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.
Fred, I agree with you. These two are pretty much my "only" concerns about this 90mm. 45mm has good corner rendering with big coverage. Having pincushion distortion usually beatify people actually
For 90mm f2.8, I don't expect see ugly bokeh. So I wouldn't say bokeh is a plus point for this sigma.
I actually seldom saw ugly bokeh from mid tele lens, there are definitely bokeh difference between lenses but small mostly at f2.8. I'd say most well behaved 90mm at f2.8 will look similar So, corner with less mechanical vignette is the differentiator for rendering that this one didnt score high.
If I pick this one, it is for small aperture shooting (landscape, cityscape) and close distance portrait. (to avoid corner issue and having shallow DOF and smooth bokeh). Compare to other small 90, this one has AF. Compare to other AF lens, this one has the build. A good balance it is, Sigma know what photographer need.
zhangyue wrote:
Fred, I agree with you. These two are pretty much my "only" concerns about this 90mm. 45mm has good corner rendering with big coverage. Having pincushion distortion usually beatify people actually
For 90mm f2.8, I don't expect see ugly bokeh. So I wouldn't say bokeh is a plus point for this sigma.
I actually seldom saw ugly bokeh from mid tele lens, there are definitely bokeh difference between lenses but small mostly at f2.8. I'd say most well behaved 90mm at f2.8 will look similar So, corner with less mechanical vignette is the differentiator for rendering that this one didnt score high.
If I pick this one, it is for small aperture shooting (landscape, cityscape) and close distance portrait. (to avoid corner issue and having shallow DOF and smooth bokeh). Compare to other small 90, this one has AF. Compare to other AF lens, this one has the build. A good balance it is, Sigma know what photographer need. ...Show more →
I also like the OOF rendering from the samples I've seen so far, so definitely a plus along with size, price and build quality.
Regarding pincushion distortion "beautifying" our models, well that's only true if the subject is positioned towards the center of the frame, otherwise there will be some weird head elongation without correction in post.
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 with 42+MP sensors you have some pixels to spare - I'm OK with this for my purposes as long as the image degradation isn't noticeable.
How do I see the non-distortion corrected version in ACR? It says that a lens profile has been automatically applied when I open up files with the 90/2.8Sigma.
chiron wrote:
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....Show more →
That's what I'm starting to think about. Sacrificing aperture for size/weight. I keep thinking that high ISO is not that bad for full frame. I'm used to m43, so I never went above 1600. haha.
memzinla wrote:
That's what I'm starting to think about. Sacrificing aperture for size/weight. I keep thinking that high ISO is not that bad for full frame. I'm used to m43, so I never went above 1600. haha.
Yes, noise reduction software has gotten a lot better in recent years, and that has helped to reduce the need for fast apertures to get light. Also, image stabilization has gotten better, making slower shutter speeds more useable in some circumstances. One does lose some dynamic range as the ISO moves up.
But also, in my own photography I have become less interested in large aperture effects in blurring backgrounds and more interested in compositions that incorporate the background and make it all work together. So often I am ok with having a bit more depth of field. This is a change for me because I use to want the larger apertures.
With a 90mm fov, I would probably mostly shoot at 2.8-4, except for a landscape.
chiron wrote:
Yes, noise reduction software has gotten a lot better in recent years, and that has helped to reduce the need for fast apertures to get light. Also, image stabilization has gotten better, making slower shutter speeds more useable in some circumstances. One does lose some dynamic range as the ISO moves up.
But also, in my own photography I have become less interested in large aperture effects in blurring backgrounds and more interested in compositions that incorporate the background and make it all work together. So often I am ok with having a bit more depth of field. This is a change for me because I use to want the larger apertures.
With a 90mm fov, I would probably mostly shoot at 2.8-4, except for a landscape. ...Show more →
Make sense. It is pretty cool to having a pocketable 90mm lens with AF and f2.8. Nowadays, other than Sony's latest GM, only Sigma keep bringing surprises.
I would like to see how my copy (90/2.8) does pointed into the sun, but alas, appearances by Sol are now becoming much more rare here in the PNW fall . . .
This one has a book shelf image - uncorrected and corrected - on the page. If the first shows in the EVF, it affects even the short edges. It looks like much more than the rule Zeiss used for their MF lenses of 2% maximum. It's interesting the Batis 85mm has 3% and it attracted some criticism for it, note that Zeiss do not show the actual uncorrected data for the Batis 85mm, but Lloyd Chambers did.
The Loxia 85mm is just 1% with superb outer frames and 52mm filters. The Otus 85mm has virtually none so we can perhaps see that low distortion is a sign of elite design protocols together with age of manufacture.
Milvus 85/1.4 distortion is under 0.5%. Leica's Summicron-M 90/2 APO is 0.75%, Elmarit 90/2.8 is under 1%. So - moderate and heavy, small and large, distortion is not correlated strongly here. It's certain that the Loxia and Leica M lenses could have been made much lighter if needed. Slow telephotos are expected to be excellent frame-wide at max aperture, and many are.
The issue may not matter for those needing the lightest option, but it may cause concern for those wanting more versatility.
my 90 arrived. To me the handling, sharpness and rendering of the 90 is similar to the other Sigma DG DN C lenses I have ... 24/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2.8, 35/2, 65/2
I do not notice huge distortion issues but I just go out and shoot images as I normally do versus walls, test charts, etc. I know I have a less critical eye then others I use C1 which I have set to auto correct 100% of distortion and when I manually move the slider to 0% correction, there is some pincushion distortion. However, I do not know how to correlate C1's 100% correction to an actual slider value in any Adobe product.
The only other MF lenses I have owned with the Sony mirrorless are Loxia (sold) and CVs (owned 4, sold 2). Both the Sigma and CV are easy for me to use in MF mode. I like the Sigma MF throw .. it is similar to the approach used by Swarowski with their binos. They have a slower/long throw and smooth action to manipulate and fine-tune focus. This appeals to me and my un-steady hands. I tried to use some faster focusing binos (quicker acquisition for bird watchers, hunters, etc) and I could not as easily get an accurate focus.
Ideally for me, the Sigma MF throw could be a little shorter but if I am using MF, I am in slow-down mode anyhow otherwise my Memory 1 setting has Focus Area = Expand Flex Spot and I use the wheel or touchpanel to select my focus point for AF.
Unique Photo out of New Jersey and Philadelphia has the new Sigma 90 in stock. They have positive reviews, have free shipping, and charge tax only for four NE states, Georgia, and California. I received my 90 yesterday and really like the small form factor. The IQ is decent as well despite the ho-hum 2.8 widest aperture.
First images from actual real use with the 90/2.8 Sigma.
A7C on the South side of Mt. Baker camped at 5,500 ft.
It was a cold overnight in my 3-Season tent . . .
jhinkey wrote:
First images from actual real use with the 90/2.8 Sigma.
A7C on the South side of Mt. Baker camped at 5,500 ft.
It was a cold overnight in my 3-Season tent . . .
Fred Miranda wrote:
Beautiful series John!
The 90/2.8i did well here.
Thanks.
My light weight backpacking kit has now evolved to:
A7C
21/3.5 CV
40/2.5G
90/2.8i
just need Sony to come out with at 16mm fisheye that's spectacular and someone to come out with a light weight 200/4 that's excellent right from wide open. Ah the wait continues . .
jhinkey wrote:
First images from actual real use with the 90/2.8 Sigma.
A7C on the South side of Mt. Baker camped at 5,500 ft.
It was a cold overnight in my 3-Season tent . . .
