philip_pj wrote:
Looks functional but the Japanese aesthetic of deep shadows, sun streams, angled messy compositions and soft colours give it a narrow range on which to make any real assessment. It's often this way in pre-release days.
'..focus ring isn’t linear. Exploiting the non-linear speed gain requires some effort to do.'
Oh. MF users often like to concentrate on getting the job done without these onerous 'cognitive overheads', the hidden master forcing you to do it his way. It might have to be an AF lens.
What I’m saying is that the focus ring is well enough dampened that it will work as a linear focus ring with a long focus throw. It requires a real effort to get a short throw. The non-linearity is more difficult to access than on e.g. early Sony FE lenses, so it’s tuned differently. There’s no cognitive overhead for regular use. Indeed it’s better than any DSLR type AF lenses with their wretched clutch mechanism and slopoy focus feel and better than quite a few MF lenses, like Nikon Ai-S even those with relatively short focus throws compared to the older Nikon Ai generation.
I like focus rings with a long focus throw, anything else is a cognitive overload and annoyance.
Best to stay away from the CV lenses, then. Man, they move fast, the 75/1.5 is 100 degrees.
I've used a lot of both and yes, you do get used to them. Interesting that there is a broad difference of philosophies in this regard - CZ like the long slow turns and CV the opposite. Another reason to get the ring position in the approx right zone as the longer turn can cost that extra second in which the stranger loses interest in being photographed.
But I don't think the Loxia 85 (as but one of many examples) was conceived as a portrait lens, with its 220 degree turn, much the same as the CY 100/3.5. Both make great portrait lenses.
For portraits I would use eye-AF all the way. Manual focus has to be accurate, if I’m to have any interest. A short focus throw lens isn’t accurate in my hands. If things have to go fast, I need AF. And I like the focus magnifier in mirrorless cameras. I find DSLRs paired with MF lenses with a short focus throw to be a ghastly experience, not mention DSLR AF lenses, all of them with mechanically sloppy, non-enjoyable focus rings and short focus throws and poor OVFs. Rangefinders with tabbed lenses on the other hand actually work well, even with tabbed lenses with a comparably short focus throw, which is probably due to rangefinders (Leica) having a viewfinder type actually designed for manual focus.
Well, my lens seems to be badly decentered along the vertical axis. This is really annoying, and here I thought Sigma has improved QC over the years
I took two photos at F2.8, one of them with the camera flipped upside-down (no focus change in-between, OSS disabled). I did repeat the test a few times.
I think rendering and LoCA performance of the 90i is very similar to the Sony 85/1.8 @f2.8 (which I consider a good thing given the difference in size).
Here are some sample photos of the 90i (most at F2.8):
keepcoding wrote:
I think rendering and LoCA performance of the 90i is very similar to the Sony 85/1.8 @f2.8@ (which I consider a good thing given the difference in size).
Here are some sample photos of the 90i (most at F2.8):
But I think I find the Sony 85/1.8 more hard-edged in a documentary style than are these images from the 90/2.8. There is a roundedness and smoothness to these 90/2.8 images that makes me tempted to say that they are Loxia-like in rendering--though that may be wishful thinking on my part, and I will need to spend some time comparing the two before I would actually assert that.
I was excited for this lens but it seems the consensus is that it needs to be stopped down to f/4 before it gets good? Not sure Im in at that price for a prime at that aperture. The main advantage of primes is their faster apertures. I have zooms that are really good at f/4
Dexter75 wrote:
I was excited for this lens but it seems the consensus is that it needs to be stopped down to f/4 before it gets good? Not sure Im in at that price for a prime at that aperture. The main advantage of primes is their faster apertures. I have zooms that are really good at f/4
If it's like the 45/2.8, it may be dependent on distance to subject. Under 1.5m or so, the 45 is more 'gentle' in its rendering, getting quite glowy as one approaches MFD. Beyond 1.5-3m, the 45 is very, very sharp, edge to edge and corner to corner. I think we need someone like Fred to give the 90 a real once over to see if it follows the same design philosophy.
Dave Sanders wrote:
If it's like the 45/2.8, it may be dependent on distance to subject. Under 1.5m or so, the 45 is more 'gentle' in its rendering, getting quite glowy as one approaches MFD. Beyond 1.5-3m, the 45 is very, very sharp, edge to edge and corner to corner. I think we need someone like Fred to give the 90 a real once over to see if it follows the same design philosophy.
Yes, at close distance, there is spherical aberration to take in consideration since these lenses are not equipped with floating element(s). Sigma is going for compactness and I do not mind these type of compromise in exchange for smoother rendering at transition zone.
According to Sigma's own MTF, the 90/2.8i is sharper than the 65/2i at center and we know the latter is very sharp lens. The 90/2.8i is not as good off-axis though. Perhaps stopped down to f/4 it will improve greatly, not sure.
All in all, it seems to be a very competent lens wide open. Let's also keep in mind it focuses very close and it's capable of 1:5 magnification. It's a great feature compared to other telephoto lenses but we can't except high resolution wide open at MFD.
I will know more than I get my copy...
Ordered the 90 and 24/2.5 today. both in stock at adorama. love the IQ and background rendering of my 35, 45 & 65 as well as feel and ergonomics and it seems like the 90 and 24 will be similar in all regards.
i90 on the way. 35 and 65 in the bag. Can’t decide on which 24. Leaning towards the 3.5.
All I need down the road is a small i135mm 2.8.
Love these lenses.
Just got back from taking some quick hand held comparison shots between the 90/2.8Sig and:
- 85/4ZM
- 90/3.5 CV
- 85/1.8G
I can say that the manual focus experience is mediocre. Build quality is great, but you turn the focus ring forever and very little happens. I suppose that might be good as once you get the focus, minor bumps to the focus ring won't change anything. The focus distance scale in the viewfinder with this lens, as with many lenses, is useless.
Quick full image/center/right/left wide open manually focused.
First glance they are not bad. Haven't checked the corners. Time for dinner.
Going to run out and take some night pics to see what the coma looks like then process the rest of the images and post.
Unless it's decentered or the corners completely fall apart, this meets my light weight compact backpacking requirements for IQ. I'm sure it will have issues when I point it into the sun.
