Fred Miranda wrote:
Very nice review! Were the tests and results from the decentered copy? Or you were able to get a centered copy. My loan copy also has some tilt and swing.
Thanks!
Interesting, so 3 of us got a decentered copy, that's not great news
I plan to buy another copy soon (will probably wait some more to get a newer sample).
So the current results in my review are from the first copy. Apart from the sharpness test (for which I used the good half of the frame), I don't expect the results to be any different though with a centered copy.
keepcoding wrote:
There are slight differences in rendering, but it appears to be marginal.
I wonder where the Sony 85mm F1.8 got the reputation to have mediocre rendering. I've used that lens quite a bit but none of the photos showed distracting / repulsive bokeh.
Well, I'll start by saying that I hope we agree that how we perceive rendering is personal.
For one, that's what I think after having used FE85, SY85F1.4 and 85DN (and also SY75 for a brief time) but I don't think I'm alone. I never said that FE85 rendering is bad, it's just that it doesn't stand out (so "neutral" is the right term I think, as I dislike the term "clinical" nowadays).
Second, FE85 doesn't have any "technical" attributes of "nice" bokeh: non-prominent cats-eyes, low CA (so no bokeh fringing) and if I remember correctly vignetting is also rather average.
Third, there is "character", here I think even SY75 has a more interesting "draw"...
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. I just though that since the new Sigma is not fast, it would make up for it with some rendering magic (like its sibling at 45mm) ...
I believe it's still a great lens if you know what you're looking for .
j4nu wrote:
Well, I'll start by saying that I hope we agree that how we perceive rendering is personal.
For one, that's what I think after having used FE85, SY85F1.4 and 85DN (and also SY75 for a brief time) but I don't think I'm alone. I never said that FE85 rendering is bad, it's just that it doesn't stand out (so "neutral" is the right term I think, as I dislike the term "clinical" nowadays).
Second, FE85 doesn't have any "technical" attributes of "nice" bokeh: non-prominent cats-eyes, low CA (so no bokeh fringing) and if I remember correctly vignetting is also rather average.
Third, there is "character", here I think even SY75 has a more interesting "draw"...
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. I just though that since the new Sigma is not fast, it would make up for it with some rendering magic (like its sibling at 45mm) ...
I believe it's still a great lens if you know what you're looking for ....Show more →
I see what you mean about the rendering magic. But on the other hand it may not be as important for a (short) telephoto lens as it is for a wide-angle lens.
Yes, you are definitely not the only one who isn't thrilled by the FE85's bokeh (I've read it several times in the past), but I just haven't seen any evidence in real world photos so far. But sure, bokeh is for the most part a subjective matter.
The FE85 does have a fair amount of cats-eye and LoCA, but a lot of that goes away by F2.8. That's part of the reason why it fares so favorably against the Sigma 90i.
I had similar feeling regarding 85mm f1.8G I had. It is normal and right feeling. I won’t say it has nice or beautiful bokeh. I won’t say Sony FE 1.8 or this sigma have special or beautiful one either but they are not bother me as much as say FE35mm f1.8. These are capable to get nice results without disturbing, that is I can say.
I like Nikon 85mmS quite a bit more for rendering but that lens also has strong cat eye at corner. The color correction and fidelity are quite special compare to Other similar priced mid tele and this sigma I saw. I bet Leica SL summicron might be even better but you have to bear the price, size and weight
j4nu wrote:
Well, I'll start by saying that I hope we agree that how we perceive rendering is personal.
For one, that's what I think after having used FE85, SY85F1.4 and 85DN (and also SY75 for a brief time) but I don't think I'm alone. I never said that FE85 rendering is bad, it's just that it doesn't stand out (so "neutral" is the right term I think, as I dislike the term "clinical" nowadays).
Second, FE85 doesn't have any "technical" attributes of "nice" bokeh: non-prominent cats-eyes, low CA (so no bokeh fringing) and if I remember correctly vignetting is also rather average.
Third, there is "character", here I think even SY75 has a more interesting "draw"...
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. I just though that since the new Sigma is not fast, it would make up for it with some rendering magic (like its sibling at 45mm) ...
I believe it's still a great lens if you know what you're looking for ....Show more →
However, I still wonder how to get the lens cap off when the lens hood is attached. Any advice?
Certainly entertaining to watch.
Personally I dislike the magnetic lens cap for how I use my lenses. So mine is safely nestled inside the original box of my 90/2.8i. I use a pinch cap + tether for all my wide to short tele lenses. My fisheye and my tele lenses have large/odd enough lens caps that they are somewhat hard to lose or misplace.
I use the magnetic caps with my Sigma I-series lenses (that have them) together with the original hoods and with one magnetic cap holder hanging from my bag. I just temporarily remove the hood when I put the lens on and place the cap on the holder and put the hood back on. I only put the cap back on the lens when I'm done shooting with the lens. I tend to go out with one camera and one lens at a time, sometimes with two lenses and there's not much lens swapping. It works out OK and I much prefer the metal caps to the plastic ones. It would have been nice if the caps were easier to remove though.
bjornthun wrote:
I guess the English language version will turn up in a couple of days. I don’t speak Polish, so only the numbers make sense for me.
Thanks for the link. Here's the Google Translate version of the summary:
Benefits:
solid and tight mechanical structure,
great image quality in the frame center,
very good image quality on the edge of the APS-C sensor,
good image quality on the edge of full frame,
moderate lateral chromatic aberration,
very little coma,
well-corrected astigmatism,
moderate vignetting on the APS-C sensor,
quite fast and quiet autofocus.
Defects:
huge vignetting on full frame,
clear distortion,
working against bright light leaves a bit to be desired,
noticeable spherical aberration.
Resolution is impressive before the files are corrected for distortion. There may be some cat-eye issues.
As you see, the Sigma is the sharpest in this group and also its perfomance is very even. Taking into account its aperture and physical dimensions the result in this category we find simply sensational – a round of applause!
Ok, I'll start seriously thinking about this now...haha.
I read the review as a bit of a mixed-bag analysis with "applause" for sharpness, form factor, and coma control with some concerns about vignetting, distortion, and flare control. However, I have the lens and really like it as a great travel, walkaround, and candid portrait lens that converts to a nice 135 mm lens in aps-c mode with a ridiculously small and light form.
FJR1 wrote:
I read the review as a bit of a mixed-bag analysis with "applause" for sharpness, form factor, and coma control with some concerns about vignetting, distortion, and flare control. However, I have the lens and really like it as a great travel, walkaround, and candid portrait lens that converts to a nice 135 mm lens in aps-c mode with a ridiculously small and light form.
Yes, true. I should have said that, for my intended use, that was a great review
The weaknesses of the 90mm for, say, landscape shooting are offset by the fact that I own a Loxia 85mm for that purpose and will likely never sell that lens.
Good know you're enjoying it has a travel, walkaround and portrait lens as that would be my use case. I know the lens I actually need right now is a 100-400mm but I have to admit to being really tempted by the Sigma 24/3.5, 65/2 and 90/2.8.
.
