chiron wrote:
I do like the colors in these and what I can see of the rendering!
Thank you!
The lens is not that big and not that heavy, but I got used to the 24mm F3.5. I think I miss that lens. Not sure if I should exchange this F2 lens for the F3.5. haha. This lens does seem to be good wide open though.
memzinla wrote:
Thank you!
The lens is not that big and not that heavy, but I got used to the 24mm F3.5. I think I miss that lens. Not sure if I should exchange this F2 lens for the F3.5. haha. This lens does seem to be good wide open though.
Yes, if size and weight is a main consideration, it's a tough decision because the Sigma 24/2 DG DN is bigger and heavier than the 35/2 DG DN and almost as big/heavy as the 65/2i. On the other hand, the 24/3.5 is pretty much the same size/weight as the 45/2.8i. For low light shooting, I would take the f/2 version though.
The wide-open resolution's stunning on the 90 from what I've seen here and on test sites, but I'd like to see it head-to-head with an Elmarit-M 90. I've no doubt absolute resolution would go to the Sigma, but I think the four-element wonder might put up a decent fight otherwise. Its less than 1% pin would certainly dominate, and I think it might be a little bit better backlit. Vignetting and CA look like a wash. Coma is probably better corrected wide open on the Sigma, but the Elmarit gets good stopped down a bit. I think the Elmarit will win on bokeh. The Elmarit doesn't focus as close, but a helicoid adapter will almost catch it up.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yes, if size and weight is a main consideration, it's a tough decision because the Sigma 24/2 DG DN is bigger and heavier than the 35/2 DG DN and almost as big/heavy as the 65/2i. On the other hand, the 24/3.5 is pretty much the same size/weight as the 45/2.8i. For low light shooting, I would take the f/2 version though.
It is a tough decision. I love wide lenses and I wish the F3.5 was at least F2.8. I'm coming from m43, and I love the quality on the S5. I felt like the S5 + 24mm F3.5 is a good light combo. The 24mm F2 though seems really good, and I love taking lights where there's not a lot of light. Taken with the F3.5 version:
philip_pj wrote:
Dustin Abbott reports a 'minus 11' is needed to correct the pincushion in the 90/2.8, no idea what software was used. But each can decide on this - if turned off in camera, does it show in the EVF for roof lines, wall edges etc?
Here is the image of the basin-like but linear distortion, at 18.09, YT video title:
Sigma 90mm F2.8 DG DN Definitive Review | DA
The video shows distortion to be very pronounced pincushion. Definitely noticeable. I'll wait for some more tests to see how much that matters to me but the 90 would appear to follow in the footsteps of the 85 Art as far as distortion is concerned.
OK, went out and took some better shots with the 90/2.8 Sigma.
Much better results this time.
The upshot is that if properly focused it's very very good across the frame at 42MP of the A7RIII right from wide open.
Stop it down and the far edges and corners become excellent at f/4 to f/5.6.
Some test images of downtown Seattle from across Elliot Bay
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps Cameralabs misspoke because it's not likely a telephoto lens would have barrel distortion. Still we don't know for sure the severity of the pincushion distortion. Worse or better than the 85/1.4 DG DN?
I watched a few different videos trying to get a feel for it, and it looks like it's going to be close. The 90 might be a little worse, but it looks very close.
freaklikeme wrote:
The wide-open resolution's stunning on the 90 from what I've seen here and on test sites, but I'd like to see it head-to-head with an Elmarit-M 90. I've no doubt absolute resolution would go to the Sigma, but I think the four-element wonder might put up a decent fight otherwise. Its less than 1% barrel would certainly dominate, and I think it might be a little bit better backlit. Vignetting and CA look like a wash. Coma is probably better corrected wide open on the Sigma, but the Elmarit gets good stopped down a bit. I think the Elmarit will win on bokeh. The Elmarit doesn't focus as close, but a helicoid adapter will almost catch it up....Show more →
I've tested a few Elmarit 90/2.8 lenses on the Leica M10-R and Sony A7R IV. It has great performance from wide open but there is a slight mid-field dip. Not sure how it would compare to the new Sigma 90/2.8. I no longer own the Elmarit but could compare the Sigma to the Summicron M 90/2 and SL 90/2 APO lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tested a few Elmarit 90/2.8 lenses on the Leica M10-R and Sony A7R IV. It has great performance from wide open but there is a slight mid-field dip. Not sure how it would compare to the new Sigma 90/2.8. I no longer own the Elmarit but could compare the Sigma to the Summicron M 90/2 and SL 90/2 APO lenses.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I've tested a few Elmarit 90/2.8 lenses on the Leica M10-R and Sony A7R IV. It has great performance from wide open but there is a slight mid-field dip. Not sure how it would compare to the new Sigma 90/2.8. I no longer own the Elmarit but could compare the Sigma to the Summicron M 90/2 and SL 90/2 APO lenses.
I would very much like to see that comparison.
The Elmarit does have a dip, but it only impacts the higher frequencies. It's still great with the big structural details, so the dip acts as a magic eraser for some skin flaws. It's mostly gone at f/5.6 and completely gone at 8, so it still has landscape uses.
As you can kind of see, the right side is slightly weaker than the left, but perfectly cleans up at f/5.6.
I doubt I'd be able to see any left-center-right difference on my A7C at 24MP plus LPF.
I also noticed some slight green CA on the Sigma images, but it's very slight.
My 85/4 ZM is terrific right from wide open and is maybe, just maybe a hair better at f/4 than the Sigma 90/2.8 @ f/4.
Same goes for the 90/3.5 CV wide open - it's excellent except for some slight green CA that's easily corrected.
I looked at the extreme far corners of the 90/2.8Sig and they are a step behind the rest of the frame and improve a bit upon stopping down, but don't get to perfect/excellent.
I only focused on the center of the image, so there could be some field curvature at play or the built-in corrections could be affecting things (though I would think the corners would not get affected much by correcting the pin cushion distortion).
I have lots more test images, but that's it for now. Weather is crap for the next few days, so any more test images will have to wait.
So it seems we have a highly capable right from f/2.8 90mm light, compact short AF telephoto lens that's very well built.
I'm diggin' the reverse mountable hood, though it does tent to want to rotate off when twisting the lens to remove it from the camera body.
jhinkey wrote:
As you can kind of see, the right side is slightly weaker than the left, but perfectly cleans up at f/5.6.
I doubt I'd be able to see any left-center-right difference on my A7C at 24MP plus LPF.
I also noticed some slight green CA on the Sigma images, but it's very slight.
My 85/4 ZM is terrific right from wide open and is maybe, just maybe a hair better at f/4 than the Sigma 90/2.8 @ f/4.
Same goes for the 90/3.5 CV wide open - it's excellent except for some slight green CA that's easily corrected.
I looked at the extreme far corners of the 90/2.8Sig and they are a step behind the rest of the frame and improve a bit upon stopping down, but don't get to perfect/excellent.
I only focused on the center of the image, so there could be some field curvature at play or the built-in corrections could be affecting things (though I would think the corners would not get affected much by correcting the pin cushion distortion).
I have lots more test images, but that's it for now. Weather is crap for the next few days, so any more test images will have to wait.
So it seems we have a highly capable right from f/2.8 90mm light, compact short AF telephoto lens that's very well built.
I'm diggin' the reverse mountable hood, though it does tent to want to rotate off when twisting the lens to remove it from the camera body.
Thanks for posting your thoughts and all those test shots. I'll have to think a bit about this one, but it's still somewhat compelling. I already own the Loxia 85 for landscape uses, so this lens would fall fully in the 'small and light travel lens' category.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Perhaps Cameralabs misspoke because it's not likely a telephoto lens would have barrel distortion. Still we don't know for sure the severity of the pincushion distortion. Worse or better than the 85/1.4 DG DN?
If the distortion requires -11 correction in LR, then it's pretty much the same as 85 DN (rather massive), which requires the same value according to Dustin.
I took some 85DN test shots last month with in-cam distortion off/on and I can't say I see much of an impact on sharpness (resolution/contrast) at 100%. So, I prefer the size savings made this way .
memzinla wrote:
Thank you!
The lens is not that big and not that heavy, but I got used to the 24mm F3.5. I think I miss that lens. Not sure if I should exchange this F2 lens for the F3.5. haha. This lens does seem to be good wide open though.
Yes, I understand the dilemma you have. I have the 24/3.5 and I like it a lot along with the 45/2.8 which rarely leaves my camera these days. If the 90/2.8's rendering is at least the equal of the 24/3.5 (the rendering of the 45/2.8 is too much to ask for), I will be a very happy owner of all three.
I have come to be pretty content lately to sacrifice maximum aperture for size, weight, and especially rendering. But the 24/2.0 does look very pleasing in your photos. I am not getting rid of my GM glass, but I find the Sigma i series very satisfying to shoot with, and especially the 2.8 and 3.5 lenses so far.
j4nu wrote:
If the distortion requires -11 correction in LR, then it's pretty much the same as 85 DN (rather massive), which requires the same value according to Dustin.
I took some 85DN test shots last month with in-cam distortion off/on and I can't say I see much of an impact on sharpness (resolution/contrast) at 100%. So, I prefer the size savings made this way .
I didn't even get the lens and this news is already disappointing to me. However, that's not a deal breaker depending on other qualities. It seems the trend with modern lenses today is to under-correct distortion and optical vignetting. Two characteristics I care about.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I didn't even get the lens and this news is already disappointing to me. However, that's not a deal breaker depending on other qualities. It seems the trend with modern lenses today is to under-correct distortion and optical vignetting. Two characteristics I care about.
I guess in the end there is no free lunch .
I don't know how credible the author is but I've found this one article regarding pincushion distortion in teles: https://ayrn.io/sigmas-85mm-dn-art-distortion/
.