bobek13 wrote:
Been eyeing this lens for a while - but hesitated because of af issues described with Sony cameras.
Any verdict from someone who shoots this lens on a RIV(a)? If it's no good I'll rather just stick with my cv nokton...
Not sure I can offer a verdict. I believe I already said that I have an A7RIV and haven't noticed AF issues with this lens. I have noticed AF issues with other lenses. You should be able to still use the Nokton after buying the Sigma.
It's not that I wouldn't use my Nokton anymore, that lens ain't going anywhere it's my favourite lens.
I am asking as the Sigma would be my "only" af lens (except the 150-500 Tammy I got for birds) and would be used for those rare occasions I shoot people and can't afford to miss focus.
So you say you haven't noticed any af issues with RIV - shooting people in af-c?
QuietOC wrote:
Not sure I can offer a verdict. I believe I already said that I have an A7RIV and haven't noticed AF issues with this lens. I have noticed AF issues with other lenses. You should be able to still use the Nokton after buying the Sigma.
bobek13 wrote:
It's not that I wouldn't use my Nokton anymore, that lens ain't going anywhere it's my favourite lens.
I am asking as the Sigma would be my "only" af lens (except the 150-500 Tammy I got for birds) and would be used for those rare occasions I shoot people and can't afford to miss focus.
So you say you haven't noticed any af issues with RIV - shooting people in af-c?
Since you didn't get an answer, I can share my experience on A1.
IMHO, it comes down to your personal expectations (tack sharpness, pixel-peeping, etc.) and the lens characteristics (it gets "glowy" the closer you are to focus target, so it's getting harder to assess where exactly the focus point is, 45mm@f2.8 is not really that demanding in terms of DoF at longer distances). You can get a properly focused AF-C shot, it's just that you will get more shots, which are more or less close (but not really on point). These are mostly usable, but it's up to you whether they are acceptable or not . That's the main issue with AF-C on this lens, it's not consistent enough to be deemed reliable, at least compared to native Sony lenses or AF-S.
Here's an example of 3 shots AF-C vs 3 shots AF-S, f2.8 ISO100, you can check if you can see the difference (view at 100% - open in a new tab - though ):
1)
vs
2)
vs
Edit: I took it for a spin on a short walk after a long hiatus and... well, I might got a couple shots where the focus is off a bit, but the rendering is not . I think AF accuracy becomes kinda a moot point when you see that lovely SA bokeh ...
j4nu wrote:
Since you didn't get an answer, I can share my experience on A1.
IMHO, it comes down to your personal expectations (tack sharpness, pixel-peeping, etc.) and the lens characteristics (it gets "glowy" the closer you are to focus target, so it's getting harder to assess where exactly the focus point is, 45mm@f2.8 is not really that demanding in terms of DoF at longer distances). You can get a properly focused AF-C shot, it's just that you will get more shots, which are more or less close (but not really on point). These are mostly usable, but it's up to you whether they are acceptable or not . That's the main issue with AF-C on this lens, it's not consistent enough to be deemed reliable, at least compared to native Sony lenses or AF-S.
Edit: I took it for a spin on a short walk after a long hiatus and... well, I might got a couple shots where the focus is off a bit, but the rendering is not . I think AF accuracy becomes kinda a moot point when you see that lovely SA bokeh ......Show more →
I agree with this assessment. The AF-C performance on the A1 is fine in my opinion. There may be better shots in AF-S if one pixel peeps, but I really did not notice it in my AF-C test shots. Perhaps I would notice it at 100% but if it's 95% perfect in AF-C, I will continue shooting in that mode. The lens is really amazing. My copy is extremely sharp in the middle at f/2.8. The bokeh is very smooth in the most complex backgrounds. The only way to invoke noticeable spherical aberration is to get uncomfortably close to the target subject.
Me too. The Voigtlander 40/1.2 is always on my camera unless I'm using a zoom, and the S45i seems like a good complement when I want something smaller, lighter, quicker that still has the kind of qualities I like in the color and rendering.
I thought I'll post this as I found it a bit funny...
So, I've been going through my daily walk-the-dog pics and found this one (cropped here for better viewing):
... and I started to wonder if I really took 35/1.4 Nokton Classic out of the closet recently and then it dawned on me, that those "bubbles" can also be produced by undercorrected for SA lenses (such as the Sigma 45) but in the foreground, not the background .
... and I started to wonder if I really took 35/1.4 Nokton Classic out of the closet recently and then it dawned on me, that those "bubbles" can also be produced by undercorrected for SA lenses (such as the Sigma 45) but in the foreground, not the background .
Yes, there's an art to making a great lens look unsettled; I'm quite adept at it myself
The Nikon DC lenses have the ability to do that, a pretty good idea that I think is better suited to the digital age. I had the 105 in the film days and it was tough to remember and compare.
The Sigma 45/2.8C is under corrected for spherical aberration and sometimes AF-C with phase-detect can't see through the fog.
For more dependable results, I would advise using it in AF-S mode (contrast-detection), especially if shooting at close distance where SA is more prominent.
I have tried it on the Leica SL2, which only offers contrast-detection, and it has accurate focus.
The Sigma 45/2.8C is under corrected for spherical aberration and sometimes AF-C with phase-detect can't see through the fog.
For more dependable results, I would advise using it in AF-S mode (contrast-detection), especially if shooting at close distance where SA is more prominent.
I have tried it on the Leica SL2, which only offers contrast-detection, and it has accurate focus.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, and I've had more time to play with it now--the Sigma 45i AF is like a different lens on my A7IV compared to my old A7rII. Autofocus works flawlessly as far as I can tell on the A7IV, even in AF-C mode. So your experience may depend on what camera you own.
As far as a comparison to the 55/1.8, the Sigma 45i is not nearly as sharp wide open. I also prefer the Sony for the shallow DOF at f1.8; it can make the subject pop more than the 45i can. I like the Sigma 45i for being so small and having nice bokeh. For the price, the Sigma is fun enough to keep around for now, but I don't use it all that often (I'm usually reaching for the Sigma 35/2, CV40, or Sony 55 instead).
So I ended up getting a Sigma 45i from Adorama for $250 the other week, but I can't say it has blown me away. I am comparing it against the Samyang 45 1.8 I already have, and I was really hoping it was going to wow me, but it hasn't. The build quality is great, but I just wish the 2.8 max aperture was like f2 or 1.8. At the distances I am shooting, it just doesn't create enough bokeh. I am trying to decide if I will end up keeping it or not, and I may just wait for the sigma 50 f2 that is rumored.
Are you sure you have an in spec copy of the Sigma 45? Could be focus error as well. My 45 is as sharp or sharper than the Zony 55 when both wide open and in the 1.5m+ subject distance range.
It gets softer getting closer, for sure, but at normal subject distances, it's as sharp wide open and likely sharper stopped down, especially at infinity.
grahamgibson wrote:
I mentioned this in an earlier post, and I've had more time to play with it now--the Sigma 45i AF is like a different lens on my A7IV compared to my old A7rII. Autofocus works flawlessly as far as I can tell on the A7IV, even in AF-C mode. So your experience may depend on what camera you own.
As far as a comparison to the 55/1.8, the Sigma 45i is not nearly as sharp wide open. I also prefer the Sony for the shallow DOF at f1.8; it can make the subject pop more than the 45i can. I like the Sigma 45i for being so small and having nice bokeh. For the price, the Sigma is fun enough to keep around for now, but I don't use it all that often (I'm usually reaching for the Sigma 35/2, CV40, or Sony 55 instead)....Show more →
Had a moment where I thought I was crazy then checked OpticalLimits. Their findings similar to my subjective impressions.
I find the Sigma 45 gets knocked for its sharpness because lots of folk shoot something up close in their house as soon as they get it out of the box; the 55 gets knocked for its bokeh because lots of people shoot busy backgrounds to see if it has messy bokeh with busy backgrounds.
When shot to their strengths, both lenses are excellent.
. That's the main issue with AF-C on this lens, it's not consistent enough to be deemed reliable, at least compared to native Sony lenses or AF-S.
. I think AF accuracy becomes kinda a moot point when you see that lovely SA bokeh 
