Ernie Aubert wrote:
"As I indicated in my earlier testimony, Senator," I intend to pursue this further and post some 100% crops after I assure that I've got the Sigma focused properly.
AF Accuracy and Image Quality are really two separate things.
If you're planning on posting 100% crops to compare image quality, then I would suggest you manually focus the lens through live view. It's the only way to eliminate the possibility of misfocusing shots.
If AF Accuracy is what you intend to test, then 100% crops probably isn't quite as important as repeating the shots multiple times to check for AF consistency.
stargazer78 wrote:
If you're planning on posting 100% crops to compare image quality, then I would suggest you manually focus the lens through live view. It's the only way to eliminate the possibility of misfocusing shots.
I agree that as far as IQ goes, this is by far the best testing method. LV+Manual.
But it would still be important to see AF results at 100% after MA adjustments, this would help to see if the AF is consistent on the Sigma at all, which had previous troubles in this department.
Look at this web image here show nice color with S80
Happy with SIGMA release 50 f1.4 and then 80 f1.4 , will have more choice on this prime at that price range ...
Great that you are going through this review and sharing it with everyone. I myself am very interested in the sigma. It would be better though if test shots would be indoors where there arent changes in ambient light. Just getting nitpicky
Taking some liberties, I'd say that if the AF of the Sigma is reliable they've trumped Canon in terms of marketability. The L2 is simply too expensive for many, but the Sigma just sits on the border where most enthusiasts can be lured.
Two separate tests I'd be extremely interested in.
1. high contrast, lets challenge the CA
2. OOF highlights, shoot some oof night scenery (or christmas lights).
I'd suspect the SIgma to have some advantages on both counts.
Shame about the onion rings though, already seen that.
Somehow I am glad I never got the Sigma 50/1.4 as this lens is more my thing. Who knows..
No, no...must not be distracted 24L2 it still is (although I'd like to replace my 100 macro with the L because IS does make some difference...grumble).
well it looks impressive. maybe not quite upto the 85L (but then thats would be expecting alot) but its impressive all the same.
If the AF troubles are not as per the 50 I think they could have a winner.
Just as a comparison I see that its instock here (UK) from warehouseexpress.
sigma 85 = £689
Canon 85L= £1659
and just for comps
Nikon 851.4G = £1498
The rendering (contrast, color, clarity) of the 85L II looks more natural/pleasant to me for skin tones. Also, the bokeh of the 85L II is more pleasant IMO. Ultimate sharpness is one thing I don't bother much about when it comes to portraiture. Still, the Sigma looks usable
It looks like Sigma has focus issue already if you have to MA to get it right. I don't see what this Sigma is doing that Canon 85/1.8 can't do. What is all the excitement about?
The excitement is there is another lens sitting between the Canon 85/1.8 and the Canon 85/1.2 that has autofocus and it looks like it performs really well. For the Nikon guys there is a direct competitor to the Nikon 85/1.4, both the new G lens and the old non-G lens.
There are some full size shots available on Flickr right now if anyone is interested.
