You'd need to do an 85mm 1.4D Vs 85mm 1.4G vs Sigma 85mm to make this worth the while. I find the Sigma interesting but REFUSE to buy any more sigma products.
I am not technically up on all the issues, but I have a question that has some bearing on my own opinion, at least.
When one does such a test, comparing one lens to another, should there not be a standard? I don't mean for focus or sharpness - that is easy enought to determine if the test conditions are standardized and focus is accurate. Instead, I mean, at the time the picture is taken with either lens, which renders the image that is closest to the reality that the photographer experienced? Which is more "accurate?" And is this what you would want (I liken it to a speaker with a flat response. It is accurate, but different people might like a midbass bump, or more or less treble, etc). I can tweak and do whatever I want in post (ie tone controls), but when I take pictures I am usually trying to capture what I see. So which lens helps capture the image that is closest to what I see? Are the colors really one way, or the other (and by really, I mean what the photographer sees)?
Hard to know if what I see is what you see, but that is why I ask how the images compare to what that particular photographer saw when the image was taken.
stedge wrote:
So which lens helps capture the image that is closest to what I see?
That right there is only answerable by you, based on your experience of how you expect a lens to render. This isn't reality, it s a 2D representation of 3D space captured by a series of glass lenses and recorded in some format.
To complicate matters, not all humans 'see' the same. Perception of color can vary from one individual to the next and then you have a whole host of things that are real optical phenomenons that one person might find pleasing yet that another would hate.
i just took a picture with my camera resting on the table at f/2.8 and it seems to be sharp! there must have been some flaw in my testing... maybe a minor "shake" who knows, but it seems to be fine!
JR has put in a noble effort but the lack of continuity makes it difficult to draw informed conclusions. I'd suggest that anyone vascillating on the Sigma 85mm wait just a little while longer before pulling the trigger either way. SLRGear has the lens in the lab and an accurate review is forthcoming.
JR, thanks for all these tests. For 2.8 those are not sharp IMO. I would be disappointed if my 1.4 lens was this soft at 2.8.
My 35 f2 is razor sharp at 2.8. Something is amiss with the sigma-were these manual focus or af?
Vertigo2020 wrote:
JR has put in a noble effort but the lack of continuity makes it difficult to draw informed conclusions. I'd suggest that anyone vascillating on the Sigma 85mm wait just a little while longer before pulling the trigger either way. SLRGear has the lens in the lab and an accurate review is forthcoming.
Yes, i'd leave the reviews to the pros!
I am going to put this lens to work over the weekend to figure it out.... I took some test shots in the basement (tripod, timer, brick wall) and +3 AF fine tune adjustment seemed to get it right
I will take it out tomorrow and see if +3 does the trick
Vertigo2020 wrote:
JR has put in a noble effort but the lack of continuity makes it difficult to draw informed conclusions. I'd suggest that anyone vascillating on the Sigma 85mm wait just a little while longer before pulling the trigger either way. SLRGear has the lens in the lab and an accurate review is forthcoming.
I bought mine, I love it. Why do i need tests to tell me that?
JR Magat wrote:
i think i have a bad copy, and will probably send it back for an exchange...
If those crops are anything to go by, then yes I tend to agree Hopefully you'll get it sorted, all the other samples I've seen are extremely compelling. We appreciate you going to the effort to make a thread like this in the first place, even if in the end you've decided you got a stinker
