DG DN lenses with 9 aperture blades do well at f/16 and smaller. The ZM will give you great stars after f/5.6.
The ZM is just OK pointed into the sun - it makes decent sun stars, but flare is problemmatic - see pics below.
DPR has a couple of shots inducing flare, etc. and the 90/2.8 is not great.
For me it's a potential replacement for the ZM as it's lighter (my ZM with Leitax FE mount adapter and no caps is 382gm - fully 100 grams heavier), shorter, through a bit larger in diameter.
The key will be how sharp into the borders and corners it is a f/2.8 and f/4. The ZM is very sharp across the frame at f/4, but superb at f/5.6. So if the Sigma is as sharp at f/4 as the ZM is at f/5.6 I'll likely grab one.
Anyone know if the lens hood reverse mounts for storage?
ReleaseDrive wrote:
639.00 for the 24mm f2 and 549.00 for the 24mm Makes the 3.5 look over priced. I get it's smaller, but 1.5 stops slower for only 100 less. Should be priced around 450 now IMO.
It's not just smaller, it can also focus much closer (1:2 macro) which means it can capture images the bigger f/2 sister can't.
I do think the Sigma 24/2 DG DN's price is very competitive though.
jhinkey wrote:
The ZM is just OK pointed into the sun - it makes decent sun stars, but flare is problemmatic - see pics below.
DPR has a couple of shots inducing flare, etc. and the 90/2.8 is not great.
For me it's a potential replacement for the ZM as it's lighter (my ZM with Leitax FE mount adapter and no caps is 382gm - fully 100 grams heavier), shorter, through a bit larger in diameter.
The key will be how sharp into the borders and corners it is a f/2.8 and f/4. The ZM is very sharp across the frame at f/4, but superb at f/5.6. So if the Sigma is as sharp at f/4 as the ZM is at f/5.6 I'll likely grab one.
Anyone know if the lens hood reverse mounts for storage?...Show more →
Yes, the ZM is also prone to flare but I am willing to bet it will provide shaper corners at f/5.6 since its performance is not far behind the Loxia 85, which consider a reference lens.
The Sigma 65/2 DG DN lenses is capable of great resolution across the field but still have some astigmatism robbing fine detail off-axis. From the samples I've seen, this seems to be case with the new 90/2.8i as well.
Despite my issues with the Loxia 85 tendency to blue/purple up in shadows, there is no doubting its great field flatness and corner to corner performance, low distortion and CA suppression, and sheer acutance and lovely bokeh. At this early stage, I feel this Sigma is primarily a 'close quarters' lens that will excel at the burgeoning video market via low cost and weight, minimal breathing - great for an a7C. (the hood reverses too, but no aperture click stop disengage).
'..especially for filmmakers who use filters more regularly. With a combined weight of only 735grams / 25.9oz.*, these three lenses (wide-angle, standard, mid-telephoto) can be used in tandem as part of a high-spec and compact camera system that covers a wide range of shooting situations.'
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's not just smaller, it can also focus much closer (1:2 macro) which means it can capture images the bigger f/2 sister can't.
I do think the Sigma 24/2 DG DN's price is very competitive though.
Yup. This is why I think I'm going to keep my current 24mm f/3.5. The close focusing is just such a nice feature and such a wide angle ain't my "environmental portraiture" option either as I prefer either 35 or 40mm option for that. Sure, I was tempted to switch (no need for both) when I heard of the 24/2, but I decided against it after watching again some of my own pictures with my current 24mm. To my eyes, all of these lenses are decently priced, considering their incredible build quality, controls and overall high IQ. I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use.
The new 90mm so far looks just as good as I hoped for. I really like the overall look of the sample images. Rendering and colours looks very similar to my Sigma 65mm & 105mm lenses. Considering the miniscule size, the cat-eye bokeh (which I don't mind) is a fair trade-off. I think I am going to build my af-kit with the 24/3.5, 35/2, 65/2 and 90/2.8. Still missing the 35 & 90. The mid-range is where I need the light-gathering abilities.
Tonzah78 wrote:
Yup. This is why I think I'm going to keep my current 24mm f/3.5. The close focusing is just such a nice feature and such a wide angle ain't my "environmental portraiture" option either as I prefer either 35 or 40mm option for that. Sure, I was tempted to switch (no need for both) when I heard of the 24/2, but I decided against it after watching again some of my own pictures with my current 24mm. To my eyes, all of these lenses are decently priced, considering their incredible build quality, controls and overall high IQ. I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use.
The new 90mm so far looks just as good as I hoped for. I really like the overall look of the sample images. Rendering and colours looks very similar to my Sigma 65mm & 105mm lenses. Considering the miniscule size, the cat-eye bokeh (which I don't mind) is a fair trade-off. I think I am going to build my af-kit with the 24/3.5, 35/2, 65/2 and 90/2.8. Still missing the 35 & 90. The mid-range is where I need the light-gathering abilities....Show more →
I will have a similar compact AF kit: 24/3.5i, 45/2.8i and 90/2.8i. They are more or less similar in size and weight but not low light lenses.
From the looks of Frost's tests on FF and APSC, the 24 may have a mid-zone dip (wavy FC at the chart distance, maybe?). If so, that's what used to drive me nuts about the Sony a-mount 24/2 for environmental portraits. Right in the place where some portion of your subject is framed, the lens gets a little gutless. It's still on my rental list, so I guess I'm cautiously optimistic it's focus-distance specific.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Seems to be a great AF alternative to the fabulous 85/4 ZM but we still don't know for sure how well the Sigma performs against the light and how it renders sunstars. If you like defined sunstars, DG DN lenses with 9 aperture blades do well at f/16 and smaller. The ZM will give you great stars after f/5.6.
Agreed. Flare remains to be seen, corners at f5.6 remaim to be seen (though Gordon Laing’s tests are encouraging). My ZM will certainly give me the kind of sunstars I like, but that matters a bit less at 85mm. And, to be honest, the hassle of buying and selling combined with sentimental attachment to my ZM that has been on so many great trips with me, might keep me from switching.
freaklikeme wrote:
From the looks of Frost's tests on FF and APSC, the 24 may have a mid-zone dip (wavy FC at the chart distance, maybe?). If so, that's what used to drive me nuts about the Sony a-mount 24/2 for environmental portraits. Right in the place where some portion of your subject is framed, the lens gets a little gutless. It's still on my rental list, so I guess I'm cautiously optimistic it's focus-distance specific.
If it’s wavy FC it’s fine for environmental portraits, so long as you focus directly on your subject and don’t focus and recompose.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I will have a similar compact AF kit: 24/3.5i, 45/2.8i and 90/2.8i. They are more or less similar in size and weight but not low light lenses.
That is going to be my kit as well, and I'll sometimes add the 50/1.2 GM or maybe the 55/1.8 for the low light capability. I do want to see the look of the 90/2.8 on my own photographs. I am hoping that I will like its look as much as I do the rendering of the 24/3.5. The 24/3.5 never got a huge amount of praise, but it has been a very satisfying lens for me in terms of how it makes images look and for other qualities as well. I am hoping the 90/2.8 will have similar image qualities when I actually see the pictures.
DavidBM wrote:
If it’s wavy FC it’s fine for environmental portraits, so long as you focus directly on your subject and don’t focus and recompose.
Assuming the DoF will cover your entire subject. With the Sony, you could have people standing next to each other and the see the change in focal plane between them. It was annoying.
freaklikeme wrote:
Assuming the DoF will cover your entire subject. With the Sony, you could have people standing next to each other and the see the change in focal plane between them. It was annoying.
Fair enough! I’ve sometimes grouped people to follow the focus surface when there’s FC, but it’s a pain. I was previously of course considering the single subject environmental portrait.
I have the two sharpest landscape lenses at this tele focal length, the Canon TSE 90 II and the VC APO 110. I see the Sigma 90i as a great addition for when I want something lighter.
AF is more interesting to me than sunstars at 90mm. I’ve only shot my 110 a handful of times with sunstars.
philip_pj wrote:
Despite my issues with the Loxia 85 tendency to blue/purple up in shadows, there is no doubting its great field flatness and corner to corner performance, low distortion and CA suppression, and sheer acutance and lovely bokeh. At this early stage, I feel this Sigma is primarily a 'close quarters' lens that will excel at the burgeoning video market via low cost and weight, minimal breathing - great for an a7C. (the hood reverses too, but no aperture click stop disengage).
'..especially for filmmakers who use filters more regularly. With a combined weight of only 735grams / 25.9oz.*, these three lenses (wide-angle, standard, mid-telephoto) can be used in tandem as part of a high-spec and compact camera system that covers a wide range of shooting situations.'...Show more →
The Loxia 85's tendency to 'blue up' in the shadows is not a failure of the lens, but rather an expected side effect of using a lens that excels in resolving the higher frequency blue spectrum, at altitude, in a rarefied atmosphere. Lesser lenses, or ones with a naturally warmer spectral distribution, will mask the affect.
To my eyes, all of these lenses are decently priced, considering their incredible build quality, controls and overall high IQ. I've had enough of Samyangs with their plastic build, horrible flaring, sample variation etc. These Sigmas are just a pure joy to use.