RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Pre-order: Sigma 24mm f/3.5, 35mm f/2 and 65mm f/2 DG DN lenses | |
j4nu wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
j4nu wrote:
RustyBug wrote:
darrellc wrote:
chez wrote:
zhangyue wrote:
Yes, I think we also need understand inconsistent may mean different things to people. If subject not moving, you hit AF 10 times get different results means inconsistent. Both sigma FP and SL2 works fine in this case. After that, If subject moving slow at a few meter, AFC can’t nail, that is move to different scenarios. SL2 seems still work well under this case. FP will fail half of the time in my case.
If subject move fast, focus distance is close, it will fail. In my case I think it maybe the camera or the both. For Sony user, it could be lens as bottle neck.
Yes, everyone has different requirements for focus and what might be ok for one just does work for another. For me, this lens would be used to photograph subjects that move and I love using eye-AF for these conditions. If the focus is unreliable then it really does not matter how good the rendering is if the focus is missed.
Most images I see with this lens are of stationary objects where it shines...but for moving subjects it just might fall short.
I'm back to looking at the Batis 40 as I love what I get from the 25 and 85.
If you are poo pooing the AFC of the Sigma 45 and have no tolerance for that level of C-AF performance, you may want to avoid the Batis 40.
I found the Batis 40 AF poor relative to the FE 35 1.8 if it is all about getting the shot... that’s after having 3 copies (3rd one a warranty replacement from Zeiss after sending my 2nd copy in for evaluation where they confirmed AF issues), never having confidence in AF-C with eye detect at around 1-2m, and buying and testing vs FE 35/1.8 exhaustively and seeing a significant accuracy leap with the Sony lens across hundreds of test shots comparing closeup eye af in AFC. Unlike the Sigma which I got for the look, the Batis was supposed to be my workhorse for shooting kids and failing AF meant it was promptly sold. Never had such issues with Batis 25/85.
Now, for a lens that costs twice as much, takes up three times as much volume and weighs nearly twice as much ... well, that is a bit surprising to hear. Again, expectations.
But, I'm not going to bash on Zeiss for it, like folks want to do on Sigma's Contemporary. Rather, I'm simply going to ask the question of A) Why might that be? and B) If not this one, then which one?
With B) being the more directly pragmatic question, does that put things back onto the OEM's for the respective AF-C performance ... as one might expect that the OEM on OEM would perform better than 3rd Party on OEM? Or, are there others which are even more reliable for AF-C than the OEM's offerings?
I've long felt that OEM on OEM has an advantaged opportunity (whether or not / how well they harness it is a different matter) given their knowledge of the body's algorithm's etc. Is this a case for the AF-C performance where this is rearing such an advantage for the OEM on OEM? Could that relationship with OEM be extended to why reports of the 45/2.8 seem to be working better on the L mount bodies (L Mount Alliance) than on Sony?
No actual answer here, just a few questions. What is it that we should expect of Sigma on Sony, or Zeiss on Sony or Sony on Sony? Same goes for Sigma on Sigma, Sigma on Panny, Sigma on Leica vs. OEM on OEM, vs. cross OEM (L Mount Alliance). I know that there is a variance between Oly on Panny and Panny on Oly vs. OEM on OEM when it comes to certain IS performance issues. Is the programming communication between non-OEM vs. OEM on OEM the weak link where speed of information exchange / feedback loop (IS, AF-C, etc.), or is it in the choice of motors (type, quantity) from different mfrs?
Rendering aside ... if your life depended on it (for those who demand such AF-C performance), which lens / body combination offers the most reliable AF-C performance ... no excuses (wallet, weight, size)? Bearing in mind that this is x-posted in Sony / Alt, likely not referring to Canon, Nikon, Fuji, etc. ... but, then again, if your life depended on it ... what's would it be? 
I think a better example of the Contemporary line is Sigma 100-400. It has a very fast AF, but most reviews agree it's a bit worse than the GM.
Sigma 45mm is really one of its kind, both in rendering and AF, so I'll really be surprised if any of the three new lenses exhibits the same character...
Do the other three lenses have the same SA levels (FL / close focusing / aperture) in their design as the 45/2.8?
Not sure I followed about the 100-400  Are you saying that it performs well with AF-C (i.e. better than the 45/2.8)? And, if so ... is that a byproduct of the FL / aperture variance for producing SA?
I think the only one of the new trio that still has a chance to retain that special look is 24mm, but I doubt it personally.
Sigma 100-400 performs great in AF-C, but from what I've read it's not as good as the GM when tracking moving targets... It's "normally" corrected, so no abundance of SA  .
All my lenses perform better than 45mm in AF-C because the difference between AF-C and AF-S is minor (which is not the case with 45mm).
The sample images of the 24mm ... I was kinda "meh" good. Not, "wow" special. But, here again, expectations from the Contemporary Series. My .02 on the sample pics were appropriate bang / buck (which includes size / weight) kinda thing. Adequate, just not uber-inspiring. They reminded that I should be looking at OEM options (and saving my pennies to do so)
|
