How's everyone feeling about the 90mm 2.8. Still loving it?
Really close to picking it up this week to compliment my 45mm 2.8. I don't think there's a dedicated Flickr page yet for it. Hopefully with spring here, I'm hoping we'll start seeing more images.
ReleaseDrive wrote:
How's everyone feeling about the 90mm 2.8. Still loving it?
Really close to picking it up this week to compliment my 45mm 2.8. I don't think there's a dedicated Flickr page yet for it. Hopefully with spring here, I'm hoping we'll start seeing more images.
I still think it is a small, high quality lens that renders very nicely and that is very much worth having in one's kit.
I just got mine. So far seems really amazing little lens. Haven't yet used it much though, as I also got the 20mm f/2 DG DN and I have been mostly trying that one more (that was the one I was more sceptical about, as the 90mm is quite the no-brainer for me). The 90mm is everything I love about the I-series. Build, IQ, af-performance, etc.
PS. I actually started thinking about getting the 45mm once again. Would be great pair for this little gem. (Currently I have the 40mm Nokton, which I will not replace, but having an af-sigma besides it wouldn't hurt.)
I really wanted to buy and love this lens but I'm very disappointed by Sigma's quality control.
90mm f/2,8
First sample had a big dust speck out of the box
Second sample had unacceptable amount of (smaller) dust specks
Third sample still had a bit of dust and was softer on one side wide open
So far the worse I've seen with a lens
35mm f/2
First sample second hand very sharp but decentered and quite dusty rear element
Second sample new slightly decentered, I finally sent it back too
I should have kept the first 90mm but I didn't imagine the remplacements would be worse.
So far no problem with my used 24 f/3,5 + 45 + 65mm.
For now I keep adapting my Voigtlander 90mm f/2,8 which is nice but cannot focus as close.
I'm going to try my luck with the Panasonic S lineup, I hope it will be better.
I love my Panasonic cameras but I need small, reliable and still affordable glass...
I am really happy with my 90 F2.8 which I bought in early January. I like the size. I like the aperture ring. I really like the look of photographs taken with it. Although slower than the Sony 85mm F1.8, which I also own, I haven't found that to be an impediment, and I really like the focus fall-off with the Sigma.
The only other Sigma I own is the 45mm, which I have mixed feelings about. Perhaps because I usually use it in place of my ZM 50mm F1.5, which has been my favorite lens for a long time.
The 90mm was the first lens I bought new (not counting the kit zoom on the A7C which was bundled with the camera) in many years, and I'm glad I didn't wait till some started becoming available used.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The DxO results do not reflect my experience with the Sigma 90/2.8. The lens is very sharp from wide open across the field.
I'm conflicted getting the super compact 90/2.8 or 85/1.4 DG DN lens.
Interesting! I wonder if there is variation? My copy is very much less sharp in all four corners than the ZM85.
I had thought maybe variation, and I should try again, but then I saw the DXO test and thought maybe that's normal.
But if yours is very sharp into the corners wide open, maybe I **should** try again. It's a very very useful concept if can be used for both landscape and portrait.
DavidBM wrote:
Interesting! I wonder if there is variation? My copy is very much less sharp in all four corners than the ZM85.
I had thought maybe variation, and I should try again, but then I saw the DXO test and thought maybe that's normal.
But if yours is very sharp into the corners wide open, maybe I **should** try again. It's a very very useful concept if can be used for both landscape and portrait.
Thanks Fred! Looks good, though I guess mine was not so much bad as not nearly as good as the ZM (both at f4 and lower). Do you have a sense of whether a good copy of Sigma plays in the same league at infinity in the outer field? If you think so, I'll definitely try again!
DavidBM wrote:
Thanks Fred! Looks good, though I guess mine was not so much bad as not nearly as good as the ZM (both at f4 and lower). Do you have a sense of whether a good copy of Sigma plays in the same league at infinity in the outer field? If you think so, I'll definitely try again!
I'm pretty sure the ZM 85/4 and Loxia 85/2.4 will be crispier off-axis with less astigmatism compared to the Sigma. Those are outstanding performers though. The Leica 90/2 APO M will perform slightly better after f/2.8 as well. The Sigma is not far behind and that's pretty amazing since it has AF and is very compact.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm pretty sure the ZM 85/4 and Loxia 85/2.4 will be crispier off-axis with less astigmatism compared to the Sigma. Those are outstanding performers though. The Leica 90/2 APO M will perform slightly better after f/2.8 as well. The Sigma is not far behind and that's pretty amazing since it has AF and is very compact.
I agree completely with all that. I guess I've just got used to the ZM and Loxia for landscape, and was hoping for a single compact travel AF lens that would do double duty for landscape as good as ZM and portrait work. If that's a forlorn hope that's no real criticism of Sigma. The Sigma is both faster, and has a much higher telephoto ratio than either of those, both of which make off axis performance hard to get. Pity though.
I think the definitive statement is: 'Also bear in mind that the results don’t include any software correction.'
The Sigma 90mm has been designed to rely on software correction, and as such, will take a hit when DxO's 'raw data off the sensor' methodology is applied; so, the methodology works against it here, whilst the other lenses DxO chose to compare it too, weren't designed to rely so much on post correction - so they are 'advantaged', by the methodology.
Petegh wrote:
I think the definitive statement is: 'Also bear in mind that the results don’t include any software correction.'
The Sigma 90mm has been designed to rely on software correction, and as such, will take a hit when DxO's 'raw data off the sensor' methodology is applied; so, the methodology works against it here, whilst the other lenses DxO chose to compare it too, weren't designed to rely so much on post correction - so they are 'advantaged', by the methodology.
In theory, if there is no software correction when DxO tests for resolution/contrast, performance should be higher, not lower.
That's true in the context of distortion correction, but unfortunately, in this case, the 17um chromatic aberration figure (which is about as high as I've ever seen in a lens), will decimate the edge acutance - which is what DxO measures.
Petegh wrote:
That's true in the context of distortion correction, but unfortunately, in this case, the 17um chromatic aberration figure (which is about as high as I've ever seen in a lens), will decimate the edge acutance - which is what DxO measures.
---------------------------------------------
Petegh wrote:
Also, what monitor are you running Fred?
I didn't formally reviewed the Sigma 90/2.8 but from my tests, both axial and lateral CA are low. It looks like DxO received a dud copy and reviewed it anyways.
