goldb
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
goldb wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
Dave Sanders wrote:
goldb wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
JVan_02 wrote:
The 45's AF-C issues stem from the huge amounts of uncorrected SA, most likely. The association between SA and problems with phase detect isn't exactly new. The article in question was written with DSLRs in mind, and I don't know exactly how that difference affects focusing with regards to SA. But the fact that this lens works better with contrast detect focus makes it more likely to me that SA is the culprit, as this is pretty common.
Well corrected 1:4 would be a different price point.
Bear in mind, too ... Sigma's building to the L Alliance. How many of those cameras are phase detect vs. contrast detect?
Makes me wonder if those experiencing the poor performance are doing so because of the diff's in match vs. mis-match.
I actually have been considering this lens ... now that I've come to realize how close it focuses, that's a plus one for me. I don't shoot AF-C, so that's no biggie for me. And, I'd be mounting it on a contrast detect body. So, those three points make it more viable for me.
Some chasing the kids around the room with it on a Sony, maybe it's not for them. Probably better off to buy the Sony lens designed for the Sony camera. 
Reviews / images I've seen say the poor correction extends out to about 2 feet away - not just at MFD. 2 feet away on a 45mm is not all that close... If you like the soft look - then go for it. But its not just a normal instance of "slightly soft at MFD."
I posted some selfies on the 45mm thread with crops to show eyelash detail. So, we're talking arm's length, a few feet. It's sharp at f/2.8, razor sharp at f/4. Criticisms of the 45's sharpness profile typically come from people who haven't used it in the real world. It's a fantastic lens with very sensible optical compromises. It renders beautifully at f/2.8 where you would use it, in the portrait range. The SA goes away and it's sharp as a razor at f/4 at any distance...I'm likely at least at f/4 or f/5.6 for DOF if I'm focussing closely, flowers or food, for example. At infinity, it's a fantastically sharp lens, corner to corner, at any landscape aperture.
Sigma made something unique, a break from the cookie-cutter optical designs that everybody has been pumping out. It's 'different', that's why it's got such a strong following among those of us who have used it. It's not for everyone, but its strong character is appealing enough many hoped that Sigma would apply it to other focal lengths in the line. They appear to have gone with a different set of equally sensible compromises. More people will likely be able to wrap their head around the performance of something like the 35/2 and I think it renders very nicely. Not 45 nice, but nice.
+1 on sharpness WO.
The reputation get ruined because Sigma give this lens half macro capability. It is glow at MACRO distance. For even half body shot, this lens is plenty sharp, SA is only a trace for keen eyes to see at that distance and with distance increase, it is totally disappear.
I'm curious what you would say regarding the picture above (of the young boy). Perfect example of a half body shot from probably 2-3 feet away? Personally its a good example of a lovely shot that would be, for me at least, one where I'd go "ugh, if only this were sharper." Hard to say without seeing the raw obviously, but in a browser at least, its a good example of a shot I wouldn't be happy with because of the softness.
I guess you and I just have different tastes. I find the sharpness more than acceptable and the rendering exceptional. I think it is a fantastic shot and shots like this one are exactly why I like the lens. Of course you may not feel the same way, and it sounds like you don't. We don't have to like the same things, but this sort of shot with this amount of sharpness and that rendering is exactly why some of us really like the lens.
Agreed. For me, it comes down to what draws my attention / distracts. Like was said a few posts ago - we all see differently. For me, a single, very sharp and contrasty point in the image draws my eye in more so than a busy background bokeh distracts from it. I do quite like the rendering the 45mm gives (including in the previous image), but my brain has a tendency to look at the in-focus areas and gets put-off if those areas aren't tack sharp. I also tend to like intimate shots where the subject is close.
It is a balance - and sharpness at all costs is definitely not ideal. For me, a lens like the samyang 85mm gives very sharp images while still having very nice rendering (to my eye). It strikes what to me is a good balance; its not the sharpest lens ever but still is quite sharp, even close to MFD, with nice rendering. From what I've seen of the sigma 45mm, the close-up performance is a little bit softer than I personally like. Obviously, different strokes for different folks. It looks like the 35 /65mm may be close to the 85 samyang in terms of performance - which is exciting for my tastes.
|
