As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for.
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.
Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.
Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.
I just don't expect to get top tier of "everything I want" ... in a mid-curve product.
I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.
I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.
Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.
Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.
Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid pro quo in speed for precision. If the lens is getting that close, that presents different design (optics and mechanics) from one which only focus to a .08 or .15 distance.
Again, look at the whole, not the isolation. If there is a quid pro quo involved, then one has to discern how much that matters to them. Personal choice. Optics are almost always of exercise in "choose your poison" ... so, your call to how much you can live with, or without.
As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for.
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.
Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.
Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.
I just don't expect to get top tier of "everything I want" ... in a mid-curve product.
I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.
I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.
Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.
Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.
Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid pro quo in speed for precision. If the lens is getting that close, that presents different design (optics and mechanics) from one which only focus to a .08 or .15 distance.
Again, look at the whole, not the isolation. If there is a quid pro quo involved, then one has to discern how much that matters to them. Personal choice.
As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for.
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.
Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.
Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.
I just don't expect to get top tier of "everything I want" ... in a mid-curve product.
I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.
I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.
Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.
Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.
Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid pro quo in speed for precision. If the lens is getting that close, that presents different design (optics and mechanics) from one which only focus to a .08 or .15 distance.
Again, look at the whole, not the isolation. If there is a quid pro quo involved, then one has to discern how much that matters to them. Personal choice.
As long as it can lock on and track eyes...if not it's a failure for what so many use this lens for.
Isn't that a function of the camera, moreover than the lens?
Granted, the speed of which the glass can be moved may be reliant on the gearing or method for moving the glass.
Spend the money on glass or gears (linear motors, double motor, triple motor) ... you want great from both, more money. So, if one is trying to isolate to AF performance for a price point, did it compromise somewhere else (build, optics, handling) to retain that price point.
Isolating to a single attribute can be an exercise in the "shell game", if one isn't considerate of the whole.
I just don't expect to get top tier of "everything I want" ... in a mid-curve product.
I don't have the sigma 45, but my understanding is it has problems using AF-C at closer distances which affects eye focus and tracking...no matter what camera is used. So people who use this focal length for portraits might be disappointed with the inconsistency of focus depending on the subject distance.
I'm personally not ok with this as this focal length would be used for people shots and I don't want to be concerned if I'm in the "unpredictable focus distance" when I'm out taking photos.
Understood that if it's not the right tool for the job, use the right tool.
Depending on the "closer distances" being discussed ... ummm, most all optics have a change in their performance with closer distances compared to normal / infinity distances. Which is where things like floating elements come into play, etc. And, of course, that costs more $$$.
Bear in mind, this lens has a 1:4 (.25) close focusing (9.4 inches) capability. Are those lenses with better AF-C performance in THAT close. If not, then it really is an apples to tangerines comparison. Sometimes there is a quid pro quo in speed for precision. If the lens is getting that close, that presents different design (optics and mechanics) from one which only focus to a .08 or .15 distance.
Again, look at the whole, not the isolation.
Dec 13, 2020 at 01:04 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #15433104 « Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses »
