p.8 #6 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Let's say, you're traveling with the family (kids included) and visiting a city (Prague, whatever) The "tourist pics" of the city are important, but casual and candid family portraits as well, and yes, some pictures will be taken in not so well lit restaurant settings and such. What to bring:
Is the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 light weight enough and wide enough to go without the 20-70mm f/4.0 for walking around? And if the answer to the former question is no, and you bring that Sony 20-70mm anyway, isn't the Tamron 35-150mm the better companion?
All in all, in this context, I'd accept the 35mm limit of the Tamron for the low light restaurant pics, and f/2.2 at 45mm in stead of f/1.8 as well, especially because the Tamron does that f/2.2 up to 59mm in stead of just 45mm. I'm shooting the A7IV, and at 60+Mp I might change my mind, however, for now, I'm struggling to justify the 28-45mm f/1.8 despite the fact I like (a lot) what I'm seeing here. Yes, the bokeh, but at that point the 50mm f/1.2 GM as an extra lens wins.
p.8 #7 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Seems to be a very personal decision. No one would fault you for choosing other lenses than this one, or at least I wouldn't.
Some would argue that 28mm isn't wide enough for indoors, the 35-105mm is even less wide. Option 1 doesn't give you much speed for FLs that you might be using indoors (unless 35mm is wide enough.) Option 2 doesn't give you much in terms of longer telephoto. Same with Option 3.
You can poke holes in just about any lens combination, but that only matters if those holes matter to you.
I have the 14-24 f/2.8, the 28-45 f/1.8....and I'm thinking about adding the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II (I already have the 1.4x TC). It's not a light kit, but I don't travel by plane very often. I suspect a majority of FM members would think that's crazy.
It's only crazy if it's crazy to you.
It's hard to beat the 20-70 f/4 in terms of size and weight. I have it, and I can see the argument for bringing it with other lenses that overlap. Could I carry around the 28-45 all day? Probably. But if I'm outdoors and the focus is family and fun, then the 20-70/4 is tough to beat.
steamtrain wrote:
Let's say, you're traveling with the family (kids included) and visiting a city (Prague, whatever) The "tourist pics" of the city are important, but casual and candid family portraits as well, and yes, some pictures will be taken in not so well lit restaurant settings and such. What to bring:
Is the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 light weight enough and wide enough to go without the 20-70mm f/4.0 for walking around? And if the answer to the former question is no, and you bring that Sony 20-70mm anyway, isn't the Tamron 35-150mm the better companion?
All in all, in this context, I'd accept the 35mm limit of the Tamron for the low light restaurant pics, and f/2.2 at 45mm in stead of f/1.8 as well, especially because the Tamron does that f/2.2 up to 59mm in stead of just 45mm. I'm shooting the A7IV, and at 60+Mp I might change my mind, however, for now, I'm struggling to justify the 28-45mm f/1.8 despite the fact I like (a lot) what I'm seeing here. Yes, the bokeh, but at that point the 50mm f/1.2 GM as an extra lens wins. ...Show more →
p.8 #8 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
I have the 14-24 f/2.8, the 28-45 f/1.8....and I'm thinking about adding the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM II (I already have the 1.4x TC). It's not a light kit, but I don't travel by plane very often. I suspect a majority of FM members would think that's crazy.
I don't shoot crazy wide nor do I desperately (especially in a city) need anything over 105 or 135mm or so, yet I can see the appeal of that combination. 45-70mm is an acceptable gap, and having f/1.8 in the middle of the other f/2.8 lenses makes sense in a lot of cases.
tsdevine wrote:
It's only crazy if it's crazy to you.
That's very true. :-)
p.8 #9 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
For travel portraits, I almost never tele, so to maximize context and maintain physical closer distances for more intimate perspective.
I travel by plane quite often so I'm sensitive to carry-on loadouts. Rn, I found my dream duo: this 28-45 and new Laowa 10mm 2.8 AF.
The 28-45 has near-APO, beautiful bokeh, parfocalish, and under 1kg. Due to stellar optics, I can punch in with s35 + CiZ. For more bokeh, Luminar Neo is quite good now.
The 35-150 is quite amazing though if you need prefer the reach, but the smaller volume and bias to 28 is more important than the tele side from my experience. I attached a photo (the 28-45 fits with the hood too but I took it off since I have a VND/CPL glued on it.
In any case it's nice to have all these different loadout options.
p.8 #10 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
MAubrey wrote:
I'm working on collecting some photos from my library to illustrate this, but my ranking of bokeh between the Sigma Art 24-35mm f/2, Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4, and this Sigma Art 28-45mm f/1.8 (at 28mm).
This is, specifically, a comparison of (1) busyness and (2) optical vignetting.
#1 Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4
#2 Sigma Art 28-45mm f/1.8
#3 Sigma Art 24-35mm f/2
The 24-35mm is definitely far more busy than either the 28mm or the 28-45mm. The new zoom and the prime are closer(?), but I think the mechanical vignetting on the zoom gives the prime the advantage.
Now I need to dig out the photos to illustrate my intuition......Show more →
I think the worse case scenario for the 28-45mm is when you have foliage that's just a little closer than what you seen in the shot above. This one has two trees in the corner with one much closer than the second and you can definitely see the difference. Still, this new zoom is definitely a step above the older 24-35mm f/2.0, especially in the corners.
I have more scenes that I'm looking through (e.g. head & shoulder portraits), but I haven't finished. Small children sort of approximate the size, but only have the 24-35mm and the 28-45mm here, nothing with the Sigma Art 28mm f/1.4
These are more of the same. The new lens definitely has a optical vignetting issue in the corners, but for the most part, the bokeh isn't busy at all and generally looks pretty neutral.
p.8 #11 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
This is a tough call...
When I used to travel and went to Italy with friends for their "Honeymoon" I took a 16-35, 24-70, & 24/1.4. I had no regrets not having a longer lens. The 24/1.4 was invaluable for inside restaurants, shooting in dark places and getting 2 people in frame easily, even walking around at night. I mean the 35/2 on the Tamron could work but it's such a big lens... the 28-45 would be my choice being 28mm (the 1/3 stop doesn't matter). My preference is to not have big gear in restaurants (24/1.4). So I guess my picks are option 2 or 3... The 85mm is a great lens but I don't know if I'd bring it vs the Tammy for vacations? But since you have the 85mm in every option I assume its a fav
I'll add my Wishlist set up 16-25G, 28-45 Sigma, 35-150 Tammy I have to have the Sigma in because that's the thread theme
If I was just adding some lens, Option 1 swapping the 85mm for a 24/1.4...
Sorry, I've had a few drinks and who doesn't like thinking about a travel kit
steamtrain wrote:
Let's say, you're traveling with the family (kids included) and visiting a city (Prague, whatever) The "tourist pics" of the city are important, but casual and candid family portraits as well, and yes, some pictures will be taken in not so well lit restaurant settings and such. What to bring:
Is the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 light weight enough and wide enough to go without the 20-70mm f/4.0 for walking around? And if the answer to the former question is no, and you bring that Sony 20-70mm anyway, isn't the Tamron 35-150mm the better companion?
All in all, in this context, I'd accept the 35mm limit of the Tamron for the low light restaurant pics, and f/2.2 at 45mm in stead of f/1.8 as well, especially because the Tamron does that f/2.2 up to 59mm in stead of just 45mm. I'm shooting the A7IV, and at 60+Mp I might change my mind, however, for now, I'm struggling to justify the 28-45mm f/1.8 despite the fact I like (a lot) what I'm seeing here. Yes, the bokeh, but at that point the 50mm f/1.2 GM as an extra lens wins. ...Show more →
p.8 #12 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
tsdevine wrote:
So if you HAVE to have f/1.4, then so be it. But f/1.8 is darn closer to f/1.4 than f/2.8 is.
And this lens is so sharp and well behaved (Lloyd Chambers has said that this is better corrected than many Leica APO lenses), I don't see how cropping is going to get you the performance out of another FL lens.
I so wanted the 28/1.4 and have repeatedly told myself since I went mirrorless DON'T DO IT! I actually bought it when BH had it for $499 and cancelled thinking you're insane! The pixel peeping bokeh is super nice though... But back to reality and I am happy this 28-45 is here and I have this heavy lens vs the 28/1.4 (although I do love a 1.4)
And Lloyd... what can we say. I don't normally sub to him but this lens made me reup my mirrorless subscription. I could not believe my ears hearing him gush about this lens I would have bought it sooner . And he says things that you never hear from other YouTubers. I respect Dustin (although he does have in depth articles) and Chris Nichols testing and opinions but Lloyd lives in an different dimension. I love it when he brings up comparison short commings of other excellent lenses (Sony 24-70GMII Cough, I shoulda kept my Sigma 24-70...) So fun to live in this Sony world of lens choices!!
p.8 #13 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Yes, Lloyd can express his disdain so eloquently.
I also have the 28/1.4 and 40/1.4 in E mount. Once they dropped into the $500-$600 range it seemed like such a bargain for fast glass, which I haven't historically used very often.
At the end of the day though, this does seem to be "more than a sum of its parts" lens. I've been enjoying shooting it very much.
John Straus wrote:
I so wanted the 28/1.4 and have repeatedly told myself since I went mirrorless DON'T DO IT! I actually bought it when BH had it for $499 and cancelled thinking you're insane! The pixel peeping bokeh is super nice though... But back to reality and I am happy this 28-45 is here and I have this heavy lens vs the 28/1.4 (although I do love a 1.4)
And Lloyd... what can we say. I don't normally sub to him but this lens made me reup my mirrorless subscription. I could not believe my ears hearing him gush about this lens I would have bought it sooner . And he says things that you never hear from other YouTubers. I respect Dustin (although he does have in depth articles) and Chris Nichols testing and opinions but Lloyd lives in an different dimension. I love it when he brings up comparison short commings of other excellent lenses (Sony 24-70GMII Cough, I shoulda kept my Sigma 24-70...) So fun to live in this Sony world of lens choices!!...Show more →
p.8 #14 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
steamtrain wrote:
Let's say, you're traveling with the family (kids included) and visiting a city (Prague, whatever) The "tourist pics" of the city are important, but casual and candid family portraits as well, and yes, some pictures will be taken in not so well lit restaurant settings and such. What to bring:
Is the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 light weight enough and wide enough to go without the 20-70mm f/4.0 for walking around? And if the answer to the former question is no, and you bring that Sony 20-70mm anyway, isn't the Tamron 35-150mm the better companion?
All in all, in this context, I'd accept the 35mm limit of the Tamron for the low light restaurant pics, and f/2.2 at 45mm in stead of f/1.8 as well, especially because the Tamron does that f/2.2 up to 59mm in stead of just 45mm. I'm shooting the A7IV, and at 60+Mp I might change my mind, however, for now, I'm struggling to justify the 28-45mm f/1.8 despite the fact I like (a lot) what I'm seeing here. Yes, the bokeh, but at that point the 50mm f/1.2 GM as an extra lens wins. ...Show more →
I already have the Sigma 28-45mm DN and the Sigma 85mm DN and don't have the Sony 20-70, so that's already decided for me.
I'd throw my Sigma 14-24mm DN in the bag as my third.
The lens has 3 aspherical elements, the front element, the rear element, and one in between.
Not perfect I guess, but it doesn't make me cry.
I'm fascinated by how fast the optical vignetting falls off on the outer frame. Most lenses a have a progressive loss of circularity. But here, everything stays decently round until the outer third or so. It's actually quite impressive—probably why APS-C bokeh looks so good. It's nearly perfectly round.
p.8 #17 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
John Straus wrote:
This is a tough call...
When I used to travel and went to Italy with friends for their "Honeymoon" I took a 16-35, 24-70, & 24/1.4. I had no regrets not having a longer lens. The 24/1.4 was invaluable for inside restaurants, shooting in dark places and getting 2 people in frame easily, even walking around at night. I mean the 35/2 on the Tamron could work but it's such a big lens... the 28-45 would be my choice being 28mm (the 1/3 stop doesn't matter). My preference is to not have big gear in restaurants (24/1.4). So I guess my picks are option 2 or 3... The 85mm is a great lens but I don't know if I'd bring it vs the Tammy for vacations? But since you have the 85mm in every option I assume its a fav
I'll add my Wishlist set up 16-25G, 28-45 Sigma, 35-150 Tammy I have to have the Sigma in because that's the thread theme
If I was just adding some lens, Option 1 swapping the 85mm for a 24/1.4...
Sorry, I've had a few drinks and who doesn't like thinking about a travel kit ...Show more →
That underlines my conclusion exactly: things can get complicated with all those new larger aperture zooms with exotic ranges, but it's a nice complexity for sure.
The 85mm f/1.4 seams to be my personal preference. I like it for a little bit compression. Sometimes you have those opportunities you want both environmental and nonetheless a huge subject separation. 85mm + a huge "working distance" does that for you. Your family has to accept your behaving like an Einzelgänger, but in my case they have to do that anyway. :-)
p.8 #19 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
The only problem I generally have with Sigma (zooms) is that you have to turn the focus ring in the "wrong direction" to zoom. Is that also the case with the 28-45 1.8? I've already given two Sigma zooms back because I couldn't get used to it. If it had been my only zoom, it would probably be OK. But in combination with others from Sony or Tamron (35-150) I just turn it wrong out of habit. And I keep doing it
p.8 #20 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread
Yes, it's consistent with other Sigma zooms. Luckily I've used so many lenses that go this way or that for zoom and focus, I don't have a muscle memory.
zeitlos wrote:
The only problem I generally have with Sigma (zooms) is that you have to turn the focus ring in the "wrong direction" to zoom. Is that also the case with the 28-45 1.8? I've already given two Sigma zooms back because I couldn't get used to it. If it had been my only zoom, it would probably be OK. But in combination with others from Sony or Tamron (35-150) I just turn it wrong out of habit. And I keep doing it
