tsdevine
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: In Stock: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG DN Macro Art ($799) | |
The Marc reference was a little bit of a bait. But can you factually point to the special look? Because from what others have seen, they believe the Sigma may be optically better. But that has to be proven factually. Can you factually prove the special look? Is there a litmus test on what opinions need to be backed by factual reference? Let's see the factual backing for the special look then...
You mentioned the number of elements and groups, insinuating the Sony was better because it had more elements (which it didn't...I made the same mistake early on as I also had looked at B&H.) Can you factually show that all lenses that have more elements are better than those that have less? You said "sigma didn't go all-out on this 105 macro, it doesn't have the higher-end ELD/FLD elements that they put in some of their other lenses", which sounds like opinion. The "didn't go all-out" seems a little inflammatory. Was that baiting? Yet you seem all on board on attacking opinions that don't align with your beliefs. So you talk about special look, but then quote Marc questioning his opinion. And you require facts on anything you don't agree with....... I will say that he shows the bokeh from both lenses at f/2.8, but the Sony does look odder....and I'm not sure it's really f/2.8.
In regards to sample variation, I do believe that is fairly well known with the Sony. It seems Sony has really done better with its newer lenses, but some of those which were designed earlier do seem to have issues. I can't prove it factually, but I've seen that comment made multiple times over the years, in fact even in this thread, and there is some level of corroboration from Lensrentals data.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1666092/2#15362968
From the Lensrentals data, it sure seems like it may be subject to more variation than some of the other Sony lenses.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/06/the-sony-fe-lenses-mtf-and-variance-summary/
Fred surmises it might have better axial CA control, but we won't know for sure until we can see some more apples to apples tests.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1666092/1#15362904
So maybe everyone here is seeing through rose colored glasses. Be happy with your FE 90, but don't create a bullet list noting optical complexity and amount of special glass and insinuating something, then get all high and mighty that everyone has to prove something as fact. Just respectfully disagree.
From what I've seen of the FE 90, it looks like a great lens. But at the moment, I'm of the opinion that the Sigma is probably better optically. I can't prove that, nor can you prove the inverse. So we'll just have to wait and see.
I do agree with you that the Sony weighs less, has a different optical formula, has OSS (whish the Sigma doesn't), faster AF, and I imagine a better MF experience. But for my uses, those weren't huge drivers.
Hopefully we'll see more reviews and get gauge the optical aspects better, in terms of comparison.
-Tim
osv2 wrote:
tsdevine wrote:
So I guess that means you really can't factually show that the Sony is better optically?
what i said was: "i think that the fe90 has a certain look to it...", and i provided proof of that, along with pointing out concrete advantages that the fe90 has, that you also just listed.
some people didn't want to accept that, and they responded with misgeneralizations and unsubstantiated claims that the sigma 105 was sharper, etc.
tsdevine wrote:We can't really take the word of Marc Alhadeff, because the argument will be it's not provable by what he provides in his tests,
the guy that posts pics of his bookcase? no mtf tests? he claimed that: "The Sigma has more regular Bokeh balls compared to the Sony that exhibits some strange forms and that is not perfectly circular", and then contradicted himself with his f/4 bokeh comparison, where the sigma bokeh was heavily distorted on the right side.
what, did he get the pics mixed up?
it's funny how people criticize the methodology behind dxo scoring, but when marc makes inexplicable claims of "outstanding", "excellent", "very good", people just blindly accept whatever voodoo he used to come up with those classifications... i'm not the only person on fm who's pointed that out.
|
