p.17 #1 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
Did you you autofocus or manual focus for these? The closer the focus point is to the lens, the less depth of field there is. So even with a small focus point, it's possible there are slight variations on "where" the camera focused. It may seem trivial on paper, but the closer the subject, the more this can affect what is in the plane of focus.
I have fence post shots taken at 28mm as well, and I don't notice a huge difference between f/1.8, f/2 and f/2.8. I did manually focus those test shots though.
Also, I believe the lens is a bit sharper at 35 than 28, so when reviewers said the zoom was as sharp as the GM 35 wide open, they might have been speaking about the zoom at 35mm.
In the end I don't know what to tell you. Most of my shooting is mid distance and further. In the cases where I have shot close focus, I wasn't disappointed with the results. But I also wasn't comparing it to my other lenses in the range. (Other than the fence posts shots earlier in the thread.)...Show more →
I used both AF and MF and they give the same result. Panasonic cameras are not the best for speed but they are pretty accurate.
But like my 35mm DG DN F2, my 28-45mm is a bit soft wide open at 28mm only at close/medium distance. At 35mm and 45mm, my 28-45mm looks ok to me.
It is interesting to see that the review on LensTip shows very different results with better performance wide open at 28mm than at 45mm.
p.17 #2 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Jonas B wrote:
I know I expressed my opinion on the lens in post #6 above thinking there is a problem with the lens.
After having seen images I'm not that sure:
pair 1 (sponge) and 3 (doll with parrot) shows the problem you described. But, how close up were you when taking the images?
pair 2 (part of tree): can't really be used as the focus point has changed together with the aperture.
pair 4 (doll with parrot): The 35mm lens is probably not at all as close as the zoom.
pair 5 (landscape): f1.8 and f2 seem to be very similar
the last 3 images: to my eyes there is nothing strange going on there
It seems as you safely can use f1.8 unless you are very very close to the subject. Then everything is fine using f2. So, it is again proved that an image says more than a thousand words... I change my mind and think you can safely keep the lens.
PS: Looking at images at 150% in LR with default sharpening makes the water muddy. There also is a lack of fine details in the images of the doll. I've tried to make my best looking at these. ...Show more →
Here are full size processed raw pictures (ACR default sharpening) between F1.8 and F2 at 28mm :
p.17 #3 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
I'm afraid I'm not much help on this one. Earlier in the thread I compared my copy to the Sigma 28mm 1/4 DG HSM Art focused on a fence post. I'm not sure it was as close as your test above though. My 28-45 handily won in terms of sharpness. I don't do a lot of close focus shooting, when I do it with this lens, I find myself at 45mm most of the time.
So I can't really say whether what you are seeing is copy specific or not. If it's not copy specific, and your jam is close focus 28mm, then it might not be the lens for you.
I've been shooting with the 28-45 since late June, and it has become one of my favorite lenses. No lens is perfect though, so you either have to know the flaws and accept them.....or find a lens with a different set of flaws that you can live with.
p.17 #5 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
That's interesting indeed although the range seems far too wide to fit in a compact package. That would be a must buy for me without question.
For those that are savvy, what kind of size are we talking about here?
Nov 06, 2024 at 12:52 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.17 #6 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Dultimate wrote:
That's interesting indeed although the range seems far too wide to fit in a compact package. That would be a must buy for me without question.
For those that are savvy, what kind of size are we talking about here?
My guess and it isn't a very educated guess is that it could be 1200g and 80 to 85mm in diameter and about 150mm long. Think about the size of a 70-200 f/2.8 lens.
p.17 #7 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
DWOfPaul wrote:
SAR posted that there is a patent for a Sigma 45-90mm f1.8. If this lens does materialize. I could see my self very interested in the pair.
Those two lens would basically replace a whole bunch of primes various companies make:
*28mm
*35mm
*40MM
45MM
*50MM
58MM
65MM
75MM
*85MM
90MM
* Primes that I consider fairly common and are made by multiple manufactures
Replace is a wrong term. Zooms and primes are totally different beasts, one does not replace the other. I use primes for the following reasons:
1. Small and light and fast
2. Prime shooting mentality with one focal length
3. Can tailor one’s needs for a given focal length. Pin sharp versus character lenses.
I use a zoom when needing to cover a range of focal lengths due to not being able to move.
I shoot with both primes and zooms under different conditions. There is no way a zoom can replace a set of primes.
p.17 #8 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
chez wrote:
Replace is a wrong term. Zooms and primes are totally different beasts, one does not replace the other. I use primes for the following reasons:
1. Small and light and fast
2. Prime shooting mentality with one focal length
3. Can tailor one’s needs for a given focal length. Pin sharp versus character lenses.
I use a zoom when needing to cover a range of focal lengths due to not being able to move.
I shoot with both primes and zooms under different conditions. There is no way a zoom can replace a set of primes.
Replace is the wrong term for you. It's definitely the right term for someone else.
p.17 #9 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
chez wrote:
Replace is a wrong term. Zooms and primes are totally different beasts, one does not replace the other. I use primes for the following reasons:
1. Small and light and fast
2. Prime shooting mentality with one focal length
3. Can tailor one’s needs for a given focal length. Pin sharp versus character lenses.
I use a zoom when needing to cover a range of focal lengths due to not being able to move.
I shoot with both primes and zooms under different conditions. There is no way a zoom can replace a set of primes.
Agreed, there are advantages to primes that zooms can not replicate. That's why I put the word basically there.
Personally, while I probably wouldn't sell any of my existing primes for these zooms, I could see these zooms replacing the fast primes I currently usually have in my bag and those primes staying home more often.
For example, I often take a few fast primes with me in case I need low light or shallow depth of field. Taking a 45-90mm with me instead of a 50mm and 85mm prime would be a lot more flexible and possibly even be smaller and or lighter. A two lens kit of a 28-45mm and 35-90mm would almost definitely be smaller, lighter, and more flexible than a bag of 5 primes. I see Sigma's f1.8 zooms similar to a 28-70mm f2 zoom.
Now for photographers who are starting out and need fast glass for low light or shallow depth of field, I can see them picking up the sigma zooms or a 28-70mm f2 instead of a bag of primes. these fast zooms can definitely affect how photographers approach fast glass over time.
p.17 #11 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
DWOfPaul wrote:
Agreed, there are advantages to primes that zooms can not replicate. That's why I put the word basically there.
Personally, while I probably wouldn't sell any of my existing primes for these zooms, I could see these zooms replacing the fast primes I currently usually have in my bag and those primes staying home more often.
For example, I often take a few fast primes with me in case I need low light or shallow depth of field. Taking a 45-90mm with me instead of a 50mm and 85mm prime would be a lot more flexible and possibly even be smaller and or lighter. A two lens kit of a 28-45mm and 35-90mm would almost definitely be smaller, lighter, and more flexible than a bag of 5 primes. I see Sigma's f1.8 zooms similar to a 28-70mm f2 zoom.
Now for photographers who are starting out and need fast glass for low light or shallow depth of field, I can see them picking up the sigma zooms or a 28-70mm f2 instead of a bag of primes. these fast zooms can definitely affect how photographers approach fast glass over time. ...Show more →
I find there is a huge difference with weight in a bag versus weight hanging off your camera. I can easily carry say 1100 gm in my pack all day long, but carrying 1100 gm hanging off my camera all day long would be a challenge. I don’t think comparing weight in a pack versus weight on a camera makes much sense.
Before those waiting to jump in…my opinion of course.
p.17 #12 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
DWOfPaul wrote:
SAR posted that there is a patent for a Sigma 45-90mm f1.8.
That's the bright short range zoom I want. I'll sell kidney to get that one.
DWOfPaul wrote:
If this lens does materialize. I could see my self very interested in the pair.
Those two lens would basically replace a whole bunch of primes various companies make:
*28mm
*35mm
*40MM
45MM
*50MM
58MM
65MM
75MM
*85MM
90MM
* Primes that I consider fairly common and are made by multiple manufactures
Hmmmm, I don't know. I don't necessarily need a 28-45mm because I need all those focal lengths in between. That graduality can be nice, but for me that's rarely the case. I can easily be happy with just a 28mm and a 50mm. The main benefit of the 28-45mm zoom is you don't need to do lens changes between a 28 and 50mm, or it saves you from bringing an extra camera and the switching between two cameras, or it frees the extra camera up for another lens.
I would love to own both zooms, but I would still go 28-45mm + 85mm or 28 + 45-90mm in some cases. I'm also sure some would prefer a 24mm f/1.4 prime next to a 45-90mm f/1.8. And my 50mm is f/1.2.... In cases you'll have to fight for all the light you can get (dans floors for instance) that's a significant difference. There's also the weight. I really hope the 45-90mm f/1.8 will be big and heavy, as I hope for a stellar IQ in 95% of the frame, however, that will always guarantee employment for lower weight primes (not the 40mm Art), as in some cases a lens change is preferrable over a lot of weight on the camera.
A 45-90mm f/1.8 is more useful in a zoom for me than a 28-45mm by the way. It allows you to get all the compression in your portraits up to 90mm as much as the shooting distance allows for, while you still have the flexibility to trade compression when there's not enough shooting distance, however, - and that's the good thing - never more than the shooting distance dictates. That's great to have when shooting event portrait stuff. If there's no space for an 85mm f/1.4 shot a 50mm f/1.2 shot can still look great, however, the compression of 75mm f/1.8 might still be preferable, regardless amounts of back ground blur. Immediate control over compression can give a better overall subject separation from a bunch of pics than larger apertures from lenses at the wide side for the sake of guaranteeing the minimum of flexibility.
p.17 #13 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
chez wrote:
I find there is a huge difference with weight in a bag versus weight hanging off your camera. I can easily carry say 1100 gm in my pack all day long, but carrying 1100 gm hanging off my camera all day long would be a challenge. I don’t think comparing weight in a pack versus weight on a camera makes much sense.
Before those waiting to jump in…my opinion of course.
This is why it's good we have so many options today. I got so used to heavy lenses like the Sigma 40mm f1.4, Nikon 70-200 f2.8, and the Sony 200-600 f6.3 That I don't think of a 2-3lb lens as that bad to hand hold. I do notice though that a few of those heavy lenses in a backpack start to add up quickly, especially if you carrying them around for a few hours.
steamtrain wrote:
Hmmmm, I don't know. I don't necessarily need a 28-45mm because I need all those focal lengths in between. That graduality can be nice, but for me that's rarely the case. I can easily be happy with just a 28mm and a 50mm. The main benefit of the 28-45mm zoom is you don't need to do lens changes between a 28 and 50mm, or it saves you from bringing an extra camera and the switching between two cameras, or it frees the extra camera up for another lens.
I would love to own both zooms, but I would still go 28-45mm + 85mm or 28 + 45-90mm in some cases. I'm also sure some would prefer a 24mm f/1.4 prime next to a 45-90mm f/1.8. And my 50mm is f/1.2.... In cases you'll have to fight for all the light you can get (dans floors for instance) that's a significant difference. There's also the weight. I really hope the 45-90mm f/1.8 will be big and heavy, as I hope for a stellar IQ in 95% of the frame, however, that will always guarantee employment for lower weight primes (not the 40mm Art), as in some cases a lens change is preferrable over a lot of weight on the camera.
A 45-90mm f/1.8 is more useful in a zoom for me than a 28-45mm by the way. It allows you to get all the compression in your portraits up to 90mm as much as the shooting distance allows for, while you still have the flexibility to trade compression when there's not enough shooting distance, however, - and that's the good thing - never more than the shooting distance dictates. That's great to have when shooting event portrait stuff. If there's no space for an 85mm f/1.4 shot a 50mm f/1.2 shot can still look great, however, the compression of 75mm f/1.8 might still be preferable, regardless amounts of back ground blur. Immediate control over compression can give a better overall subject separation from a bunch of pics than larger apertures from lenses at the wide side for the sake of guaranteeing the minimum of flexibility. ...Show more →
Even though I am a fan of the 28mm 40mm combo, I found the 28-45mm range to be a bit to limiting to seriously consider buying. Like you mentioned, the 45-90mm range sounds much more interesting to me. I also like lenses that work together in a set, so I know if I got the 45-90mm I would end up with the 28-45mm too.
------------------------------
All this f1.8 zoom talk has me wondering if something like a 20-28mm f1.8 would be possible. Even though it's only 8mm the framing difference between 20 and 28mm is quite large.
p.17 #14 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Shoot what you like to shoot and like what you shoot. Find what works for you, don't worry if someone disagrees. It's okay if somethig right for you isn't right for them, be greedy. Ultimately each of us has to find what works well for each of us, there is no "wrong" answer. Unless you are using something that YOU don't think works well for YOU. Then it is a wrong answer for you.
p.17 #16 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not much help on this one. Earlier in the thread I compared my copy to the Sigma 28mm 1/4 DG HSM Art focused on a fence post. I'm not sure it was as close as your test above though. My 28-45 handily won in terms of sharpness. I don't do a lot of close focus shooting, when I do it with this lens, I find myself at 45mm most of the time.
So I can't really say whether what you are seeing is copy specific or not. If it's not copy specific, and your jam is close focus 28mm, then it might not be the lens for you.
I've been shooting with the 28-45 since late June, and it has become one of my favorite lenses. No lens is perfect though, so you either have to know the flaws and accept them.....or find a lens with a different set of flaws that you can live with....Show more →
My lens is sharper from 30mm wide open, only 28mm and 29mm are soft. So at 28/29mm I need to stop down to f2 to get acceptable result, I suppose this is not so bad. Some samples like on Lenstip look pretty soft at 45mm wide open so it must be hard to get a copy with impeccable performances.
Like you said this is also an image thread so here are some pics I took with the lens :
p.17 #17 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Keunish wrote:
My lens is sharper from 30mm wide open, only 28mm and 29mm are soft. So at 28/29mm I need to stop down to f2 to get acceptable result, I suppose this is not so bad.
Good for you! (...if it means you'll keep the lens, having to stop down a third of a stop isn't that bad.)
The images are nice. In particular number 1 and 4 where the latter also show some nice pop.
(I noticed the sponge images - I never replied to that as there was nothing further to say really.)
