zz wrote:
I'm mostly seeing somewhat good to great reviews on these new additions to the lineup. Not really the glowing reviews I was expecting; especially on the 90/2.8 but even on the 24/2. The pincushion distorting on the latter is just too strong and the portrait option comes quite close to its rivals for a similar price. Makes it quite a bit harder to see the value proposition and where these lenses differentiate from the pack.
It gives off the impression that it's just a little too rough around the edges and not quite on point for a $600-700 prime.
Well, one persons value proposition is the next persons rip off,
But in terms of rough around the edges, my feeling is that is is truly astonishing that they have managed to make such a high IQ 90mm f2.8 so small. As far as I can tell from samples and the MTF it is way better than most classic 90s even extremely expensive ones that still have a good reputation. It seems to be about as good as much larger class leading optics for two thirds of the frame and a little weaker wide open into the corners, but still excellent. The only optical weakness that might occasionally affect portraiture is mechanical vignetting and it’s attendant cats eyes, but that’s inevitable on a compact tele. Sure it has more pincushion distortion than some classic compact short teles. But it resolves so much better than most of them, that after distortion correction it’s still better.
The differentiation is of course the compactness. If you don’t care about compactness you wouldn’t buy this. If slightly compact will do, you are better off with the Batis 85 for a bit of extra speed (or maybe the Sony 85 for a different set of trade offs). If you can tolerate still more weight, the 1.4/85 DGDN is superb. Or for state of the art optics in a small but not light lens there’s the Loxia 85.
So you don’t buy it because it’s a bargain. You buy it, if you do, for the fact that you get remarkable compactness and attractive build with very very little compromise in IQ compared to the very best lenses, and better IQ than most. This might be because you just prefer the experience of shooting with compact lenses - many people do, and maybe get better images because they are using the workflow they like, or it might be that for travel or backpacking purposes the size and weight is of practical importance.
If I get one, it will be as a replacement of my current multi day backpacking tele lens, the ZM 85. The sigma is smaller and lighter than the ZM plus adapter, and focuses closer. Just going by MTF it maybe a touch better over 2/3 of the frame when both are wide open (impressive given the Sigma is a stop faster). The ZM is a touch ahead at f 4 compared to the Sigma at 2.8. If the Sigma catches up by f5.6 in the corners, I’ll probably switch - especially as there are non hiking situations in which I can imagine throwing the little Sigma in the bag when I would leave behind my larger short teles.
zz wrote:
I'm mostly seeing somewhat good to great reviews on these new additions to the lineup. Not really the glowing reviews I was expecting; especially on the 90/2.8 but even on the 24/2. The pincushion distorting on the latter is just too strong and the portrait option comes quite close to its rivals for a similar price. Makes it quite a bit harder to see the value proposition and where these lenses differentiate from the pack.
It gives off the impression that it's just a little too rough around the edges and not quite on point for a $600-700 prime.
Well, one persons value proposition is the next persons rip off,
But in terms of rough around the edges, my feeling is that is is truly astonishing that they have managed to make such a high IQ 90mm f2.8 so small. As far as I can tell from samples and the MTF it is way better than most classic 90s even extremely expensive ones that still have a good reputation. It seems to be about as good as much larger class leading optics for two thirds of the frame and a little weaker wide open into the corners, but still excellent. The only optical weakness that might occasionally affect portraiture is mechanical vignetting and it’s attendant cats eyes, but that’s inevitable on a compact tele. Sure it has more pincushion distortion than some classic compact short teles. But it resolves so much better than most of them, that after distortion it’s still better.
The differentiation is of course the compactness. If you don’t care about compactness you wouldn’t buy this. If slightly compact will do, you are better off with the Batis 85 for a bit of extra speed (or maybe the Sony 85 for a different set of trade offs). If you can tolerate still more weight, the 1.4/85 DGDN is superb. Or for state of the art optics in a small but not light lens there’s the Loxia 85.
So you don’t buy it because it’s a bargain. You buy it, if you do, for the fact that you get remarkable compactness and attractive build with very very little compromise in IQ compared to the very best lenses, and better IQ than most. This might be because you just prefer the experience of shooting with compact lenses - many people do, and maybe get better images because they are using the workflow they like, or it might be that for travel or backpacking purposes the size and weight is of practical importance.
If I get one, it will be as a replacement of my current multi day backpacking tele lens, the ZM 85. The sigma is smaller and lighter than the ZM plus adapter, and focuses closer. Just going by MTF it maybe a touch better over 2/3 of the frame when both are wide open (impressive given the Sigma is a stop faster). The ZM is a touch ahead at f 4 compared to the Sigma at 2.8. If the Sigma catches up by f5.6 in the corners, I’ll probably switch - especially as there are non hiking situations in which I can imagine throwing the little Sigma in the bag when I would leave behind my larger short teles.
Sep 09, 2021 at 06:04 PM
Previous versions of DavidBM's message #15703654 « Sigma 90mm and 24mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary »
zz wrote: